On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, SwissChris <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually I just didn't get your point (and still don't). What should we have > instead of the existing guideline? The wording "track" is of course wrong – > but why would the principle have changed?
My point is that the concepts of track and release were at the same level before, while I'm not sure the current options (RG and work) work like that for the people here. Shouldn't the pages be linked to the work that represents the full musical (and is linked to specific parts with "has part" relationships), instead of to the RGs and partial works? > 2011/10/21 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]> >> >> 2011/10/19 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[email protected]>: >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/IBDb_Relationship_Type and >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/IOBDb_Relationship_Type both say stuff >> > similar to "The track-URL version of this relationship type should >> > only be used when not every track on a release is from the same >> > musical. It then should link from the track to the musical. When every >> > track on a release is from the same musical, then the release-URL >> > version should be used." >> > Does this separation make sense now that the track-URL one is >> > work-URL? The levels seem wildly different... >> >> Is nobody interested in this issue at all, or it just slipped unseen? :) >> >> > -- >> > Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MusicBrainz-style mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
