Yes, I see the point. But I think that this would grow into a unmaintainable beast. For entry *and* for viewing as well.@MatFluor one issue with V2 currently is that articulations are added to a library itself and not to a specific instrument. Often, not all instruments in the library have same articulations.
If possible, it would make more sense for a library to be a collection of patches. A patch itself can contain multiple articulations, multiple instruments (example: section patches, percussion patches), x number of round robins, x number of dynamic/velocity layers etc.
For example in Berlin Inspire not all instruments have a marcato articulation. Some articulations have 3 dynamic layers, while other have 2. There are different number of round robins etc.
Actually, maybe it would be better to have a collection of articulations instead of patches.
| Art. ID | Art.___| Library | Instruments | Mics | D. Layers | RR | Sample offset |
| 1______ | Legato | Inspire | [Violins]__ | 1___ | 2________ | 1_ | ?____________ |
| 2______ | Sus.__ | Inspire | [Violins]__ | 1___ | 2________ | 1_ | ?____________ |
| 3______ | Spicc. | Inspire | [Violins]__ | 1___ | 3________ | 5_ | ?____________ |
In that mindset - a library is a collection of instruments, where one instrument alone can have tons of variations (different round robins for articulations, different available notes in some as well, CC1 vs Velocity and whatnot). I feel that this kind of extreme details could be added later on, as kind of separate "detail view". If you would add it right there, some libraries would be a solid minutes of scrolling (think Hollywood strings articulation lists).
So I would say - the shotgun approach of "Yeah, there's Bartok in this library" is good for the overview, and details "Contrabasses don't have Bartok, but The others have, but only 2 mic positions and one octave less...." can be retrofitted later as part of an "expansion" of the wiki