Pink Floyd's Live At Pompeii
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Report errors & omissions here
Forum Description: Seen a mistake in a band bio etc then please tell us
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=77233
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 04:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pink Floyd's Live At Pompeii
Posted By: Desoc
Subject: Pink Floyd's Live At Pompeii
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:06
|
There are two separate entries for Live at Pompeii: http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=15681" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=15681 http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=7221" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=7221 The first is the original version, the second is the director's cut released in 2003. These two versions were earlier possible to distinguish by separate titles (there was a (VHS) added to the first title), but now their titles are identical. They have different covers, but this is not unusual also among identical records released in different points in time. So I believe this could easily cause people to review (or buy) the wrong version. I suggest: Either a) re-label the first version with a VHS tag, or b) label the second version with a Director's Cut tag, or c) merge the entries - the director's cut also includes the original version, so it could easily be compared to special edition albums which do not qualify for a separate entry. |
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:11
|
I need to bring the info all under one release. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:17
I noticed the disappearance of the "VHS" tag from the descriptors of video releases, too. But if M@x reintroduces it, it will show up at all the video releases, including the Live At Pompeii 2003 DVD. I think we'll just have to trust people in knowing that there weren't any DVDs back in the 80s 
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:18
I don't think that would be a good idea, they're practically two different films, even if based on the same concert. The review make the difference well enough, too. For example, some like the VHS version and not the DVD (while for me it's viceversa). |
Snow Dog wrote:Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:22
I understand. But it is the common practise. And all the info will be there under one, and the reviewer can say which one is being refered to. But I'm not a dictator, I will let admin decide. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:27
| Well, in the case of the 40th anniversary edition of ITCOCK there was less of a reason to make a new entry, but it was added as a compilation. There exceptions to the rule, but it's indeed difficult to know where to draw the line. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:33
Which is why I prefer everything to be treated the same. Is that you in your Avatar? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:35
I can't argue with your position, it makes sense, I'd just prefer it stays like it is now because I don't like change.  And that's me, yes. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:37
You look a little like my friend Gethyn. Are you out photographing? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:43
| Yes, that's a Nikon D60 I am holding, in the gardens of Versailles (last autumn). |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 13:48
Nice! At first glance it looks like you are playing a guitar.With the strap and the tree in the background looking like the neck. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 14:01
|
Well, this certainly got off topic But back to the point: It seems that my option b) might be the smallest common denominator? At least I think there should be some kind of title change to keep the titles separated. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 14:05
@Ian: I've been told I look like holding a pistol
 I agree, that should do for the moment, until we get Admin input. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: April 03 2011 at 14:20
|
It would probably be preferable to bring them under the one heading, but for long established duplications such as this, it becomes impractical. The complexities of the ratings calculations mean that was cannot move reviews from one album to another. ( mailto:M@x" rel="nofollow - M@x withdrew the faciliity to move reviews as it was screwing up the calculations) The only way we can now move them is to contact each reviewer and ask them to re-post their review. That's OK when there are a handful and they are recent, but when there are a number of them and they have been there a while, it can mean reviews getting lost. In this case, I'd suggest adding the "Video" moniker back into the title.
|