Talk:Cataloguer Relationship Type

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 01:36, 10 December 2009 by BrianSchweitzer (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

The AR went live on Dec 9. 2009.

Discussion below is from the proposal stage

Fixed typo in "catalogue" in some cases. Note also that "catalogue" is a UK spelling while "catalog" is a US spelling, but both are common. Google has just over a million hits for "cataloguer" and just under a million for "cataloger". I live in Canada and learned to write English well in the UK, so of course I'm comfortable with the UK spelling. —JimDeLaHunt 2008-02-09

  • Yes, I wondered which spelling to use, but I double-checked my dictionaries, and the -ue version appeared in all, while the non-ue didn't always appear — the British spelling seemed a slight bit more predominant, at least off-line. -- BrianSchweitzer 09:13, 09 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I made an appropriate change to the text above. —JimDeLaHunt 2008-02-09

What about the date fields? The proposal should be explicit on how to handle the fields, since the UI always shows them. I was going to propose adding "Begin date, End date: Dates do not apply to this relationship. Leave them empty." But it occurs to me that it might be valid to record when the cataloguer did their thing. —JimDeLaHunt 2008-02-09

  • I think date ranges definitely can/would apply - pretty much always, actually, given that the work involved in creating or revising a works catalogue is often a life's scholarship, not a weekend quickie. Zaslaw's revision, for example, was originally to have been published in 2000, for example. They're also normally definable; in the Kochel cases, each one has been a specific request by the same music publisher to an individual/group of individuals to create/revise the catalog, and the end date is definable by the publication date of the resulting catalogue. -- BrianSchweitzer 09:13, 09 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I made an appropriate change to the text above. —JimDeLaHunt 2008-02-09

I would really encourage you to change class. Fact is that class is a misnomer in the first place and should better be renamed to something else. As you chose it here for its name, that's pretty much a mis-pick... -- dmppanda 08:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)