Steve Wyles wrote: > On Thu, 4 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote: > >> Steve Wyles wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote: >>> >>>> Steve Wyles wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Brian Gurtler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> i think we need a way to differentiate singles form albums with the >>>>>> same >>>>>> name. >>>>>> For example Morphine has an album titled "Cure for Pain" they also >>>>>> have >>>>>> a single "Cure for Pain" as well. >>>>>> I have both ripped and tagged but they end up in the same folder. >>>>>> Also >>>>>> if i physically move one of them to another folder they end up in the >>>>>> same album in my music player library anyway because they have the >>>>>> same >>>>>> title information in their tags. >>>>>> >>>>>> what can we do to prevent this from happening? >>>>>> >>>>>> can we add "(single)" to singles that have the same title as albums? >>>>>> would anyone be opposed to that? >>>>> >>>>> Why replicate the information in the title when it is already held in >>>>> the release type? Use the album type in the filename (%type in picard) >>>>> to make it unique. >>>>> >>>>> Steve (inhouseuk) >>>>> >>>> >>>> right, but the tag will still be non-unique. >>> >>> They'll be unique if you take the track numbers into account. >>> Especially, if you store them as x/y where y is the total number of >>> tracks on the release. >>> >>> Steve (inhouseuk) >>> >> >> no. they won't be unique. they will all be tagged with the same album >> title. that's not unique and therefore (I'd guess depending on what >> music player used) will end up all in the same album in the library. >> you can store them however you want but anything tagged with Morphine as >> an artist and Cure for Pain as the album title (wither it's a single or >> an album) will end up in the "Cure for Pain" album in the library >> regardless of the track number or any other tagged information or file >> structure. >> > > So use the additional data that is already available to make it unique. > > You asked for advice as to how to deal with the situation, this has been > given. There is a way to ensure they are unique taking the information > that is available. It is not a problem of the way it is stored in the > database, it is a problem in the way that data is being interpreted on > the client. > > There is zero point in duplicating that data in other fields and it will > not be done. > > Steve (inhouseuk) >
you must be confusing tags with file names or something because you're making this way more complicated than it has to be or is. i'm pretty sure everyone else that posted to this thread understood what i was getting at. you currently CANT use the data already available to make the tags unique. the way to ensure that they ARE unique involves manual editing of the album tags of the file or waiting for TaggerScript and have it be able to insert thingys into tags. If it's not going to be done on the DB side, that's totally fine. I'm not even arguing for it or anything. But eventually there does needs to be a way for picard to make these tags unique for artists that have multiple releases with the same name. if you currently have a way for %type to be included in an albums _tag_ via picard, please don't hold out.. let me in on it! :) http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3685/screenshotbobbypreviteanthemfo.png _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
