Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field "Description"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field "Description"

Alexander VanValin
On 08/22/2014 09:03 AM, lixobix wrote:
> Users seem to be misusing the DC only because it's easier than having
> to click through each entity to access the full data related to it. So
> until full data is readily visible, we should alter the DC guide to
> allow for more freedom, even if it results in data duplication.
> Pragmatism before idealism.

I still don't know why this is being called "misuse" (which has a
negative connotation). What's the harm?

Alex / caller#6


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

Re: Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field "Description"

lixobix
caller#6-2 wrote
On 08/22/2014 09:03 AM, lixobix wrote:
> Users seem to be misusing the DC only because it's easier than having
> to click through each entity to access the full data related to it. So
> until full data is readily visible, we should alter the DC guide to
> allow for more freedom, even if it results in data duplication.
> Pragmatism before idealism.

I still don't know why this is being called "misuse" (which has a
negative connotation). What's the harm?

Alex / caller#6


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
It's misuse in the sense that if the disambiguating data already exists elsewhere (e.g. area/place for an artist), there is not need to duplicate that data into the DC, and MB has a general policy against data duplication. Pragmatically, I don't think such misuse is in fact much of an issue, but the only way I see of solving it is to display more data as outlined above. The harm of 'misuse' is minimal (data duplication) but would be avoided if this were done.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field "Description"

Jazzy Jarilith
I don't think the DC should go completely. There's one type of data we won't be able to store properly: the silly music genres and sub-genres. Even though I don't like them, they might come handy when you come several artists with the same name and from the same area.
Not to mention that when the area, the begin date, etc, are not known, the music is the only thing you have to tell an artist from another.


2014-08-24 17:04 GMT+02:00 lixobix <[hidden email]>:
caller#6-2 wrote
> On 08/22/2014 09:03 AM, lixobix wrote:
>> Users seem to be misusing the DC only because it's easier than having
>> to click through each entity to access the full data related to it. So
>> until full data is readily visible, we should alter the DC guide to
>> allow for more freedom, even if it results in data duplication.
>> Pragmatism before idealism.
>
> I still don't know why this is being called "misuse" (which has a
> negative connotation). What's the harm?
>
> Alex / caller#6
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list

> MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz

> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

It's misuse in the sense that if the disambiguating data already exists
elsewhere (e.g. area/place for an artist), there is not need to duplicate
that data into the DC, and MB has a general policy against data duplication.
Pragmatically, I don't think such misuse is in fact much of an issue, but
the only way I see of solving it is to display more data as outlined above.
The harm of 'misuse' is minimal (data duplication) but would be avoided if
this were done.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Pre-RFC-Rename-disambiguation-field-Description-tp4667407p4667626.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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


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

Re: Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field "Description"

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Jazzy Jarilith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't think the DC should go completely. There's one type of data we won't be able to store properly: the silly music genres and sub-genres. Even though I don't like them, they might come handy when you come several artists with the same name and from the same area.
Not to mention that when the area, the begin date, etc, are not known, the music is the only thing you have to tell an artist from another.

Actually genres will probably be supported eventually. But yes, the field should definitely not just go.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
12