+1 for me as well. I just had a thought about this, how about if the subpart works *DO NOT* include the linked work in their name.
Example (for classical): Currently there's a work under Tchaikovsky: String Quartet No. 2 in F major, Op. 22: III. Andante ma non tanto Ideally, the sub-work should only be "III. Andante ma non tanto" and not "String Quartet No. 2 in F major, Op. 22: III. Andante ma non tanto", this would make it cleaner (especially if my proposal to show the works as merged in the works list goes through) and would minimize the possibilities for error. I guess if want/need be, the two could be appended to each other to create: "String Quartet No. 2 in F major, Op. 22: III. Andante ma non tanto" Just a thought, and it's possible that this would have negative implications that I haven't thought of... Sebastien 2011/6/8 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote: >> The RFC period has ended for this proposal[1], with no major objections. >> I have updated the proposal with some more guidelines for its use based >> on the list response, and so bring this to RFV status. >> >> 1. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Work_Parts_Relationship > > Still a +1 from me >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MusicBrainz-style mailing list >> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >> > > > > -- > Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
