Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Mapping Discussion
  4. Ranking Criteria
  5. Finalized/Denied Amendments

[added] [Proposal - Metadata] Add official metadata guidelines for extended versions of songs.

posted
Total Posts
23
Hydria
1,247 posts
Joined April 2011
Topic Starter
Hydria
Lets say hypothetically we have a scenario where someone is extending a song NOT to break the time limitation criteria. Unlike the 
(Cut Ver.) / (Game Ver.) / (TV Size)
markers we have for cut versions of songs, there is no official ruling regarding the extension of a song. This has been used in the past for mappers to claim ownership of an edit that arguably should not fall under such credit, similar to if it was cut.

An example of this is beatmapsets/1615491#mania/3298251, where the song was extended by ~30 seconds to add an additional chorus, which was not rule breaking as the original 4:30 length was rankable. Due to no rule being put in place, the person responsible for the extension of the song got credit in the title of the song.

New proposal goes as follows:

Unofficial extended versions of songs must add a (Extended Edit) marker at the end of the current title. If a length marker is already in the title of the track, (Extended Edit) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial extended versions of a song from official extended versions.
  • - The reason we're using (Extended Edit) over (Extended Ver.) despite the consistency break is because (Extended Ver.) is commonly used to mark official extended songs and we want to minimise confusion between the official and unofficial songs.
    - This follows very closely to the Cut Ver. guidelines we already have in place to keep coherentness and to avoid additional confusion.

Hydria wrote:

If a length marker is already in the title of the track, (Extended Edit) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial extended versions of a song from official extended versions.
PR here https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/9423
Last edited by Protastic101 , edited 6 times in total.
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101
Yeah, additionally what sparked this discussion in the mania BN channel in the first place was FAMoss's map here beatmapsets/1943149#mania/4019484. He extended it simply by adding another chorus I think, rather than add anything original of his own to extend the length. It was decided that he should probably take his name off of it, but then we come into the confusion that is (Extended Ver.) vs. (Extended Edit) since the former is usually used for an official extended release of a song, vs. the latter which is an unofficial extension by people usually to meet drain time requirements.
Ryu Sei
2,900 posts
Joined October 2013
Ryu Sei
That is a plausible proposal. +1
FAMoss
osu! Alumni
1,161 posts
Joined January 2016
FAMoss
i do agree
gzdongsheng
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator II
139 posts
Joined July 2016
gzdongsheng
seems fine

but probably the wording If a length marker is already in the title of the track can be a bit more specific in this case to avoid being mixed up with the Cut ver. marker rule, or maybe both of them would need to be specific
Last edited by gzdongsheng , edited 1 time in total.
Antalf
Beatmap Nominator
262 posts
Joined August 2016
Antalf
I think this is a good proposal and furthermore can be a good addition. I think this clearly solves the issue of the ownership and credit of the songs. Will try to discuss this more in depth with more people to see if this can be properly pushed.
Last edited by Antalf , edited 2 times in total.
Antalf
Beatmap Nominator
262 posts
Joined August 2016
Antalf

gzdongsheng wrote:

seems fine

but probably the wording If a length marker is already in the title of the track can be a bit more specific in this case to avoid being mixed up with the Cut ver. marker rule, or maybe both of them would need to be specific
I'm pretty sure Hydria edited the original post to include this? I think this is even better how you proposed it.
Last edited by Antalf , edited 2 times in total.
h3oCharles
1,503 posts
Joined July 2016
h3oCharles
all ill say regarding this is (Artist Edit) already exists beatmapsets/1713016
Last edited by h3oCharles , edited 1 time in total.
lewski
1,346 posts
Joined September 2014
lewski

h3oCharles wrote:

all ill say regarding this is (Artist Edit) already exists beatmapsets/1713016
if I read the OP correctly, the point of this proposal is to reserve that marker for more involved edits and have another one for edits that only extend the song
gzdongsheng
Nomination Assessment Team / Elite Nominator II
139 posts
Joined July 2016
gzdongsheng

Antalf wrote:

gzdongsheng wrote:

seems fine

but probably the wording If a length marker is already in the title of the track can be a bit more specific in this case to avoid being mixed up with the Cut ver. marker rule, or maybe both of them would need to be specific
I'm pretty sure Hydria edited the original post to include this? I think this is even better how you proposed it.
nah i mean that wording included might cause confusion for being not specific enough because it's exactly the same as the (Cut Ver.) marker rule, just for comparison

(Cut Ver.) marker:
Unofficial cut versions of songs must add a (Cut Ver.) marker at the end of the current title. If a length marker is already in the title of the track, (Cut Ver.) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial cuts of a song from full length versions.
Current proposal:
Unofficial extended versions of songs must add a (Extended Edit) marker at the end of the current title. If a length marker is already in the title of the track, (Extended Edit) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial cuts of a song from official extended versions.

While i understand that the second part of a RC clause is only for explanation, but i think it would be better to make it more clear for the case here, since we gonna actually have two kinds of defined length marker if this proposal merged. For example

Unofficial cut versions of songs must add a (Cut Ver.) marker at the end of the current title. If a cut length marker is already in the title of the track, (Cut Ver.) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial cuts of a song from full length versions.
Unofficial extended versions of songs must add a (Extended Edit) marker at the end of the current title. If an extended length marker is already in the title of the track, (Extended Edit) would replace it. This is to distinguish unofficial extension(?) of a song from official extended versions.

My wording is probably not the best solution but just to give an example about what i want to say
Last edited by gzdongsheng , edited 2 times in total.
Antalf
Beatmap Nominator
262 posts
Joined August 2016
Antalf
Ahhhh I see what you mean by this yeah, I can see how this can be easily confused with the current one. I think it would be better if the second one will be implemented, could do a little rewording but yes. I can see this working better for people not to be confused.

I think that more importantly this could clutter up the RC a bit more than intended, it should be consistent yes, I agree but I don't know if the amount of times that this issue has been encountered calls for an addition to the RC.
Last edited by Antalf , edited 3 times in total.
Hydria
1,247 posts
Joined April 2011
Topic Starter
Hydria
Woopsie forgot to respond to this one
Added the 2nd suggestion from gzdongsheng, however the concern for the length marker text shouldn't be an issue as each rule covers its own section, and so this text keeps consistency with metadata editing and terminology (to avoid confusion)
SilentWuffer
289 posts
Joined December 2017
SilentWuffer
this seems fine as a proposal but has this ever popped up practically?
Hydria
1,247 posts
Joined April 2011
Topic Starter
Hydria
There are two examples in the first two posts.
aceticke
Global Moderator
251 posts
Joined August 2016
aceticke
I don't think it should be Edit and should be standardised to Ver. like the other markers. Cut Ver. already is a pretty common thing to see albeit sometimes with different wording, in fact, TV Edit is standardised to TV Size, it should stay consistent imo
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101

aceticke wrote:

I don't think it should be Edit and should be standardised to Ver. like the other markers. Cut Ver. already is a pretty common thing to see albeit sometimes with different wording, in fact, TV Edit is standardised to TV Size, it should stay consistent imo
That's what Okoratu's proposal aims to tackle, because many songs already use (Extended Ver.) for officially extended songs. Thus using (Extended Edit) makes it clear that the extension is unofficial and prevents people from putting their name in the metadata as their own personal edit.
Hivie
osu!taiko Paragon
1,002 posts
Joined March 2019
Hivie
+1 to what prot said
Hydria
1,247 posts
Joined April 2011
Topic Starter
Hydria
"TV Size" does not follow the "ver." criteria already (We don't call them TV Ver.), and on top of that, there's a snippet of maps that have OFFICIAL extended ver. tags to them:



We don't want people to confuse official and unofficial song edits. That's the whole point.
aceticke
Global Moderator
251 posts
Joined August 2016
aceticke
can we distinguish the other unofficial edits pls then, or are we sticking with Cut Ver. bc of how long its been a thing
Hydria
1,247 posts
Joined April 2011
Topic Starter
Hydria
(Cut Edit) sounds awful but depends on NAT / other opinions i guess
Ryu Sei
2,900 posts
Joined October 2013
Ryu Sei

aceticke wrote:

can we distinguish the other unofficial edits pls then, or are we sticking with Cut Ver. bc of how long its been a thing
It's out of scope of this forum, see Okoratu's proposal for that I guess.
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101

aceticke wrote:

can we distinguish the other unofficial edits pls then, or are we sticking with Cut Ver. bc of how long its been a thing
I thought most official short versions of songs use anything but (Cut) to distinguish it, hence why (Cut Ver.) works well for unofficially cut songs but (Extended Ver.) doesn't. Also, changing how cut versions are distinguished is a new proposal in its own right, and out of scope of this thread as Hydria mentioned.
Protastic101
1,170 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101
https://github.com/ppy/osu-wiki/pull/9423#issue-1718287849 Merged! Gonna poke a mod to move this to finalized and add the appropriate forum tag
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 23