In 2018, the owner moved out of Montreal to live in Saint-Hippolyte, Quebec, a little over an hour north outside the city in the Laurentian Mountains.
Knowing that the studio had a new address, I submitted a correction, changing the address, area and coordinates to the new ones.
It then occurred to me that releases that have relationships linked to mastering, recording or mixing studios appear like this:
“mastered at: Trillium Sound Mastering in La Petite-Patrie, Montreal (city), Quebec, Canada” (as is the case for Agnus Dei).
So changing the location information for this particular studio, since it changed cities, would cause inaccurate information to appear on all existing pre-2018 release relationships.
Is it better to create a second studio entry and use the “Relocated to” relationship to link both studios? So that all pre-2018 credits are linked to the Montreal location and all 2018-present ones are linked to the Saint-Hippolyte location? Saint-Hippolyte is not a suburb of Montreal; those living here would know that it’s far enough to create confusion.
I think the answer is “Yes.” I would put an end date on the old location, and a start date on the new one as well:
“If a place relocates, a new place should be created, even if the name and owner are the same. If the same name was used before and after the move, add a disambiguation to both, to ensure the two can be distinguished.”
Yes, if there is a physical change of location, than a new place should be added with disambiguation for the old location and new location about when it was located there. This is not uncommon and there are many examples of this already on MB.
I think, likewise, when a place gets renamed, it usually means there is a change in who is running it, but even if it is just a name change, should it also be a new entity?
Maybe yes?
Oh well sorry, it was a dumb question, we should not create new entity:
The place name should be the current name of the place. If the place no longer exists, use the last name it had before closing. All of the names for the place can and should be entered as aliases, with begin and end dates for the period they were in use if available (this includes the current name, especially if the place has had more than one).
Note that you can change how a place is credited on a relationship. Do not add an old name for a place as a separate place entry, except for one of the reasons in the “Same vs. different place” section above.
I found the style guide you published to be unclear until I read the description of a place Place - MusicBrainz
It would help if there was a link to it in the section you linked to
I was going to respond with “let’s see” and just go ahead and try to edit it and see what happens, but I’ll go with laziness/politeness instead, and not touch it.
I see it’s using the same Wiki software as Wikipedia. If my experience with Wikipedia is any guide, I’d say it appears to me that there’s no technical measures preventing any random person with an account from editing that page.
Whether there’s a policy about who should/shouldn’t edit that page is a whole other question.
Another note (okay, two) about technical measures:
With a wiki, it’s extremely easy for someone to revert an edit if they don’t like it.
The process by which pages are copied (“transcluded”) from https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Place to https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Place is not something that any random person can control.
