ListMyCDs.com wrote > This information isn't directly related to music and we call the service > MusicBrainz. For me it makes no sense to start listing books or any > literature on this service. We already have people crying about too many > work types. I'm crying about having too less types for MUSIC.
We have 20 types for music. I've only ever used one of those, and I don't know what half of them mean. Yet I'm not complaining about them, because I know that classical people probably know what to do with them (most of the time). The same applies for audiobooks. Just because you can't see a use for a "book" type, it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. ListMyCDs.com wrote > With the same logic we would need to add types or new entities for > movies, video games, musicals, board games, radio shows, theatre > plays... It would be fun to have an entity for everything. Why not? It seems to me that there's no need for a limit, so long as the UI can be adapted to show these works correctly, and there's some justification for having them. > I believe that on a service of this scale we need to define some limits. > It should > be easy based on the name of the service. MUSICbrainz. What's your basis for that belief? There shouldn't be limits just for the sake of having limits. The name of the service is irrelevant. We have a audiobook and spoken word release group types, and almost 10000 releases of those types, so we clearly *don't* only store music releases. The works are going to get added anyway, unless Audiobook style changes. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-194-Book-Work-Type-tp4649019p4649030.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
