you can do both of these using the setlist feature, see this event for example. (I feel like setlists do need a bit of work to make them easier to use, especially a preview button, but that might be outside the scope of this discussion…)
3 Likes
The only option I could think of is having some sort of checkbox for events that says “this event finishes after midnight”, so that if that is checked, the computer knows to read 00:30 as the next day.
Of course, I’m sure there’s going to be that one show which starts at 00:30 the same day and goes on until after midnight though.
3 Likes
Or we could have the relationships ordered, like the medley (among others) relationships.
3 Likes
The sort logic seems to be the artist’s sort name.
1 Like
Ah right, that’s clever, somehow I hadn’t thought of that option.
Don’t forget also to subtract 12 from anything that says “12:xx AM”, to get “00:xx hours”. And maybe to add the special case that if 12:xx AM is the end of a time range, maybe express it as “24:xx hours”.
It’s never more than 24:00, it’s then 00:xx.
24:00 is not often used, 24:00 and 00:00 are the same moment but when we want to express end of day or start of tomorrow, respectively.
2024-03-14 24:00 is 2024-03-15 00:00.
3 Likes
As you can’t have more than 24 hours in a day you return to 00:00 after 23:59…
1 Like
As of ISO 8601-1:2019/Amd 1:2022, “00:00:00” may be used to refer to midnight corresponding to the instant at the beginning of a calendar day; and “24:00:00” to refer to midnight corresponding to the instant at the end of a calendar day.
But not 24:xx.
I added MBS-13513 now for a checkbox of some sort to indicate the event finishes after midnight.
I added a line to the “multi-day events” section of the guidelines, for clarity just in case, as per @Relaxo5’s suggestion:
An event should not be created to represent a whole tour or all editions of a festival; for these things, use a Series.
And I updated my draft with the presentation suggestions by @aerozol.
Do I understand correctly that we’re reasonably happy with how things are looking right now, or are some big issues I’m missing?
4 Likes
Looks like a huge improvement!
The only thing I still feel weird about is the tour guideline and example (“[tour name]: [city]”). In the real world you pretty much always have the main artist at the start of the event name. Even for massive artists like Taylor Swift you are going to have “Taylor Swift: reputation Stadium Tour” on all the posters, event listings, everything. I know we have a field for it, but leaving it out of the name feels weird to me (except for festivals and similar).
2 Likes
This two points are still open for me. Can we have something about it in the Guidelines or is it over the head?
Also the held at Place relationship for festivals is not totally clear for me.
- Main Event → held at →
- [MainEventTitle] festival Grounds or
- The mot accurate area available
- Day Sub Event → held at →
- Same as Main Event or
- no held at, because the information is already in Main Event or
- [XXX Stage] which is part of main Event Place, if there are no Stage sub events, but a named stage
- Stage Sub Event → held at →
- [XXX Stage] which is part of main Event Place
- no held at, if no “stage place” is available yet and editor is not willing to enter one
2 Likes
That should go at the series only, but that is not an event-only thing: that’s part of the generic URL relationships “The URL should be linked to the most appropriate entity” concept. We could add an example there though 
The series URLs are shown for every event in the series, so the data is still available.
I closed that ticket since that is the “held at” relationship Yes, it should have it. In fact, I just noticed our relationship guidelines say if the series has it, we should not add it to the events. I can see why I added that two years ago, but I’m not sure I still agree with that, because while it is redundant to some degree it makes using events more complicated. Maybe we should remove that section and just let people enter the place at both the festival/run series and each event in it. Edit: I misread that.
For the first, it seems like both options would be acceptable. If there’s a persistent festival ground I’d probably add it as a place, if not I’d probably just go with the area myself.
For the second, I’d just add the same as the main entry, unless all events on a specific day happen in a more specific place than the main entry place (for example, some festivals might have a smaller first day with only one stage).
For the third, yes, entering the stage as a place seems sensible, at least if it’s a named, consistent place (for one-off festivals without stage names it can be more problematic).
1 Like
I mean, we also duplicate place/area data on festival sub-events, so I agree that we should have this data on all levels (tho of course not having an equivalent place and area on the same level)
2 Likes
Oooh, I re-read the text, and I just realized this is all about linking recordings to events and event series (so basically, “if you’re linking a recording just to a festival series because that’s all you know, you don’t need to duplicate the place on the recording because the festival series covers it”. That I think is less problematic so I think I won’t touch it, except it’s not super clear so maybe it should be edited for clarity later But let’s not worry about it yet I guess.
Added a festival example to the URL relationships.
Any further issues with this or should we move to make it official?
1 Like
It all looks good, except I still think the example: “Tour Name: City”
Should be: “Main Artist(s): Tour Name: City”
I don’t see a scenario where the main artist(s) isn’t the most important piece of information for a tour event. And I can’t quite extract a rationale from the guidelines for including main artists in the other event title formats, except that one.
3 Likes
I’m ok with this, but I’ve seen a fair amount of cases not entered like that. The ones in the example were entered (and brought up) by @sammyrayy, so pinging: do you have any issues with the suggestion to include the artist name?
Isn’t adding the main artist into the title unwanted redundancy? Main artist(s) have a separate “main performer” relationship vs. “support act”.
3 Likes