![]() ![]() If the Dutch use a special type of name, and you're not sure, perhaps tag the edit for someone who is Dutch to take a look, rather than simply editing and guessing? As for the other situation above (which always confuses), it's a temporary situation eventually NGS will allow multi-artist attribution, and we'll not have to deal with that rule anymore. but that simply suggests that we ought simply to not edit the sortname if we're not sure. As for situational, while yes, "The Foo" should (and does, per the guidelines) sort as "Foo, The", '"The Foo" and "The Bar"' vs "The Foo and the Bar" are two quite different situations, and sort differently for quite valid reasons, and with internal consistancy to the differing sortname for each of the two.Īs for "what can really be implemented?", what, honestly, is so confusing about a simple set of rules for sortnames? Things like durnames, etc, will confuse, yes. (or whatever those Dutch (or wherever it was) names that caused such confusion 8 or 9 months ago on the lists). Having 'The Doors' at T and not D is just nonsense." Again, this is situational, and assumes articles are easily identified as such, rather than confused with, say, durnames. "Articles like 'a' and 'the' should quite obviously be treated as articles and not parts of the sorted entity. "I suppose libraries and such may need a more precise sorting scheme." - this is exactly what a sortname is. They're not artist(or label, etc) names, they're sortnames - two different fields in the database. When you write, "If Eric Clapton would prefer to be known as 'Clapton, Eric' I suppose he would be using the latter form.", again, I'm not sure I understand - sortnames would, generally, never be used by any musician. ![]() As can be seen by many of the cross-cultural discusions for names of (fill in the blank) culture/nation, what is intuitive to someone in one country as a treatment for a particular name can quite easily be an ordering based on a totally incomprehensible basis to someone else. I don't know that I understand your complaint, however. I suppose libraries and such may need a more precise sorting scheme. This all applies primarily to music player interfaces. I don't think the users have any desire to start reciting a complicated and non straight forward set of rules when they simply want to look for a band in a list. It can be argued, that if a simple algorithm cannot be written, the sorting scheme is too complicated. For example starting to divide the names into different units like last name and first name and all the minor details seems to require user input for each entry (or some database) and no simple algorithm can be written. One important thing to bear in mind is: what can really be implemented? It's not smart to establish a set of rules that cannot be used (or require tremendous amount of work to be used). Having 'The Doors' at T and not D is just nonsense. Articles like 'a' and 'the' should quite obviously be treated as articles and not parts of the sorted entity. If Eric Clapton would prefer to be known as 'Clapton, Eric' I suppose he would be using the latter form. Of course it is debatable what this intuitive ordering would be, but going with the obvious would take us a long way: The name of the artist is exactly how the artist writes it. When the purpose of the sorting is to give the artists in a users music library in an easily browseable order why wouldn't the 'intuitive' ordering be the best one? Most of the users aren't librarians or such. When an user thinks of Eric Clapton he thinks of 'Eric Clapton' and not 'Clapton, Eric' and most certainly he thinks of 'Jimi Hendrix Experience' instead of 'Hendrix, Jimi, Experience' or whatnot. Why does this need to be so complicated? In the case when these rules are considered to be applicable in music players it seems really backwards to try to implement this kind of scientifically correct way of sorting. But it should be pretty accurate.SortNameStyle > Discussion SortNameStyle Discussion Your files should be organized according to the ID3 tags now. Select a single file in the right column. The final step is save the new organization method. click the half-green file icon in the pop up. More %tags are available here () Under documentation. %a/%b/%n - %t means artist/album/track number - track name. Using the %tags, write out how you want the files to be organized. Now in the top bar, click on the half-green half-white file icon. Hit Ctrl-a to select all the files in the right column. It should begin to list to the files in the right column. Select the directory you wish to organize. Open EasyTag(Applications > Sound & Video > EasyTAG). Through aptitude, the software center, or command line. This posting is pretty high on Google, so I think there should be some sort of closure to the thread. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |