[mb-style] [no label]

[Olivier]

2008/1/3, Chad Wilson <chad.wilson at gmx.net>:
> Olivier wrote:
> > I would like to drive the list attention to:
> > http://musicbrainz.org/show/label/?labelid=3267
> >
> > Comments?
> > Should we make this official (eg: documented)?
> > Preference for the name?
> > Ideas to prevent people from using it as a lazy fallback when they
> >
> >
> Is the main thing we gain from this some demonstration that an editor
> has actually investigated and worked out there is none, rather than it
> being unknown? I guess it may make sense then.

I think that was the intent for at least some of these.

>
> Also worth noting (re: annotation) is that a white label isn't
> necessarily the same as a bootleg (many are legitimate promos) so [none]
> is better than [white label] as it is probably more inclusive of
> bootlegs, digital media etc.
>

Question being: is using just one [none] for all these cases
manageable in the long term?
Or is it worth splitting things up à la Discogs right now (possibly
saving later work)?
eg:
[white label]
[no label bootleg]
[no label self-released]
[...?]

possibly all linked to [none] via a "bogus" owner relationship?

Also, what do the list thinks about discogs recommendation for
non-existent cat # (eg: using "none" if there are no cat # either)?


- Olivier