[mb-style] [Clean up CSG] Classical and Release Language (OT: Dupes)

[Leiv Hellebo]

Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> A private email I received spurred me to take a look and see just in
> an effort to show exactly how we're making our work redundantly more
> difficult by not standardizing classical listing language, 

Yes there are a lot of dupes, no surprises there, and I believe you are
right standardised listings can help, by relieving classical editors
from some of the workload, and hopefully by making it easier for other
editors to help out.

Since we're off-topic and talking about dupes, I think it's only fair to
mention that it is still too easy to add dupes, and it is still too
difficult to spot them:

It is e.g. altogether too easy to allow a good-looking AddRelease pass, 
because browsing through MajorComposer to see if it already exists takes 
too long. "Surely, if someone went to all the trouble of making a track 
listing, then it doesn't exist already!"

And a hopefully rare example: I recently read that Karajan did 
Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony commercially _nine_ times! We _need_ more 
information than the tracklisting in such cases... (It is almost a 
reason to be glad that there are so _few_ classical releases here...)

We could e.g.:

a) Not have the composer as artist, and avoid the insanely long artist 
pages.

But this would perhaps create all sorts of trouble?

Better then to

b) Have a RecordedAtTimeAndLocation-AR that could be made visible on the 
DisambiguateReleases page

and possibly
c) enable adding of AR's up front ?



leivhe