[mb-users] Should "vol." always be expanded?

https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles/Abbreviations states that
abbreviations should generally be expanded, but artist intent may override.
https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles/Volume_numbers states that "vol."
should be expanded when the releases are part of a series, which is a number
of separate releases with a common theme
(https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Series). However, at what point does the artist
intent in choosing "vol." rather than ", volume" trump the general rule?

This issue has arisen in relation to two releases by Boards of Canada:

https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/def69be5-3dd3-39a1-96a0-5febd829ef6c
https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/d07fb1c0-d5f3-302a-bde3-3236e7d991e8

Although the two releases are similar in nature, there seems to have been no
intention that they were to be part of a series. They were merely two
similar collections of track releases at a similar time. There is no
indication that more releases with a similar theme are intended. Moreover,
only certain copies of the first release contained any reference to volume
numbering, and certainly not on the face of the release. It seems the volume
aspect only became important after the second release.

So I have three questions:

1) Are these RGs a series?
2) If they are not a series, should "vol." still be expanded, or should we
follow artist intent? (i.e. title according to what is written on the
release)
3) Does artist intent ever trump the volume numbers rule, so that releases
in a series may be titled as "vol."? (e.g. if "vol." is used consistently
throughout on all of the releases)



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Should-vol-always-be-expanded-tp4667627.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.