moving credits between sections (again)

this happens more often lately, it seems.
please have a look here:
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2974103#latest
IMO this edit is not allowed
still it's been voted correct immediately...
opinions?

10.1.7 sums it up pretty clearly. No space for opinions here imho.
moving valid data between credit sections for display reasons only is not acceptable, at least if it is the main reason behind doing an edit.

1.1.2 (..) the data is as close as possible in relation to the physical release.
10.1.6. Generally, release wide credits (that is, credits that apply to all tracks) should go in the main credits section

as i mentioned before, crediting "Written By" for a single artist 6 times (out of 6 tracks) on one single release will lead to his "Writing & Arrangement" section of profile looking like this "Song 1 and 5 more…" when clearly we are dealing with release-wide credits.

but in the case of singular artists being credited once on one single track, his "Writing & Arrangement" will only list that said track - it allows for a better browsing experience

furthermore, my edit didn't simply consist of moving credits around, it fixed
quite a lot of other issues that this particular release needed taken care of.

glass
my edit didn't simply consist of moving credits around, it fixed
quite a lot of other issues that this particular release needed taken care of.

fair enough.
though afaics the "other issues" were basically adding a price code?
the rest seems to serve visual preferences...

adding the price to BAOI + description for N.I.I. (so far we're using the proper romanian
denomination, although i have asked the s from the romanian group to help me
find a suiting english translation (this is an english-based international system, after all)
+ i forgot to add the psychedelic tag (which is of major (IMHO) relevance to this release).
sorry i let that slip

the rest seems to serve visual preferences...

Exactly! And that's quite high preferences, too, IMHO! :)

Because, take a look at the clarity now, isn't it way more readable now than having every track cluttered up by identical or near-identical credits?
I like it way better as it is now.
I only use the per-track method if, like someone said before, the roles and/or persons differ too much in each track. But if it's the same lyricist or the same songwriter in 10 out of 12 tracks, the Main Credits method will make things way clearer.

But unfortunately, this *IS* a matter of personal preference and there is no general rule when to do this and when to do that.
So there will be a gazillion more controversies (and identical threads) in the future about that matter. Read my lips...

ps - notes should mention that this is the only version that lists Mihai Cernea on vocals.
most likely a Misprint, as none of the subsequent re-issues feature that information

still the OS is given the coice by the RSG and he has chosen, it's not that he did anything wrong basically. just for the record.

heidelbaer
the OS is given the coice by the RSG and he has chosen

that was simply due to the fact that the OS used (in this case) the Copy-to-Draft function,
also bulk-copying the wrong track numbering - rear cover (+ credits) list them sequentially
quite clearly

Yes, the RSG advises against it, but were any errors introduced by moving them?
If not, then it's not worth it to make a fuss about since the credits are still there and correct.
A friendly reminder to the contributor stating it should not be done should suffice.

One of the reasons, why this should not be done: I don't like to discuss this item over and over again. If sh** didn't happen here by moving the credits, it will in other places. And I insist: it's not polite, definitely not polite to collect c/c&c votes that way. And it's not correct by means of the guidelines too.

just to clear up one bit - i am not "collecting" votes (i am biased towards the whole voting system
anyhow, since they have virtually no long term effect, as any can edit whatever and
whenever he wishes). i do what i do simply out of a desire of having a "complete&correct" music
indexing system / archive at my fingertips (as it helps with my research into romanian musical history)

glass
as i mentioned before, crediting "Written By" for a single artist 6 times (out of 6 tracks) on one single release will lead to his "Writing & Arrangement" section of profile looking like this "Song 1 and 5 more…" when clearly we are dealing with release-wide credits.

Irrelevant. This is a display issue of the artist page which needs (?) to be fixed at the backend of the database, if anything. (It doesn't, but I hope you're getting the picture… ;)

Performing edits like you did on http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2974103&diff=8 is simply a no-no.
Please just don't, unless there are any factual errors or other unclear things which can be corrected by moving the credits from one section to the other, like "split credits" for identical roles.

Speaking of which: now we have on http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2974103&diff=21 a lone "Music By" credit on B6, while the rest of the "Music By" credits resides in the global section
As far as my personal "visual preference" goes, this is anything else than "clear", " friendly", or what ever. I for one consider such split crediting a mess. Similarly weighed credits should be either in one place, or in the other.
But:
That's just my personal preference.
And that's why I wouldn't move such credits around if there's no objective reason to do so. Which there wasn't.

loukash
Performing edits like you did on http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=2974103&diff=8 is simply a no-no.

Though I wouldn't want to have it worded so harshly, there *ARE* indeed much more polite ways to go: I wanted to have it changed once, and so I ed the original submitter if he agreed and yeah, he did agree on doing the change himself. The OS in question was a rather new who hadn't messed with Main Credits at all at that stage. HOWEVER, this strategy will fail if the entry was created more than 4 or 5 years ago. Some of those OS are not even member on here anymore, so there's no way to "ask them about it".

Hello, would the same "no-no" applies to this , who moves per-tracks to general credits on my following submission? http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=3582425&diff=7

Barthakoste
Hello, would the same "no-no" applies to this , who moves per-tracks to general credits on my following submission? http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=3582425&diff=7

absolutely yes. from what I see at a quick glance, this is an EI edit

as above.

glass
i do what i do simply out of a desire of having a "complete&correct" music indexing system / archive at my fingertips (as it helps with my research into romanian musical history)

By this statement you are saying you changed the credits for personal preference. What now makes it easier for you may have made it harder for someone else. This isn't your own personal database.

The guidelines are very clear on this, once the OS has made the decision on how he/she wants to list the credits, that is the way it should remain.

For me it is much easier to find what I am looking for if the credits are listed per track, even if it is redundant, rather than in a general credit listing.

casca-longinus
For me it is much easier to find what I am looking for if the credits are listed per track, even if it is redundant, rather than in a general credit listing.

And I prefer to list credits approximately as they appear on the release:
• Those which are listed globally go to the global section.
• Those which are listed with individual tracks go to track credits.
Advantage: less errors during the transcription and better proofreading during submitting, because it's less likely to lose track about which credit should go where.

loukash
• Those which are listed globally go to the global section.
• Those which are listed with individual tracks go to track credits.
Advantage: less errors during the transcription and better proofreading during submitting, because it's less likely to lose track about which credit should go where.

Of course, no objections!
However, the RSG leave it up to the submitter.
Concerning the guidelines, as soon as the OS chooses his way of crediting, his choice is the way to go basically. plain and simple!
You may try to affect that before the first vote, but afterwards a change is just a matter of taste and thus unjustified..

all this talk about the OS and his right to whatever - you guys realize that you're ego-tripping right now, right?

i mean, after all, this is a wiki system - meaning that every single one of us can improve (if s/he feels the need to) the system. as long as it is justified. please, stop arguing about non-existing issues and some more discs. or go fix some entries that need your attention, whatever. peace out

casca-longinus
By this statement you are saying you changed the credits for personal preference.

no, i was neither saying, nor implying that. please read the rest of the discussion, and the discussion in the history page if you are interested in my justification. that answer was to the 'accusation' that i was collecting votes

The circumstance of sth. being a wiki-system shouldn't invite you to alter informations just for the sake of how you personally prefer them to be displayed.
If there are -for once..!- rather unambiguous guidelines, please just face up to them!

glass
i mean, after all, this is a wiki system - meaning that every single one of us can improve (if s/he feels the need to) the system. as long as it is justified.

And your changes are not justified. The guidelines are very clear:

10.1.7. Please don't edit releases to move about credits between sections because of personal preferences, as this can lead to errors being introduced.

Although anyone can make changes at anytime does not mean the edits are justified. This is a group effort and when a major change needs to be made, or one that is not consistent with the guidelines, then it should be brought to the forums for discussion and a consensus reached before edits are made.

EDIT: And really, as long as you've been a member on this site (since 2004), you should know this.

loukash
And I prefer to list credits approximately as they appear on the release:
• Those which are listed globally go to the global section.
• Those which are listed with individual tracks go to track credits.
Advantage: less errors during the transcription and better proofreading during submitting, because it's less likely to lose track about which credit should go where.

I agree completely and this is actually the way I prefer to do the credits.

...and still: http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=3267755#latest

at least he made more usefuld changes than rendundant ones on this for once...
why he feels the strong need to alter the credits by all means is beyond me, but i don't feel the need to open an argument on this minor issue.

heidelbaer
why he feels the strong need to alter the credits by all means is beyond me, but i don't feel the need to open an argument on this minor issue.

But is it really minor? What if everyone took glass would have brought his changes to the forums first, I would venture to say he would get a consensus in of the changes he made. The problem is that he did it without regard for others who follow the rules.

casca-longinus
But is it really minor?

i meant it is a minor issue regarding the edit in question.

his general editing behavior still remains questionable, at least as he seemingly isn't willing to accept neither a majority voting nor the particular part of the RSG.

however, i think there is no need to overreact.

The guidelines are simple here. The credits should not be moved between sections due to personal preference http://discogs.versitio.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-credits.html#Credit_Fields - 10.1.7. Please don't edit releases to move about credits between sections because of personal preferences, as this can lead to errors being introduced. I'd very much appreciate this guideline being followed.

nik
I'd very much appreciate this guideline being followed.

And how do you suggest we deal with an update that has (unrelated correct) update with (unnecessary movements of credits) update at the same time. Are s justified in breaking the guideline to restore the credits to how they were?

hafler3o
Are s justified in breaking the guideline to restore the credits to how they were?

I would rather keep the credits where they are once moved as you multiply the chance of introducing errors which does not make the sub better. You could of course do a revert and reapply the other changes, I guess it depends on the amount of work. Of course it would be helpful if we can notify the management of such credit movements to have actions taken if done over and over again. I know there is a risk in this that once in while a movement of credits will be able to go through and not sanctioned but the possible mess that could arise from moving and moving again seems to make it the less preferred choice.

Mop66
notify the management of such credit movements

Yes that seems to be the only recourse here, I was just wondering what strategy Nik was espousing in order to get that guideline followed.
An RSG forbidding credits and other data being updated at the same time, or some kind of coding to stop editor's being able to update lots of different fields at once perhaps? After all we can't update images AND data at the same time. I just need to know what to do about persistent credit wanglers ;)

For a simple edit moving only the credits, an EI vote or revert will do it.

For a more involved edit, a NMC vote and more manual revert and warning.

At your discretion, you can leave it be if the credits are OK after being moved about, they don't NEED to be moved back again

If someone persists in changing them about, then let me know and they will find themselves with a warning, or being blocked or put on the CIP.

OK, topic saved...

imho, by changing one single word in guideline 10.1.6.

(..) Generally, release wide credits (that is, credits that apply to all tracks) should go in the main credits section (..)

from "should" to "need to", would help clear a lot of "redundant" submissions
for example Transsylvania-Phoenix - identical Music By credits for each track

of course, one could make the case that the artist is an ego-maniac who likes
to see his name splattered all-over his disc, but it certainly helps in no way the
overall "browsing experience" - as loukash pointed in a comment above

glass
but it certainly helps in no way the
overall "browsing experience" - as  loukash pointed in a comment above

I would appreciate if you would refrain from putting your words into my virtual mouth.
Thank you.