Is this right or wrong - https://musicbrainz.org/work/2c5ee0ec-3cb1-3cfc-9e8e-56016501d188?
It seems to me to be overkill to add the series name as a prefix to a (well-defined) work. If we did that everywhere, it would look a right mess…
Any thoughts/suggestions?
I would definitely expect this to be a collection work (with part of collection attributes for the work-work part relationships) and not a series. And of course the IMSLP isn’t the work’s official page.
In any case, yes, I agree the collection name could be reasonably removed from the title of this world.
1 Like
Definitely not a series.
work: https://musicbrainz.org/work/4161a5d1-9241-4a2e-82e6-8eb8597f01da
and edits: https://musicbrainz.org/series/706fcb24-047c-4dd6-a4ca-826df5853831/open_edits
Fast work! Shouldn’t “Schübler-Choräle” appear in the collection name? (Common name and consistent with constituent work names).
I agree that the individual Choral preludes do not need “Schubler Choral” in their name. However what is the rationale for calling the “Schubler Chorals” a “Collection Work” rather than a “Series”? To the best of my knowledge they are not related other than having been published together. If they had been designed to be played as a group, I could understand that they should be a “Collection Work”, however as the relationship is one of publishing only, the “Series” relationship seems appropriate. Is the “Series” relationship only for opus relationships, or also for more general publishing relationships?
Some collections are created by publishers but some aren’t and it would be a total mess if we would split some data to series and some to works based on this criteria. Most of the other databases see no difference between collections and other type of works. Some services linking to MusicBrainz provide only link types for works so for example from IMSLP or wikidata I can’t link to MB series but I can do that with MB works. I guess it’s lesser confusing for everyone if we keep all work related data in work entities (except work catalogs).
I think the situation is quite clear if the correct attribute is used with parts. If people just follow “Use this to indicate the parent work is not intended to be performed as a whole, but is just a grouping of pieces or works that can be performed individually” it should be clear.
This is off-topic but I must mention how amazing work you’ve done with Bach. After tens of thousands of edits during the years there’s now only 4 pages of recordings without performer credits. So no community cleanup for Bach because soon there’s nothing to fix 
2 Likes
Thanks for the explanation, I had a hang up over “collections” that had not been collected by the composer, but e.g. by a publisher. I guess another way of defining a “Work Collection” is any collection of works containing music; whereas a “Work Series” is solely an index of a set of works, and does not contain music.
Thanks for the comment - Its been a bit tough going at times, especially with apparently endless compilation releases! Once the current RA scan is complete there is still quite a lot of merging to be considered, also the ongoing maintenance to keep the recordings in a good state. Are there any plans in these areas for Debussy and Mahler.