Sort names style for Releases?

[Jim_DeLaHunt]

Thank you for reviewing this proposal, @reosarevok .

@reosarevok

The sort names for RGs should be for the main RG name, and the sort names for releases should be for the specific release. Those are different things, and we should not consider them equivalent.

I agree with you, but from earlier in this thread I believe there are other editors who will disagree. Or at least, they will say, it is convenient to store Release sort names as Release Group aliases, so they want a way to do that.

@reosarevok

…Picard could prefer a RG name and sort name of the right locale if desired over the release ones…

Rather than “over” the release [sort names], I would suggest “as a fallback if no Release sort names are found”. That would please the people who want to put Release sort names into Release Group aliases. However, the people who have to write the Picard code to find Release sort names at the Release Group level may be disappointed with the complexity of their task.

@reosarevok

…Calling it a defect is very strong words It’s an intentional choice…

I respect your opinion, but I stand by my words. However, debating the data design is off topic for a Style proposal discussoin.

@reosarevok

Basically, AFAICT, they can be summarized as “we have an alias feature, you can and should use it if you want to store this info”.

In part, yes. Right now, Style/Release has zero guidance about how to handle sort names. I think that is too little. It should at least say, “the correct place to store a Release sort name is in an Alias”.

But also, I think there needs to be guidelines for how to fill out a sort name Alias so that Picard code can pick it out from other search hint Aliases, legal name Aliases, title translation Aliases, etc. The reason for specifying that a sort name Alias should have a Type, and a Locale, and a Name equal to the Release Name, is to allow Picard code to find the sort names among the search hints.

That said, I would be glad to go with minimal modifications under Style/Release, and Style/Alias.

@reosarevok

It’s kind of unnecessary since that’s what aliases are for anyway, but it might work as a bit of a reminder for users that they can actually use aliases on releases/RGs too which I think is often forgotten entirely.

I think a mention of sort name in Style/Release is necessary precisely because users doing data entry on a Release might well not also know Aliases backwards and forwards. It is good to provide users the information they need to complete a task (enter metadata for a Release) in the place where they are probably looking when working on the task (Style/Release).

@reosarevok

…the only change needed would be to add something to the guidelines for specific languages/locales.

Since we are talking about a modification to Style/Release, and to Style/Alias, and to per-language guidelines as needed, I think “only change” is being stretched pretty far :-). However, yes, part of helping editors enter good sort names for Releases (and Artists, for that matter) is adding per-language guidelines. Each could be a separate Style proposal.

There is raw material for over 40 languages worth of guidelines in the US Library of Congress MARC appendix on “Definite and Indefinite Articles”. Each should be evaluated by editors who know that language.

@jesus2099

Usually people will order their records like in libraries and shops:

1. By artist sort name or even by artist alias sort name, in one or other language
2. By original release date (aka release group earliest release date), which doesn’t need sort name

@jesus2099 , I can provide a counter-example: for opera and musicals collectors, ordering by Artist sort name and release date may well not be enough. When the Artist is a composer like Mozart or Verdi, there are many releases under each Artist. For these genres, opera name is likely more significant than release date, and more useful as a second level of sorting. We should be building the database to support many different uses, not a single “usual” way.