RFC STYLE-279: Add "Place of Worship" as place type

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

Re: RFC STYLE-279: Add "Place of Worship" as place type

"Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen"
Den 02-01-2014 12:30, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
> I may be wrong, but I don't think a
> user will one day need an easy way to select together the cathedrals and
> the Buddhist temples.

If you can think of it, chances are someone will want to be able to do
just that some time in the future. We should not hinder this.

However, interlinking with other sources (Wikidata, OSM, etc.) so that
it is possible to cross-reference against those will likely be the way
to achieve such a goal, making a further division unneeded.

That said, I give this RFC a -0. (The minus is mostly due to the
wording, as Ben mentioned, religious places might not necessarily be for
"worship" - but I guess there's not much difference between -0 and +0
anyway. :))

--
Namasté,
Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen <http://freso.dk/>
MB:   https://musicbrainz.org/user/Freso
Wiki: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Freso


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

signature.asc (919 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-279: Add "Place of Worship" as place type

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
FWIW, Wikipedia considers Buddhist temples places of worship too, which it defines as "a specially designed structure or consecrated space where individuals or a group of people such as a congregationcome to perform acts of devotion, veneration, or religious study" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_of_worship)

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

Re: RFC STYLE-279: Add "Place of Worship" as place type

monxton
In reply to this post by "Frederik “Freso” S. Olesen"
On 02/01/2014 17:14, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen wrote:

> Den 02-01-2014 12:30, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
>> I may be wrong, but I don't think a
>> user will one day need an easy way to select together the cathedrals and
>> the Buddhist temples.
>
> If you can think of it, chances are someone will want to be able to do
> just that some time in the future. We should not hinder this.
>
> However, interlinking with other sources (Wikidata, OSM, etc.) so that
> it is possible to cross-reference against those will likely be the way
> to achieve such a goal, making a further division unneeded.

I agree, I can't see a point in us subdividing these venue types, when
other databases probably do it better.

> That said, I give this RFC a -0. (The minus is mostly due to the
> wording, as Ben mentioned, religious places might not necessarily be for
> "worship" - but I guess there's not much difference between -0 and +0
> anyway. :))

Also, how to handle former places of worship? If they have been turned
into, say, an arts centre, presumably we'd use the type for the current
use, even though there may be recordings from both before and after the
conversion.


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

Re: RFC STYLE-279: Add "Place of Worship" as place type

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:14 AM, monxton <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 02/01/2014 17:14, Frederik "Freso" S. Olesen wrote:
> Den 02-01-2014 12:30, Frederic Da Vitoria skrev:
>> I may be wrong, but I don't think a
>> user will one day need an easy way to select together the cathedrals and
>> the Buddhist temples.
>
> If you can think of it, chances are someone will want to be able to do
> just that some time in the future. We should not hinder this.
>
> However, interlinking with other sources (Wikidata, OSM, etc.) so that
> it is possible to cross-reference against those will likely be the way
> to achieve such a goal, making a further division unneeded.

I agree, I can't see a point in us subdividing these venue types, when
other databases probably do it better.

So we should tell users to go write Wikipedia pages or whatever if they want to say "this is a church"? Well, fine, never going to happen but we'll live.

What is the point of a venue type that means everything though? For that, we might as well remove it and stick to Studio and Other.

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

Re: RFC STYLE-279: Add "Place of Worship" as place type

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
There's no consensus for this and I have too many RFCs open already, so closing this for the time being.

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

Re: RFC STYLE-279: Add "Place of Worship" as place type

lixobix
I know this is closed, but I may as well write it here. I don't see any problem with a list of venue types as places. What is a problem is the definitions in https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Place.

The dichotomy between Studio and Venue does not make sense. The venue has no relevance to whether the performance is Live or Studio (i.e. non-live). Whether the performance was for an audience or not is relevant to release and recording secondary types. So really we should have a list of different venue types, then Live and Studio as release and recording secondary types.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that any building referred to as a church etc clearly is what is claims to be, regardless of whether it is actively used in connection with religious practice.
12