User:Reosarevok/Overview options

From MusicBrainz Wiki

So, the overview is a mess right now. We're releasing a change soon that'll make it less bad, but we should decide what to do about several issues (please sign your comments!):

Changes to the release group list (current overview)

The main issues with the current display seem to involve the following:

a) Unofficial releases

While we've always shown release groups by default even if they only contained unofficial releases, the problems of that have become more apparent lately. An option would be to only show them by request. Should we do this? If yes, how? Should the options be official/all or official/unofficial? (the latter sounds more useful for people who care about bootlegs, but one of them should tell us!). If a release group only contains releases with no status set, they should probably appear on the default list - that'll make people more likely to fix them if they're actually not official!

Display options

All in one list
Official/all
Official/unofficial
+1 --Reosarevok 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 –Hawke 15:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 ~ 猫猫~~何? 17:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 (what’s the difference with official/all, isn’t all=unofficial ?) Jesus2099 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 (I think official/all means the first list includes only official, the second includes official and unofficial) --Lixobix 09:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 voiceinsideyou 09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 navap 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 SultS 09:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No status set

In official list
+1 --Reosarevok 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Wizzcat 12:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 –Hawke 15:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
++ ~ 猫猫~~何? 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Lixobix 09:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 voiceinsideyou 09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 navap 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In unofficial/all list
+1 Jesus2099 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 (I think official releases in the unofficial list are more likely to be fixed by users, genuinely unknown releases should be assumed to be unofficial - or why can't we have an additional unknown list?) zexpe 08:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

b) Compilations

Apparently some people want to hide compilations altogether (and require the user asking for them to show them). Others want to keep them away from the list in a "Compilations" section, and yet others want to keep showing them (the official ones at least) in the main list. One of the reasons to keep them in the main list has been providing a chronology - although since the main list is already broken in Album, Single, EP and Other, having a dedicated "chronology" page might be a better option for that.

Display options

All in one list
+1 I'd rather the opposite of the third choice, show them until I request they be hidden. --Billy Yank 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Compilations section
+1 --Reosarevok 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Wizzcat 12:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 ~ 猫猫~~何? 18:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 if it is after lives, compilation being one of or the last kind or listed releases Jesus2099 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 voiceinsideyou 09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 Perhaps make each section expandable --Lixobix 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Hrglgrmpf 21:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 See SoundUnwound and Discogs for an implementation I like. navap 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hidden until requested
+1 –Hawke 15:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 (I like having the option to see official compilations alongside official studio albums in one list, but this should be hidden on request) --Zexpe 08:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 SultS 09:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

c) Live, Soundtrack, Remix, etc.

Should (official, if we decide to hide bootlegs by default) live albums, soundtrack albums, etc. be on the album list, or get a new section each? If the latter, should they be listed in three sections (live albums, live EPs, live singles) or in one (all live releases, all soundtrack releases, etc.)?

Sections

On the album/EP/single section
+1 --Reosarevok 06:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 –Hawke 15:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 (treat in same way as compilations, whatever is decided) --Zexpe 09:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 It would be better if we could beef up the filtering so we could choose to show/hide all the types individually (don't forget "Studio") --Billy Yank 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
On their own sections
+1 ~ 猫猫~~何? 18:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Lixobix 09:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 navap 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't mind either way
+1 I think I am OK with either. voiceinsideyou 09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If on their own sections

One section per each main type
One section per secondary type
+1 --Reosarevok 06:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 —Hawke 15:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 ~ 猫猫~~何? 18:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What does this even mean? A release group can have multiple secondary types. Are you proposing one section per *combination* of types, or one section per type with the release group displayed multiple times if it has multiple types? --Nikki 18:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I understood it to mean “one section per combination of secondary types” —Hawke 18:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If we did this, I was just thinking of showing it multiple times if it applied. Although I guess showing one section per combination would also work and maybe be less confusing --Reosarevok 22:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 voiceinsideyou 09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Lixobix 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Future developments of the overview page

Some people argue that it would make sense to decide what an overview page should actually be, apart from a list of release groups, and work on that (for example, it could show members for bands, or a description from wikipedia when available, or... you name it). So, we would like to know your ideas on what an ideal overview would be like. Please add your comments at the bottom of this section!

For comparisons sake, here's what MB does versus what SoundUnwound, Discogs, AllMusic, and Rate Your Music do with an artist overview page. A few ideas that I (ideally) think we should adopt for our artist overview:
  • Display an artist picture
    • How would (c) work? Caller_number_six 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It was an ideal wish. If I were to hope I'd say the Internet Archive would come to our rescue here. --navap 15:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • By using only pictures that are either CC-licensed or in the public domain. There are already plans for this. If we choose not to create our own archive, we should probably use Wikimedia Commons.--Reosarevok 16:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • +1 --Billy Yank 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Display release group pictures
    • +1 (random, rotating set? or chosen based on importance?) Caller_number_six 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Definitely not random or rotating. The ability to vote on artist pictures is okay (think last.fm), but I think RGs and Rs should have stability. Perhaps show the front image of the earliest official release within the release group? --navap 15:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah. I was imagining something more like what allmusic does, including a few covers while moving the discography to it's own tab. Alternately, I like the SoundUnwound condensed discography. Caller_number_six 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
          • AllMusic's approach is interesting. It's very different from how we've always approached our artist page, but it kind of makes sense. Then again, they've got a proper bio as well as influenced/followed relationships that really help to pad out the page. I don't know if we'd have enough content to put on the artist page to rationalize moving the discography to another tab. --navap 18:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • +1 --Billy Yank 03:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Display band members
+1 group timeline anyone? ~ 猫猫~~何? 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 I think a timeline on the overview would start to get too cluttered. Maybe a Current Members/Past Members split like on Generasia. On a person artist this could be In Group/Was In Group. --Billy Yank 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
-1 (If I want to see a wikipedia bio I'd click the link, I go to MB for its unique perspective due to its database-driven design and annotations) --Zexpe 12:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
-1 I could see moving the Wikipedia link to a more prominent position along with the artist's official page, maybe right below the picture. --Billy Yank 03:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Use JS to filter and sort through the release group list
  • Use JS to display the contents of a release group
  • List more/all? relationships on the overview page (use a JS filter for performance credits, display all URLs in sidebar)
+1 Caller_number_six 13:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 ~ 猫猫~~何? 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 (I think this very important to make the link between performance name entries and legal name entries more clear, see MBS-2474) --Zexpe 09:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Display relationships with counts, e.g.
conductor (5 recordings)
violin (3 recordings)
+1 ~ 猫猫~~何? 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Use a JS filter to display VA release groups
  • Make it very obvious and easy to see the JS filtering mechanism (we currently hide our filter by default)
  • At all costs, prevent a blank overview page such as this supporting artist.
    • This is the most important thing here.--Reosarevok 16:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
very much agree with this, especially for artist like mash-ups or things with lots of AR's but no "artist credit" like the linked one ~ 猫猫~~何? 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
--navap 16:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Show a full chronology including all RG types (mix album/EP/single) — possibly still hiding “unimportant” ones (whatever that means) until requested.