2013/10/30 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com> > No, I mean that the place we put relationship documentation now doesn't > show "There's no guidance" - although I'm certainly not against providing > explicit guidance either :) > On 30 Oct 2013 13:33, "Tom Crocker" <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 30 October 2013 10:38, ListMyCDs.com <musicbra...@listmycds.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> Explanation for dates is commonly missing on mb wiki and seems it's not >>> always necessary. For example: >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Performer_Relationship_Type & >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Chorus_Master_Relationship_Type >>> >> >> I know it's often missing, but if there's an obvious use for it I'd just >> say that. e.g. represents the dates for which it was the primary concert >> venue for the artist. >> Reo: do you mean because it shows up in the editor it's obvious it >> can/should be used? I just think it's confusing to new editors to look up a >> definition and see: "There is no guidance..." >> >> >>> I'm open for discussion and can keep this on RFC-level if discussion >>> about it is really necessary. Feedback is always welcome, thanks for >>> your time for my proposal. >>> >> >> I just wanted to see you give a response to the feedback, so thank you >> for doing that. I think primary concert venue is a good enough phrase - as >> you said, 'associated venue' becomes a bit vague. >> > Couldn't there be a default text for this? Something like "date when this relationship started"?
-- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
