[mb-style] [no label]

[Chad Wilson]

Philipp Wolfer wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 9:55 AM, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> I think that would be very valuable. Currently there is only the
> possibility to leave the label blank, which can mean all of the above.
> It is really helpfull to distingiush those cases.
>
> I just wondered if we need [unknown] then, as we could simply leave
> the label blank instead. That would make it clear that whenever a
> label like [white label] is entered somebody already looked researched
> the release, but whenever the label is clear we have indeed missing
> information.
>
> On the other side a label [unknown] could give an overview over
> releases that need label research.
>
>   
I definitely think using [unknown] would be a bad idea when we can and 
do already leave this blank to accomplish the same thing. The only 
reason we have [unknown] for titles and artists is because they are 
compulsory, as I understand it. Labels and catalog numbers are not. This 
would be ugly and unnecessary, imo...