ARs for references in works?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ARs for references in works?

Per Starbäck
Has ARs for references in lyrics been considered? I mean things like a
work-to-work AR from The Wombats' "Let's Dance to Joy Division" to Joy
Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart". (Lyrics "So let the love tear us
apart, / I've found the cure for a broken heart, / Let it tear us
apart, / Let the love tear us apart".)

Or from Camera Obscura's "Lloyd, I'm ready to be heartbroken" to Lloyd
Cole's "Are you ready to be heartbroken?".

Or work-to-artist from Leonard Cohens's "Tower of Song" to artist Hank
Williams (because of lyrics "I said to Hank Williams: how lonely does
it get? / Hank Williams hasn't answered yet"?

There would probably be problems with unclear references that people
wouldn't agree on, but I think it would be fun and interesting to have
such information. What do you think?

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/10/1 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
Has ARs for references in lyrics been considered? I mean things like a
work-to-work AR from The Wombats' "Let's Dance to Joy Division" to Joy
Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart". (Lyrics "So let the love tear us
apart, / I've found the cure for a broken heart, / Let it tear us
apart, / Let the love tear us apart".)

Or from Camera Obscura's "Lloyd, I'm ready to be heartbroken" to Lloyd
Cole's "Are you ready to be heartbroken?".

Or work-to-artist from Leonard Cohens's "Tower of Song" to artist Hank
Williams (because of lyrics "I said to Hank Williams: how lonely does
it get? / Hank Williams hasn't answered yet"?

There would probably be problems with unclear references that people
wouldn't agree on, but I think it would be fun and interesting to have
such information. What do you think?

Definitely. But to be useful, we should be able to add comments in order to explain the AR. Unfortunately, the AR structure currently does not support comments AFAIK.

Maybe it is time to request for a comment field on ARs. Of course, this field should not be always present, I guess most of the ARs wouldn't have one. On second thought, the AR comment could simply be initialized with a copy of the edit comment. I often miss the edit comment.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Mihkel Tõnnov
In reply to this post by Per Starbäck
2013/10/1 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
Has ARs for references in lyrics been considered? I mean things like a
work-to-work AR from The Wombats' "Let's Dance to Joy Division" to Joy
Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart". (Lyrics "So let the love tear us
apart, / I've found the cure for a broken heart, / Let it tear us
apart, / Let the love tear us apart".)

Or from Camera Obscura's "Lloyd, I'm ready to be heartbroken" to Lloyd
Cole's "Are you ready to be heartbroken?".

Or work-to-artist from Leonard Cohens's "Tower of Song" to artist Hank
Williams (because of lyrics "I said to Hank Williams: how lonely does
it get? / Hank Williams hasn't answered yet"?

There would probably be problems with unclear references that people
wouldn't agree on, but I think it would be fun and interesting to have
such information. What do you think?

Yes, absolutely.

I'd like to see work-to-URL as well, where URL could be an IMDB or Wikipedia link or such, for cases like this: https://www.facebook.com/visionsofatlantisofficial/posts/548414425200919?comment_id=5820628 (I'm sure there are more, esp. for books).

2013/10/1 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
Definitely. But to be useful, we should be able to add comments in order to explain the AR. Unfortunately, the AR structure currently does not support comments AFAIK.

Maybe it is time to request for a comment field on ARs. Of course, this field should not be always present, I guess most of the ARs wouldn't have one. On second thought, the AR comment could simply be initialized with a copy of the edit comment. I often miss the edit comment.

Wouldn't some pre-defined attributes like "references", "is inspired by", etc. suffice?

Regards,
mihhkel

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/10/2 Mihkel Tõnnov <[hidden email]>
2013/10/1 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
Has ARs for references in lyrics been considered? I mean things like a
work-to-work AR from The Wombats' "Let's Dance to Joy Division" to Joy
Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart". (Lyrics "So let the love tear us
apart, / I've found the cure for a broken heart, / Let it tear us
apart, / Let the love tear us apart".)

Or from Camera Obscura's "Lloyd, I'm ready to be heartbroken" to Lloyd
Cole's "Are you ready to be heartbroken?".

Or work-to-artist from Leonard Cohens's "Tower of Song" to artist Hank
Williams (because of lyrics "I said to Hank Williams: how lonely does
it get? / Hank Williams hasn't answered yet"?

There would probably be problems with unclear references that people
wouldn't agree on, but I think it would be fun and interesting to have
such information. What do you think?

Yes, absolutely.

I'd like to see work-to-URL as well, where URL could be an IMDB or Wikipedia link or such, for cases like this: https://www.facebook.com/visionsofatlantisofficial/posts/548414425200919?comment_id=5820628 (I'm sure there are more, esp. for books).

2013/10/1 Frederic Da Vitoria <[hidden email]>
Definitely. But to be useful, we should be able to add comments in order to explain the AR. Unfortunately, the AR structure currently does not support comments AFAIK.

Maybe it is time to request for a comment field on ARs. Of course, this field should not be always present, I guess most of the ARs wouldn't have one. On second thought, the AR comment could simply be initialized with a copy of the edit comment. I often miss the edit comment.

Wouldn't some pre-defined attributes like "references", "is inspired by", etc. suffice?

The problem I see is that as Per explained, some of those relations will be less than obvious to understand. So that a well-intentioned user later browsing the database could be tempted to remove the ARs for which he can't find a justification. I think that allowing to enter in the AR the explanation will help avoiding undesirable deletions. In general, all data should be justified, like wikipedia is doing in keeping track of the sources of it's data, this is why I am suggesting that allowing comments in ARs could be valuable for all ARs.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Per Starbäck
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
>> There would probably be problems with unclear references that people
>> wouldn't agree on, but I think it would be fun and interesting to have
>> such information. What do you think?
>
> Definitely. But to be useful, we should be able to add comments in order to
> explain the AR. Unfortunately, the AR structure currently does not support
> comments AFAIK.
>
> Maybe it is time to request for a comment field on ARs. Of course, this
> field should not be always present, I guess most of the ARs wouldn't have
> one.

Why can't ARs have annotations? Everything should be able to have annotations!

> On second thought, the AR comment could simply be initialized with a
> copy of the edit comment. I often miss the edit comment.

I would like it to be easier to find the edits notes for a particular
fact in the database, but I wouldn't like that mix. I think we should
try to differentiate between text directed at someone who just uses
the database to look up something and text directed to those who are
editing the database (or want to check the sources). If a music player
has a box where it shows "fun facts" about the work that is playing
right now that could include a note about how this references another
song, but you wouldn't want edit comments with sources in that box.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/10/2 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
>> There would probably be problems with unclear references that people
>> wouldn't agree on, but I think it would be fun and interesting to have
>> such information. What do you think?
>
> Definitely. But to be useful, we should be able to add comments in order to
> explain the AR. Unfortunately, the AR structure currently does not support
> comments AFAIK.
>
> Maybe it is time to request for a comment field on ARs. Of course, this
> field should not be always present, I guess most of the ARs wouldn't have
> one.

Why can't ARs have annotations? Everything should be able to have annotations!

I think they could, they just currently don't. If enough users ask for it with good arguments, this could change :-)


> On second thought, the AR comment could simply be initialized with a
> copy of the edit comment. I often miss the edit comment.

I would like it to be easier to find the edits notes for a particular
fact in the database, but I wouldn't like that mix. I think we should
try to differentiate between text directed at someone who just uses
the database to look up something and text directed to those who are
editing the database (or want to check the sources). If a music player
has a box where it shows "fun facts" about the work that is playing
right now that could include a note about how this references another
song, but you wouldn't want edit comments with sources in that box.

I only suggested this as a starting point, as a default value. I'd rather have a copy of the edit comment than nothing. But I agree that often the edit comment becomes valueless after a few years, sometimes even less, while the AR comment should remain valid much longer. We could even have a flag telling that the AR comment is only a copy of the edit comment and clear that flag when the AR comment would be edited; this would allow us to check the AR comments which need to be upgraded.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Per Starbäck
>> I think we should
>> try to differentiate between text directed at someone who just uses
>> the database to look up something and text directed to those who are
>> editing the database (or want to check the sources). If a music player
>> has a box where it shows "fun facts" about the work that is playing
>> right now that could include a note about how this references another
>> song, but you wouldn't want edit comments with sources in that box.
>
>
> I only suggested this as a starting point, as a default value. I'd rather
> have a copy of the edit comment than nothing. But I agree that often the
> edit comment becomes valueless after a few years, sometimes even less, while
> the AR comment should remain valid much longer.

My point is not that that text becomes valueless with time, but that
it is the wrong type of text.
That "fact box" I mentioned should only show

  [  This song references "Girls, Girls, Girls" by Mötley Crüe.  ]

when you listen to "Boys, Boys, Boys" by Lady Gaga. The text in the
edit note might be "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song".
That should not be in the fact box, and that is as true day 1 as after
a few years. An empty annotation is quite enough for this (and most)
ARs.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/10/2 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
>> I think we should
>> try to differentiate between text directed at someone who just uses
>> the database to look up something and text directed to those who are
>> editing the database (or want to check the sources). If a music player
>> has a box where it shows "fun facts" about the work that is playing
>> right now that could include a note about how this references another
>> song, but you wouldn't want edit comments with sources in that box.
>
>
> I only suggested this as a starting point, as a default value. I'd rather
> have a copy of the edit comment than nothing. But I agree that often the
> edit comment becomes valueless after a few years, sometimes even less, while
> the AR comment should remain valid much longer.

My point is not that that text becomes valueless with time, but that
it is the wrong type of text.
That "fact box" I mentioned should only show

  [  This song references "Girls, Girls, Girls" by Mötley Crüe.  ]

when you listen to "Boys, Boys, Boys" by Lady Gaga. The text in the
edit note might be "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song".
That should not be in the fact box, and that is as true day 1 as after
a few years. An empty annotation is quite enough for this (and most)
ARs.

I understand, but OTOH in this example the edit note, although not quite to the point, would not be completely wrong. It might even, in a slightly less obvious example, help users to understand where the AR comes from. I'd rather have a few AR annotations not very informative (although not factually wrong) than mostly empty AR annotations. But we don't copy the note to the annotation, users will have to fill the annotation manually. I know from experience that commenting things is always the last thing users do, even if they have nothing else to do. Now if you can show me an example when copying the edit note as a default value for the AR annotation would actually be a bad thing (leading to a wrong annotation or preventing the editors from correcting it somehow)...

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

"Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen"
Den 02-10-2013 15:47, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
> I understand, but OTOH in this example the edit note, although not quite
> to the point, would not be completely wrong. It might even, in a
> slightly less obvious example, help users to understand where the AR
> comes from.

If someone needs to know where the relationship comes from, they can
check the edit history - it is possible to filter on relationship types,
so it should be quite possible to limit a search to only the edits
related to the "references" AR with few false positives.

> I'd rather have a few AR annotations not very informative
> (although not factually wrong) than mostly empty AR annotations.

Far most edits have no edit note. I would also not wantto see most of my
own edit notes as AR annotations.

> But we
> don't copy the note to the annotation, users will have to fill the
> annotation manually. I know from experience that commenting things is
> always the last thing users do, even if they have nothing else to do.

Commenting things should only be necessary where the system itself does
not provide enough information. (E.g., have a comment on a Discogs link
annotation "This is Artist's Discogs page" or on a band membership
relationship would the instrument attribute set to drums have the
comment "Artist was Band's drummer" would be pretty superfluous.)
As long as relationships are self-explanatory (which hopefully most
are...), they should not need a comment.

If users, OTOH, bother going through the process of adding a Work-Entity
"references" relationship, hopefully they will also care enough to note
it in the AR comment - esp. if it's possible to enter the comment while
making the AR in the first place.

To be honest though: I'm not wholly convinced that these ARs really
demand the schema change that would be needed for ARs to have
comments/annotations - annotating the Work(s) involved should be fine.
E.g., "Song About Awesome Thing" could have the AR "references My
Awesome Thing" and an annotation "Song About Awesome Thing is in the
same key and has the same chord progression in the chorus as My Awesome
Thing and also alludes to the subjects discussed in My Awesome Thing in
the lyrical content throughout the song." - and that would be a perfect
use for Work annotations, IMHO.

> ([...] or preventing the editors from correcting
> it somehow)...

That smells like a strawman to me. Obviously any such system would not
be implemented so that could happen - and if it did, it would treated as
a bug and fixed ASAP.

--
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/10/2 Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <[hidden email]>
Den 02-10-2013 15:47, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
To be honest though: I'm not wholly convinced that these ARs really
demand the schema change that would be needed for ARs to have
comments/annotations - annotating the Work(s) involved should be fine.
E.g., "Song About Awesome Thing" could have the AR "references My
Awesome Thing" and an annotation "Song About Awesome Thing is in the
same key and has the same chord progression in the chorus as My Awesome
Thing and also alludes to the subjects discussed in My Awesome Thing in
the lyrical content throughout the song." - and that would be a perfect
use for Work annotations, IMHO.

Yes and no. Yes because I agree that having this type of information in the Work annotation would be nice. No because MB is a database, not a wiki, and relevant information should be stored in such a way that it is linked to the data it refers to. Putting the comment in the annotation would kind of "link" it to one of the Works, but not to the other. So that, :
1 - the annotation would appear in "Song About Awesome Thing" but not in "My Awesome Thing",
2 - if a user deleted the AR, he could very well forget to remove the annotation in the Work
3 - it would be impossible to do a lot of useful queries like getting a list of which ARs have a comment/annotation (although I agree that in most situations comment/annotation would probably not be needed in a first step).

But I agree that until the schema change is done (if it is decided to do it), we could use the Work annotation.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Per Starbäck
In reply to this post by Frederic Da Vitoria
>> That "fact box" I mentioned should only show
>>
>>   [  This song references "Girls, Girls, Girls" by Mötley Crüe.  ]
>>
>> when you listen to "Boys, Boys, Boys" by Lady Gaga. The text in the
>> edit note might be "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song".
>> That should not be in the fact box, and that is as true day 1 as after
>> a few years. An empty annotation is quite enough for this (and most)
>> ARs.
>
>
> I understand, but OTOH in this example the edit note, although not quite to
> the point, would not be completely wrong. It might even, in a slightly less
> obvious example, help users to understand where the AR comes from.

Of course the edit note helps you understand where the AR comes from.
That's what it's for, so you look at it when you want to know that!

> I'd
> rather have a few AR annotations not very informative (although not
> factually wrong) than mostly empty AR annotations.

Almost all of these *should* be empty. Take the examples of references
in songs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song . None,
or almost none of those need annotations. Just a link is good enough.

It's really not different from ARs for works. In that fact box I only
want to see
"written by Lady Gaga & Rob Fusari". I certainly don't want to see "cd
in hand" or "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fame" or whatever is in
the edit note.

Could annotations be useful for those ARs as well? Absolutely. That's
where you would describe extra information like "X wrote the bridge
and Y the rest" or "officially written by X & Y, but most scholars
agree that it's the work of X, and Y was credited just because of
...". That is, information that can't be put in the db as relations,
but that is interestig for users of the db. All of that should be in
the fact box
I was talking about.

> Now if you can show me an example when copying the edit note as a default value for the AR annotation would
> actually be a bad thing (leading to a wrong annotation or preventing the
> editors from correcting it somehow)...

I think I did, because showing users information meant for editors is
a bad thing. Of course we want users to think about becoming editors
themselves, but still, you should be able to use the database just to
find facts about music without being exposed to irrelevant stuff like
a note "cd in hand" after each other note from the person who added
that particular fact. I don't see why "Boys, Boys, Boys" references
"Girls, Girls, Girls" should be so much different from facts we
already have in that.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/10/3 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
>> That "fact box" I mentioned should only show
>>
>>   [  This song references "Girls, Girls, Girls" by Mötley Crüe.  ]
>>
>> when you listen to "Boys, Boys, Boys" by Lady Gaga. The text in the
>> edit note might be "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song".
>> That should not be in the fact box, and that is as true day 1 as after
>> a few years. An empty annotation is quite enough for this (and most)
>> ARs.
>
>
> I understand, but OTOH in this example the edit note, although not quite to
> the point, would not be completely wrong. It might even, in a slightly less
> obvious example, help users to understand where the AR comes from.

Of course the edit note helps you understand where the AR comes from.
That's what it's for, so you look at it when you want to know that!

> I'd
> rather have a few AR annotations not very informative (although not
> factually wrong) than mostly empty AR annotations.

Almost all of these *should* be empty. Take the examples of references
in songs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_song . None,
or almost none of those need annotations. Just a link is good enough.

It's really not different from ARs for works. In that fact box I only
want to see
"written by Lady Gaga & Rob Fusari". I certainly don't want to see "cd
in hand" or "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fame" or whatever is in
the edit note.

Could annotations be useful for those ARs as well? Absolutely. That's
where you would describe extra information like "X wrote the bridge
and Y the rest" or "officially written by X & Y, but most scholars
agree that it's the work of X, and Y was credited just because of
...". That is, information that can't be put in the db as relations,
but that is interestig for users of the db. All of that should be in
the fact box
I was talking about.

> Now if you can show me an example when copying the edit note as a default value for the AR annotation would
> actually be a bad thing (leading to a wrong annotation or preventing the
> editors from correcting it somehow)...

I think I did, because showing users information meant for editors is
a bad thing. Of course we want users to think about becoming editors
themselves, but still, you should be able to use the database just to
find facts about music without being exposed to irrelevant stuff like
a note "cd in hand" after each other note from the person who added
that particular fact. I don't see why "Boys, Boys, Boys" references
"Girls, Girls, Girls" should be so much different from facts we
already have in that.

I am starting to believe I am wrong. But about your last question, the last link could need corroboration. Anybody could enter such a link based only on the title similarity. What I was hoping for is some sort of proof that this similarity is not accidental, for the benefit for example of a user who does not understand enough English to see that proof in the lyrics or of someone who does not have both songs.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Per Starbäck
> I am starting to believe I am wrong. But about your last question, the last
> link could need corroboration. Anybody could enter such a link based only on
> the title similarity. What I was hoping for is some sort of proof that this
> similarity is not accidental,

Glad to hear! :-)

Absolutely, but just in the edit note. As for other edits of course we
shouldn't add stuff we're just guessing and we should be wary of edits
without (relevant) edit notes.

I admit the distinction between the needs of an editor and the needs
of a user where only editors are interested in the edit notes isn't as
clearcut as I made it out to be. When you use the database everything
is served as facts, but clearly a suspicious user might want to see
some references, and it would be good if that was easier to find.

Say you're looking at the work "Manic Monday" with the Bangles,
http://musicbrainz.org/work/e342d4e3-1559-3ef0-8212-3f0140e81354 ,
where it says that Prince wrote it. Say that you're immediate thought
is "no way!!!" (you'd be wrong). You want to see if that is really
true. What proof do these musicbrainz people have?!! What do you do?
To begin with the "Editing history" button is only present if you are
logged in. That I don't like. Show editing histories for everyone! And
even if you manage to press that to see what source was given for
this, you have to scroll down through other edits. Ideally I would
like an option for editing history for every fact as well, that gives
only the relevant edits.

(In this particular case there is a linked Wikipedia page on the work,
so the skeptical reader would do better checking that.)

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ARs for references in works?

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/10/4 Per Starbäck <[hidden email]>
> I am starting to believe I am wrong. But about your last question, the last
> link could need corroboration. Anybody could enter such a link based only on
> the title similarity. What I was hoping for is some sort of proof that this
> similarity is not accidental,

Glad to hear! :-)

Absolutely, but just in the edit note. As for other edits of course we
shouldn't add stuff we're just guessing and we should be wary of edits
without (relevant) edit notes.

I admit the distinction between the needs of an editor and the needs
of a user where only editors are interested in the edit notes isn't as
clearcut as I made it out to be. When you use the database everything
is served as facts, but clearly a suspicious user might want to see
some references, and it would be good if that was easier to find.

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind.

 
To begin with the "Editing history" button is only present if you are
logged in. That I don't like. Show editing histories for everyone! And
even if you manage to press that to see what source was given for
this, you have to scroll down through other edits. Ideally I would
like an option for editing history for every fact as well, that gives
only the relevant edits.

Agreed.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users