for this particular case, I believe two places with a “part of” relationship would be perfectly acceptable. as a hypothetical example, the event Summer Sun Celebration was held at Joe Brady Memorial Stadium, which is part of Yates University.
I think so, I could already see stadium, indoor arena, and park fitting under “venue”, as well as many of the proposed types.
perhaps a Venue is a place where music is typically heard live and a studio is where music is typically made but not heard live? there would be some odd outliers like religious building, TV studio, and pressing plant, as many but not all religious places will have live music and a pressing plant doesn’t feel like a studio to me… and of course the vague Complex, which could maybe include studios and venues?
I expect arenas and stadiums often have very different sizes and sound profiles, but I wouldn’t be against just having something named for sports that includes them and racetrack if people think that’s better.
Why is the location of the Venue “Joe Brady Memorial Stadium” not sufficient?
Why do we need to document that it is part of Yates University?
Why does the linkage matter?
Using linkage has the potential to become a complicated data model on its own.
I have experienced this in creating data for the location of IT equipment for Service Management applications. Fort example
University A->Campus 1->Building B->Floor C->Room D->Desk or Wall etc.
I think this should be avoided.
As do many other different rooms.
I think we should keep this as simple as possible and avoid them completely. Use venue.
We don’t, actively - but if we already have Yates University because (for example) we indicate an artist studied or taught music there, it makes a lot of sense to also link the two to make navigation easier.
It is not compulsory, but can be useful to have some links to a parent.
For example: https://musicbrainz.org/place/8efb8969-d1b0-4b90-af37-dbffe4981c2e There are six studios. Sometimes we know which studio something was performed in, so it is named. If all we know is “Maida Vale” then we just link to the top level until better details arrive.
As there is also a link to “Owner”, it is possible to easily trace all the other studios in use by the BBC.
Having the ability to drill down like this means you can link to the level of detail you have to hand, or just ignore it.
Knowing if something was performed in University Sports Hall, Bar or in a field on campus is relevant to those who were there.
It’s useful for queries like “How many places at Yates University have been used for concerts?” The query is simpler/faster with linkages rather than having to do a full-text search on descriptions.
P.S. This is an interesting question to me. For a university near me, the answer is “well over a dozen”, some of which have since been torn down. I’ve been to shows in probably about six or so of them, all of which featured touring bands/artists.
having parts of areas would also be handy for people looking for an event, but they weren’t sure the name of the stage or whatnot. they could just look up say, Central Park and find events attached both to the park and to the various venues within. perhaps eventually there could be smarter search functionality to help with this too.
that’s not to say we couldn’t make disambiguations work, it’s just that the part of relationship works much better today
another example would be a case where the exact location of an event isn’t known, for example this concert was listed on Five Iron Frenzy’s show history with only the university listed. since we allow for educational institutions and places which are part of other places, this makes it super easy to change the concert once a more exact location is found.
Boy, do I wish we had this in the web interface right now. Also, (this is in my to do list to make, probably/maybe as a 3rd-party site), searching for upcoming events “in my city/town/neighborhood” in the next week/month.
But it’s currently pretty easy from the SQL/database perspective.
you know, now that I’ve been working on conventions (and the concerts at them), I feel like we need complex, and that could cover hotels, convention centers, casinos, and resorts… it feels like there’s often a lot of overlap between the latter types, and that could keep it simpler for editors
I do still think the rest of the types are probably needed too, especially festival stage and the other venue subtypes
I added Festival stage, Club, Amphitheatre and Concert hall / Theatre under Venue for now. Since they are just more specific subsets of venue, it does not seem to hurt to have them - if someone isn’t sure what to use, venue is still correct.
I’m confused about “complex” - is it a common word in the US? The definitions I can find suggests it is for sets of buildings, but for example most hotels I know in Europe are just one building, not a set of buildings.
As a native U.S. English speaker, I wouldn’t know which places this word should apply to either. Many hotels, convention centers, and casinos in the U.S. are single buildings as well (resorts maybe less so).
I suppose it does typically refer to a group of buildings, but I feel like I have seen it used for single physical buildings with multiple things inside or a group of non-building things, such as an entertainment complex (with a bowling alley, laser tag, and arcade) or maybe a swimming complex
all that to say, I haven’t seen it super commonly used, but I have seen it
I don’t think it should cover all hotels. But I could see how it might be appropriate for a larger hotel.
Searching musicbrainz for places named complex give some interesting examples. Such as the Carnegie Institute Complex that I added a while back.
It also includes a number of places that have “Complex” in the name, but probably don’t fit our description of “complex”.
In any case, I don’t really know what the use case is for the “complex” place type (or much of the subclassing of place-types being discussed here), and I suspect that even if it was explained to me, I’d just respond/think “oh, okay. I don’t think I have any use for that”, but also, I don’t see any harm in it.
I do wonder, though, what should/would be the specific qualifications to be categorized as a “complex”. Would any nightclub with two or more rooms that can host simultaneous events qualify as a “complex”? Do people (MB editors/users) who care about this care about it being well defined?
That’s what I was thinking. Having “hotel” or “casino” at least is relatively straightforward, but “complex” seems… eh… complex? I understand from the ticket that the main idea is to have a type for “container” places when several places are in one building or set of buildings, especially in case you don’t get the info about which of those places specifically held an event or whatnot. That kinda-sorta makes sense, but then it does not replace convention center, hotel, etc
I think my main thought was “oh yeah, casinos, convention centers, and resorts also have hotels, so it makes sense to group them”… however, thinking about it again, that likely won’t always be the case, in fact I can already think of an example for resort and casino… I guess I might have made complex more complex than it needs to be
