[x] untitled multi-band comps

what do we do in these cases?

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/index.php?PageField=Wiki&ActionField=var&Album...
discogs lists this as 'Tochnit Aleph 072' (the label and cat number) as it appears in the liners.
is there a rule for this, or do we take it on a case-by-case basis? what do you think about discogs' title?

Our not great solution has been this:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/sense-field/mineral-jimmy-eat-world-sense-field
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/current/current-amber-inn-car-vs-driver-wallside

Scott, I think that solution works OK for comps that only feature three or four bands - but in shakinghell's example where there are nine artists the title would become hugely unwieldy i.e. 'Raionbashi · Rudolf Eb.er · Dave Phillips · AC/DP · G*Park · Runzelstirn & Gurgelstock · Dear Michael... · Sudden Infant · Birthmark Orchestra'

And I'm sure somewhere some label's released an untitled comp with upwards of 20 bands, which would make our titling system look increasingly ridiculous. Off the top of my head, an alternative solution might be to have an 'untitled' tickbox in the wiki - to distinguish records like the above which *are* untitled from those like this example which are actually *called* 'Untitled':
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/byrds/untitled

this seems to be the only release type where we don't have a system to deal with no titles. Splits are entered using the name of the other artist, and an untitled band or solo album is normally recorded as s/t.

i just found this:
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/compilation/untitled
it doesn't look so bad but we're going to have a bunch of entries with that same URL. perhaps the title 'Untitled' could be represented in the same way as a ghost member - grey coloured text, non-italicised, perhaps by using a check box as pin_punk suggests.

Listing all the band names does begin to get very unwieldy and non-intuitive. How about listing, as the album title, just the primary label name for the release?

Benefits:
No need for Kevin to write new special case code.
No need for special display.
No confusion between albums that actually have "Untitled" as the title and albums that lack a title.

sounds fair, but is perhaps not always clear especially in the case of a multi-label release.

the new titles would be:
Tochnit Aleph
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/sense-field/mineral-jimmy-eat-world-sense-field
Crank!
[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/current/current-amber-inn-car-vs-driver-wallside
Capsule

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/compilation/untitled
3 labels (UndeRadar, Epicene, Public Guilt).
- UndeRadar is listed first on the back cover:
[www.discogs.com] http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1081968
- or we could list all three, separated by cdots.

Multi-label releases would make the title ugly/complicated, but still simpler than pin_punk's nightmare titles. Kevin and I weren't envisioning listing reissue labels, but for any untitled compilation release jointly issued by multiple labels, we were thinking the same thing you propose--listing the labels separated by dots.

We're going to add this to the rules.