[mb-style] [no label]

[Kuno Woudt]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 09:55:37AM +0100, Lauri Watts wrote:
> We cover that pretty well with artists by having [no artist] and
> [unknown] to distinguish between the two.  Why not [no label] and
> [unknown].

Sounds good to me.

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

Yes, that would be even better than just [unknown] and [no label].

> > 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".)

I'm in favour of this one too :).

-- Kuno.