well why not remove all instruments that are currently not used- orphaned instruments? than set up a way to add instruments to be used in relationships. the database will build itself as they are needed. and in a perfect world should be quick and not stop the progress of entering the relationship into MB. in the end it could be voted like any other mod.
-Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>ok. your counter point is totally understandable to me now. > > > No, it is not (see next paragraph) > > >>i still don't believe that UI related issues are a good >>enough reason to >>exclude instruments. > > > [applause] ;) > > I can't believe how you try to sabotage a valid addition to the instruments > list. It's not so long ago, but I'd like to quote the occasions how long it > took to add a "DJ-mix" relationship, or the What exactly defines a remix, > because some people did not/or did not care to understand the need, and the > concepts behind it. It won't make the list less useable that it is currently > (with or without JS, does not matter) if we add a valid instrument someone > performs. The realm of instruments which are not added could be big, but > there are also some instruments in there that I'll probably never use to > enter an AR, so why should they stay in the list, while we're at it? Just > because they were on Wikipedia or wherever this list comes from is not a > valid reason to keep them. > > Sidenote IRT Javascript: Turn off javascript how much you like, but never > *again* complain about JS and general website usability in a mailing list > discussion, we try to be constructive here, and nobody else keeps > complaining about these things but you. If you want to improve on useability > with JS turned off, or general website useability, enter feature requests on > trac, and we see what we can do. > > g0llum > > > _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
