On 1/31/06, Björn Krombholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I do hope that we target a limited audience and keep the
data within a well defined (which is currently not the case) scope.
Personally I think we already exceeded the scope with audio books and
similar stuff. All this, while we
Jan van Thiel wrote:
Yes, I agree. We need a document decscribing what should and should
not be added to the database, covering artists, albums, non-album
tracks and ARs. What is a homebrew? When to add a non-album track? Is
a TV-show rip OK? Do we add not-yet-completed albums, to which tracks
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:35:54 +0100, Steve Wyles wrote:
The alternative is that there will be less of the quick decisions and
more of the OK, sum the debate up and then the Elder will decide
mails. This means more work for you, but it also means you are in
control of the arguments that get
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Steve Wyles wrote:
As you just mentioned, Rob hadn't seen the emails on the subject,
therefore he is possibly making a decision on a whim without seeing
the whole discussion.
Just to clarify, I told Don that I would need to read up more on the
list and that I
Agreed. Personally I think all 'non musical' relationships would be
better suited to annotations. Even better, annotations that can
contain hyperlinks to other musicbrainz artist pages, should they
exist.
I think if we try to recognise every single relationship one entity
can have with another,
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
Agreed. Personally I think all 'non musical' relationships would be
better suited to annotations. Even better, annotations that can
contain hyperlinks to other musicbrainz artist pages, should they
exist.
Erm, and how is that any different from
On 30/01/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
Agreed. Personally I think all 'non musical' relationships would be
better suited to annotations. Even better, annotations that can
contain hyperlinks to other musicbrainz artist pages, should they
Steve Wyles wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Björn Krombholz wrote:
On 1/29/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel that if there is a direct relationship where ONE of the 'artists'
is 'musically' required, we should create relationships to one level.
We wouldn't go further and add more
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
On 30/01/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Chris Bransden wrote:
Agreed. Personally I think all 'non musical' relationships would be
better suited to annotations. Even better, annotations that can
contain hyperlinks to
On 1/30/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, we can only show both parents of an artist if both of them
would be in the database for another reason.
An example here is:
http://musicbrainz.org/showartist.html?artistid=40437
which shows both parents
and
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Jan van Thiel wrote:
On 1/30/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, we can only show both parents of an artist if both of them
would be in the database for another reason.
An example here is:
http://musicbrainz.org/showartist.html?artistid=40437
which
All the marrying information stuff is not relevant for ME, but I'm sure it is
relevant for many
other people, so why not include it as part of the database? I can't argue the
fact that wifes
and husbands are part of the artists lifes, so if someone is looking for
information about the
artist
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:37:22 +0100, Matthew Exon wrote:
I've made this point before, but maybe it's worth repeating here,
because it still bugs me...
The problem I have with the marriage relationship is that it's not
something where MusicBrainz can aspire to completeness. Because of the
Robert and me talked on the telephone today, and I asked him what he
thinks about this. He said that he does not like the idea that possibly
thousands of nonmusical artist get added to the db, just because they were
maried to a musician.
This is pretty close to an official ruling. It would
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Don Redman wrote:
Robert and me talked on the telephone today, and I asked him what he thinks
about this. He said that he does not like the idea that possibly thousands of
nonmusical artist get added to the db, just because they were maried to a
musician.
This decision
On 1/31/06, Steve Wyles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Don Redman wrote:
Robert and me talked on the telephone today, and I asked him what he thinks
about this. He said that he does not like the idea that possibly thousands
of
nonmusical artist get added to the db, just
16 matches
Mail list logo
