Jim DeLaHunt wrote: > Oh, I get it. You are proposing text to be added to > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Category:External_Information_Relationship_Class > to describe the new "License" Relationship. I think the change to > Category:External_Information_Relationship_Class should be another bullet > point in the list at > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Improve_CC-license_links#Proposal . > We're now up to 4 parts to the proposal. > > I agree this wording is fine for > Category:External_Information_Relationship_Class . It's not complete, > though. You also need to have some examples of the Relationship text, e.g. > "Release is licensed under URL ".
This shouldn't be necessary. The text on category pages is generated by a template. > Also, you have an attribute "description" for License_Relationship_Type, and > say it should be empty. I see that other Relationships in the > External_Information_Relationship_Class also have an attribute "description" > but say it should be empty. Does anybody know why we can't simply hide this > attribute instead? It would be possible when adding a URL, but since URLs can be shared by multiple relationships, there's no easy way to prevent people from ever entering descriptions. A number of people think we should get rid of the field entirely: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-3791 Nikki _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
