I'm standing for this wording,

Metadata should be obtained only from the official site of the artist or publisher of the work and/or released CD cases and scans. Database sites such as VGMDB and download sites such as iTunes or Amazon are not reputable sources for metadata.

Honestly I think it's a matter of common sense, it should be a guideline at best. However, as it is more and more confusing, I agree to get it formulated in a way. We need something settled that applies to all situations for this.

Another thing to be added to the rule is like Garven already mentioned, sometimes website conflicts with CD covers (And we cannot determine that's a misprint, since both of them are official anyways) This happens really frequently (IGNITE, aLIEz etc.) so we might as well prioritize something to make some hierarchy. I'm all for website > CD > Video etc. because that way it's easier for those who have trouble finding scans. And like Wafu said it's hardly possible to find scans of unknown songs therefore obtaining metadata from websites is better from the perspective of convenience.

I agree with Melophobia pretty well. Anyway, there were complications, where the artist/title was taken from the official website of the anime or something it was in - What might be different, since game/anime's website is official, but not official for the soundtrack, so to fill in your "website > CD > Video" I would change to "website > CD > website of source > Video" and I can completely agree.

This is pointless and doesn't need to be a rule or even a guideline.

People should use common sense when applying metadata; if you can find multiple people using that artist / song title then that's probably what it should be. There's no point changing your artist / song title to something no one else is using just because a CD cover or website says so.

Also, this proposed hierarchy of sources is even more ridiculous; a website trumps a CD cover? Since when? How does that make sense? Official material can and does contradict itself on occasion; not everything needs to be black and white, just go with the most common iteration and there's less conflict. Also, since when is itunes and other commercial outlets "unofficial" - if anything these should be given priority since they're often official commercial material.

Lach wrote:

Why does this matter? I'd rather everything be labelled under a single uniform abbreviation, than see "Anime Size ver." or "xXxANiME420VERSiONxXx", because that's the kind of shit that will be next.

You care so much about something that doesn't even make the map better. If you want to make a difference, try actually modding maps instead of posting screenshots of a cd cover scan.

Completely agree. Metadata modders need reigning in a little imo, I'd prefer if more effort went into actual modding.

Shulin wrote:

People should use common sense when applying metadata

They use common sense and as you might see, many beatmaps pass with wrong title. This argument can be used for any ranking criteria. We might rewrite whole ranking criteria just to one like:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

1. Use common sense.

If the website or CD cover says so, it is right, if multiple people use wrong title, it doesn't mean it is right.

Wafu wrote:

They use common sense and as you might see, many beatmaps pass with wrong title. This argument can be used for any ranking criteria. We might rewrite whole ranking criteria just to one like:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

1. Use common sense.

If the website or CD cover says so, it is right, if multiple people use wrong title, it doesn't mean it is right.

It would be a start and would prevent arbitrary rules like this one!

The whole proposed hierarchy of "reputable sources" is because official sources sometimes disagree, either because they're not always right, or they changed their mind later on. Better to use common sense and use the title that's most common; if there's an argument that the title needs changing it needs to be better than "because this CD cover says so" imo.

It's all trivial anyway because the title of your map won't make it better.

Taken from "[RULE] Do not alter title"

CDFA wrote:

For reference, a priority list of where to get song titles (as I went through this issue with one of my maps)

From highest to lowest

1) Composer/Band's official website
2) Official album listing (aka. Either from a purchased album, or a site that sells the album (ie. iTunes))
3) Composer/Band's wiki pages. (Assuming the wiki is a decently active wiki. Fanmade wikis that are mostly dead are generally not reputable sources)
4) Unofficial music databases. (Which is what most people would tend to use, especially for foriegn music)
5) Wikipedia page.
6) Unofficial album listing (aka. A site that you can download the album from, but is not officially sold by the composer/band)
7) Youtube video listing (This is mostly useful for things like youtube poops or fanmade things that don't really have a home outside of youtube)

NOTE: This is by no means official I just made it off of the top of my head so tear it apart all you want. Also be aware that different situations call for different things, but this is what I'd generally think in terms of credibility.

And for reference, Because a previous map has a title does not mean its right I'm aware that there was a rule for consistency way back in 2012 where people would put wrong metadata so things would be consistent, but now we've moved past that, and rather than keep on making the same mistake over and over again, we need to like, actually fix things. I'm not sure how the progress is on osz2 and the magical "oh it'll fix every title", but the least we could do is at least start that now so it's less work in the future. I don't know if that needs to be worded into the rule, or if it should just be on the "Don't be stupid" clause.

It should also be in the best interest of reputable modders as well as all BATs to start looking at this stuff prior to qualifying, even if it seems trivial, so we don't have incidents like the one that has lead to this happen again.

Completely supporting this rule tho.

Metadata should be obtained only from the official site of the artist or publisher of the work and/or released CD cases and scans. Database and Information sites such as VGMDB or Wikipedia and download sites such as iTunes or Amazon are not reputable sources for metadata. However, if metadata is unobtainable from an official source, then you may use an unofficial source such as those listed above.

-->

Metadata should be obtained from the official sites or media (Games/CDs/Videos) provided by the artist or publisher. Database and Information sites such as VGMDB or Wikipedia and download sites such as iTunes or Amazon are not official sources for metadata. If metadata is unobtainable from an official source, then you may use an unofficial source such as those listed above.

Did a few fixes and changes. Feel free to change anything that might cause misunderstanding or any errors/typos/grammar that need fixing.

How does this sound? This makes it bit more clear that you can use the official Games/CDs/Videos as a reputable source because it's technically official like CDFA was mentioning.

This should cover the problems you had Shulin minus using download sites.

Going to go ahead and bubble this. Already an unspoken rule anyway.

Feel free to make any final suggestions/changes before this is approved and added to the ranking criteria.

Can someone remind me why commercial releases like itunes are not considered reputable sources when they are sold and put on there by the artist / publisher? That doesn't make sense to me. Commercial releases i.e. itunes etc. should always be treated as reputable imo.

Shulin wrote:

Can someone remind me why commercial releases like itunes are not considered reputable sources when they are sold and put on there by the artist / publisher? That doesn't make sense to me. Commercial releases i.e. itunes etc. should always be treated as reputable imo.

Because for some reason iTunes alters many titles and artist names. For example if there is Japanese artist, they often swap it to normal 'firstname surname' instead of 'surname firstname' which most Asian people would use. For example I even experienced titles being completely translated, while official artist never used it on any of his sites or on CD case. Many shops use different form of title, thus artist's website/CD case is always the most reputable. If it is not available, then go ahead and get it from iTunes.

iTunes to be honest is not even solid to their customers and sellers there, you might say it is Apple, but as far as I saw, they do not appreciate opinions from artists nor customers and their support does not even read questions. I would doubt about their reliability a lot.

Lust wrote:

Going to go ahead and bubble this. Already an unspoken rule anyway.

Metadata should be obtained only from the official site of the artist or publisher of the work and/or released CD cases and scans. Database or Information sites such as VGMDB or Wikipedia and download sites such as iTunes or Amazon are not reputable sources for metadata. However, if metadata is unobtainable from an official source, then you may use an unofficial source such as those listed above.

Feel free to make any final suggestions/changes before this is approved and added to the ranking criteria.

While I agree with this wording, you have to keep in mind exceptions

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/76810

We're using the title from the actual game, rather than Tomoya Ohanti's tumblr page, because it is more official since it is published in the game rather than on a personal website.

There also should be more clarification to things that are NOT released officially, such as https://osu.ppy.sh/s/17217

Wafu wrote:

Shulin wrote:

Can someone remind me why commercial releases like itunes are not considered reputable sources when they are sold and put on there by the artist / publisher? That doesn't make sense to me. Commercial releases i.e. itunes etc. should always be treated as reputable imo.

Because for some reason iTunes alters many titles and artist names. For example if there is Japanese artist, they often swap it to normal 'firstname surname' instead of 'surname firstname' which most Asian people would use. For example I even experienced titles being completely translated, while official artist never used it on any of his sites or on CD case. Many shops use different form of title, thus artist's website/CD case is always the most reputable. If it is not available, then go ahead and get it from iTunes.

iTunes to be honest is not even solid to their customers and sellers there, you might say it is Apple, but as far as I saw, they do not appreciate opinions from artists nor customers and their support does not even read questions. I would doubt about their reliability a lot.

Ignoring itunes / loudr / bandcamp / soundcloud or whatever other avenue an artist chooses to distribute their music because the mapper thinks the name order is in the 'wrong' or doesn't like the song title should not be encouraged. Cross referencing is key here and mappers should not be reliant on one particular source for metadata.

Artists websites and CD cases are not infallible and cannot be relied upon 100%; in fact I find websites are often out of date, differ from officially released material like the CD and omit certain data (for example you rarely get detail e.g. composer / arranger / vocalist etc. like you would get from the linear notes). It does of course depend on the type of artist you're looking at but a lot of artists websites just direct to itunes etc. but now that's not 'reputable' because someone doesn't like those sources? I don't think we can ignore that a lot of artists have digital preorder bonuses etc. and use digital distribution a lot so relying just on CD cover & website seems wrong to me and a hierarchy of best sources to use doesn't make sense.

tldr; commercial releases e.g. itunes, game, CD etc. should always be treated as reputable sources and cross referencing is necessary.

Reditum wrote:

While I agree with this wording, you have to keep in mind exceptions

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/76810

We're using the title from the actual game, rather than Tomoya Ohanti's tumblr page, because it is more official since it is published in the game rather than on a personal website.

There also should be more clarification to things that are NOT released officially, such as https://osu.ppy.sh/s/17217

The game is as official as official website. Personal does not mean official, be aware of that.
For example it is equal on the official website and the "right" title should be referred to this website or the game. Personal websites should not be on the top, definitely not, but official source's or artist's website, where he really is providing info about albums or songs are the right choice. Games (apart from translated versions) are usually okay.

@Shulin: There should be some order. iTunes/Amazon/other shops which make their own listing should be really low in priority.

That feeling when I hit the edit button instead of quote. Oops!

Metadata should be obtained only from the official site of the artist or publisher of the work and/or released CD cases and scans. Database and Information sites such as VGMDB or Wikipedia and download sites such as iTunes or Amazon are not reputable sources for metadata. However, if metadata is unobtainable from an official source, then you may use an unofficial source such as those listed above.

-->

Metadata should be obtained from the official sites or media (Games/CDs/Videos) provided by the artist or publisher. Database and Information sites such as VGMDB or Wikipedia and download sites such as iTunes or Amazon are not official sources for metadata. If metadata is unobtainable from an official source, then you may use an unofficial source such as those listed above.

Did a few fixes and changes. Feel free to change anything that might cause misunderstanding or any errors/typos/grammar that need fixing.

How does this sound? This makes it bit more clear that you can use the official Games/CDs/Videos as a reputable source because it's technically official like CDFA was mentioning.

This should cover the problems you had Shulin minus using download sites.

If there are no further issues, I'll rebubble with the above wording in Lanturn's post.

I'd be super happy if this could be linked alongside the rule or at least kept in the BN area for reference when these sort of debates come up, but that's just me being hopeful, lol x3.

Otherwise, I think this is good to go

Reditum wrote:

Taken from "[RULE] Do not alter title"

CDFA wrote:

For reference, a priority list of where to get song titles (as I went through this issue with one of my maps)

From highest to lowest

1) Composer/Band's official website
2) Official album listing (aka. Either from a purchased album, or a site that sells the album (ie. iTunes))
3) Composer/Band's wiki pages. (Assuming the wiki is a decently active wiki. Fanmade wikis that are mostly dead are generally not reputable sources)
4) Unofficial music databases. (Which is what most people would tend to use, especially for foriegn music)
5) Wikipedia page.
6) Unofficial album listing (aka. A site that you can download the album from, but is not officially sold by the composer/band)
7) Youtube video listing (This is mostly useful for things like youtube poops or fanmade things that don't really have a home outside of youtube)

NOTE: This is by no means official I just made it off of the top of my head so tear it apart all you want. Also be aware that different situations call for different things, but this is what I'd generally think in terms of credibility.

And for reference, Because a previous map has a title does not mean its right I'm aware that there was a rule for consistency way back in 2012 where people would put wrong metadata so things would be consistent, but now we've moved past that, and rather than keep on making the same mistake over and over again, we need to like, actually fix things. I'm not sure how the progress is on osz2 and the magical "oh it'll fix every title", but the least we could do is at least start that now so it's less work in the future. I don't know if that needs to be worded into the rule, or if it should just be on the "Don't be stupid" clause.

It should also be in the best interest of reputable modders as well as all BATs to start looking at this stuff prior to qualifying, even if it seems trivial, so we don't have incidents like the one that has lead to this happen again.

Completely supporting this rule tho.

Metadata should be obtained from the official sites or media (Games/CDs/Videos) provided by the artist or publisher. Database and Information sites such as VGMDB or Wikipedia and download sites such as iTunes or Amazon are not official sources for metadata. If metadata is unobtainable from an official source, then you may use an unofficial source such as those listed above.

- New wording sounds like you can use a youtube video for metadata if it's officially provided by the artist or publisher. Is that the intention?

- Official digital releases still aren't covered in the rule and are denounced as 'unofficial' if they happen to be on itunes or wherever; if it's officially provided by the artist or publisher on their official website then it contradicts the first sentence of the rule. I would not want to see arguments and arbitrary disqualifications to unsuspecting mappers so I would take out the so called 'download site' part completely and just make it clear if it's not provided or supported by the publisher or artist it's not official.

- If ignoring the above then I feel some definition of 'official' may need to be provided in the event of a dispute because the 'I said so because I don't like it' approach isn't a good starting point for a rule.

- What if official sources disagree i.e. out of date websites, CD misprints, multiple releases removing artists in credits etc. What is a mapper to do? Choose any and run with it or cross reference and use common sense?

@Reditum You don't have game listed in your order of priority but I'd generally say commercial sources >> the rest.

I agree with Shulin and this current proposal lack of what they pointed up.

Me too I agree with this rule it will be more simple to find the correct metadata in my opinion

provided <-- That should be removed. The intentions behind it was incorrect.

edited and maintained by official artist/publisher: official
edited and maintained by outside parties: unofficial
This is the basic idea of what I believe should be official or not. An artist can edit their own youtube/soundcloud/websites to however they choose. Official prints are already official. Doing this alone removes the majority of conflicts and gives respect to the artist/publisher in how they prefer it to be listed.

Also. If metadata conflicts, then we can just use whatever we want because they're technically still all official. We do this today, so this shouldn't be a problem with today's QATs or BNs to understand. Common sense has been used many times already so it really won't be a problem. We can add a sentence if needed. Maybe the priority system CDFA/Reditum listed can play some role here?

So if this is all fine and dandy then I'll try to rewrite it, or someone else can. Maybe get a few more definitions on what is considered official?

I don't think that's a simple or good definition, how can you presume who edits and maintains what? It implies insider knowledge. An official website could be maintained and edited by an outside party with no input from artist or publisher for all we know. The situation would be different for each artist and the definition ignores the problem entirely. Commercial releases such as CD prints and digital releases are already official I'd agree.

What's classed official should be simple:

If it's information directly provided by an artist or publisher (e.g. website), or if it's a commercial or other release from the artist or publisher (e.g. CD, digital release, game etc.), then it's official and should be taken into consideration when deciding metadata.

That covers the majority of the situations and avenues artists use.

So what is the problem? Is it all because some people don't like particular sources and are trying to find ways to exclude them? Well it is for the artist to decide how and where they release their material and not you, excluding particular releases because you don't like it is not a good basis for a rule and shouldn't even be a guideline.

I'm not sure the "use what you want" attitude is necessarily a good one for conflicting metadata. You could decide to keep unintentional typos on a CD that have been corrected by a digital release because "hey it's official". A better approach may be cross referencing multiple official sources and using the most common and appropriate iteration. Would need to be a guideline as it'll be dependent on the case.

However, if the so called current approach of "use what you want" is used for metadata then if you don't like a particular official source you could always ignore it if there's another official alternative... which is probably what already happens in some cases anyway. If it is acceptable to decide metadata in such a way then you actually don't need a rule or guideline at all and metadata could be dealt with on a case by case basis; flexibility is good.

i'd really rather this was just extended to a "metadata must be correct from an original and verifiable source" rule instead of some secondary check for accuracy as it currently stands

With the change of how the Ranking Criteria Subforum works from now on, topics like these are obsolete.