Is it settled consensus that:
- For classical Works, the Work name should follow the guidelines of Style/Classical/Track/Title, but applied to what name is in the music score instead of on a Release liner?
- Similarly, for Works outside of classical, we follow the guidelines of Style/Titles, but applied to the work name printed on the song score or sheet music?
- For either kind of Work entity, since frequently the Work is added to MB based on a Recording Title, which is based on a Track Title, which is based on a name printed on a Release liner — with no music score in sight — that it’s acceptable to use the track title on the Release liner as an approximation of the Work name, until something better comes along?
If this isn’t settled consensus, then I suggest it would be helpful to achieve a consensus. I’m happy to write a proposal. I’d have to learn how the Style process works these days.
(By the way, I’ll observe that Style/Titles doesn’t actually say clearly that titles should be based on what’s printed on a Release. Funny how sometimes we overlook what seems obvious.)
Background: Name field discussed in thread What language to use for classical work names . Supports the consensus as stated above, but no conclusion that Style Guidelines should be improved.
While I have those wiki pages open, I’d like to add a “see also” link from “Style/Work” to “Style/Classical/Works”. Otherwise it’s hard to discover that Style/Classical/Works exists. Also, I’d like to add the big Style link box to the bottom of “Style/Classical/Works”.
Why do I think this matters? I just added some classical-music Works to MusicBrainz. I consulted Style/Work for guidance, didn’t see from that that Style/Classical/Work existed, and overlooked the consensus that Works which are movements of a parent Work should have the name of the Parent work as a prefix to the name of the movement. That’s in Style/Classical/Track/Title, but not in the Style/Work guide.