On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 22:13 +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote: > On 06/01/2011 07:19 PM, Pete Marsh wrote: > > i think that's sound and probably applies to reviews links too. how do > > people feel about the reviews relationship going to release level too? > In a general way, I'm opposed to have the same relationship defined at > both release and release-group level. > Because this will only confuse people, and you'll end up with the > relationships sometimes defined at a level, sometimes on another, > and sometimes at both. > > I think this relationship type you be defined at release-group level > only, and this I'm considering vetoing this proposal. > I've not seen a good reason why release-group level doesn't qualify.
The best reason I can come up with for /not/ having an 'official website' AR at the release-group level is the possibility that different releases might have different official websites. This is a bit far-fetched, though: I definitely haven't seen it in real life. I could live with having official websites at the release-group level. The main thing that would be annoying here is that release-group level ARs aren't shown on the release pages. Perhaps a UI enhancement to NGS could help with this? I hope you agree that the second AR that I'm proposing: "discography entry" should be a Release level AR. Almost every discography site that I've seen has a separate page for each minor variation of a release. -- Calvin Walton <calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca> _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
