@mmirG: What are the benefits of not standardizing? Can you give an example where “increase the number of possible Release titles” has ever been relevant in a classical context? @reosarevok: I also “generally” follow what’s on the cover, like you. But do you think we should make this a general rule (like ask for based on your comment), or should that be left to common sense?
I can’t give an example off-hand.
If that lack of an example is the best available reason for standardising Release titles then taking the approach that allows for the greater number of possible Release titles offers, comparatively, greater benefits.
Considering this issue more broadly, as something addressed by principles of cataloguing, I searched and found what appears to some other organisation’s principles of cataloguing.
See thread Some principles of cataloguing as formulated by some old cataloguers
Having the orders of performers not standardized in any way means that the editor who adds the release first gets the privilege of deciding the order in whatever way they want. I don’t think the submitting editors subjective personal preference is relevant in the long run, hence I’m pushing for some kind of standardization. Artwork is the most consistent with the current classical guidelines and arguably already implied with “the release artist should be sourced from the front cover”.