[mb-style] [no label]

[Lauri Watts]

On Jan 3, 2008 3:31 AM, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

We cover that pretty well with artists by having [no artist] and
[unknown] to distinguish between the two.  Why not [no label] and
[unknown].

> > 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.

I wouldn't mind seeing  [white label] as long as it's very clear what
it means.  Note there's at least two actual record labels called White
label or something near (I think I already put an annotation on one of
them.)

> 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?

That would be quite handy in fact in a lot of cases.  Those three plus
[unknown] and the abovementioned [none] and [white label] would cover
a lot of ground, and are pretty easy to distinguish.

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

As long as that one's also made really clear what it means (ie, that
it was researched and there _is_ no catalog number, not "I can't be
bothered finding my cd cover so i'll just put none here".)


-- 
Lauri Watts