Difference between revisions of "Advanced Relationship Type Proposal"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
m (16 revision(s))
(6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[Proposals]]
=Proposals of Additions or Changes to Advanced Relationship Types=
[[Image:Attention.png]] '''This page is superseded by [[Proposed Advanced Relationship Type|ProposedAdvancedRelationshipType]].'''
Initially this page was designed to collect all additions and changes that need to be done to the initial set of [[Advanced Relationship Type|AdvancedRelationshipType]]<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s. Unfortunately this page has become an unmaintainable [[Too Long List|TooLongList]] in which things get [[Lost In List|LostInList]]<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s. Additionally, the [[Style Council|StyleCouncil]] really needs a tracker to be able to keep an overview of all [[Open Style Issue|OpenStyleIssue]]<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s and assign them priorities. Lastly, this page has a [[Bad WikiName|BadWikiName]]. The correct one being [[Proposed Advanced Relationship Type|ProposedAdvancedRelationshipType]] (to fit in with [[Proposed Style Guideline|ProposedStyleGuideline]]).
'''Therefore''' this page is slowly going to die. The new page is [[Proposed Advanced Relationship Type|ProposedAdvancedRelationshipType]]. Anyone who has submitted an issue here and is interested in it being implemented should create a (preferably well named) wiki page for this issue and give it the  <code><nowiki>CategoryProposedAdvancedRelationshipType</nowiki></code>. --[[User:DonRedman|DonRedman]]
So this page is a [[Candidate For Deletion|CandidateForDeletion]] and should be deleted once the remaining proposals here are migrated - or removed if outdated - to standalone wiki pages. -- [[User:murdos|murdos]] 12:40, 04 June 2007 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Where are we now? I don't see anything really worth it (or not already implemented) in there (except Wolfsong last suggestion that I may push). So, is this worth History, or rather [[Deleted Page|DeletedPage]]? -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 09:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And here follows the [[Too Long List|TooLongList]]:
[[Relationship Editor|RelationshipEditor]]s are able to change relationship types or add new ones. but for this to happen you will need consensus on first the [[Users Mailing List|UsersMailingList]] and then the [[Style Mailing List|StyleMailingList]], and an [[Advanced Relationship Type|AdvancedRelationshipType]] page that describes the new relationship in all details.
==Inconsistent Link directions==
(by [[User:Dupuy|Dupuy]])  There's some general inconsistency in our link types about the directionality of 1-N relations:
* '''1-N''' X "is the legal name of" Y, Z, A, ...
* '''2-N''' X "is the parent of" Y, Z, A, ...
* '''1-N''' X "is the earliest release of" Y, Z, A, ...
* '' but'' '''N-1''' X (and Y?) "is a remaster of" A ("always point to earliest")
* '''1-N''' X "is the earliest release of" Y, Z, A, ...
* '''1-N''' X "is the earliest version of" Y, Z, A, ...
* ''but'' '''N-1''' X (and Y?) "is a remaster of" A ("always point to earliest")
* '''N-1''' X (and Y?) "is a cover of" A ("always point to earliest")
Whatever we decide to do with the is-person relationship, we need to make these consistent...
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I'm not sure to understand the issue here: the current behavior - as of mid 2007 - seems satisfactory. -- [[User:murdos|murdos]] 12:40, 04 June 2007 (UTC)
==Allow Instrument Attribute for Members of a Band==
Should [[Member Of Band Relationship Type|MemberOfBandRelationshipType]] not have an instrument attribute? --[[User:DonRedman|DonRedman]]
This would introduce some additional complexity in interpreting artist roles: see [[Artist Role Inheritance|ArtistRoleInheritance]] --[[User:MatthewExon|MatthewExon]]
Another thought: the instrument attribute doesn't have "vocals", so this wouldn't work for recording singers.  Maybe the [[Instrument Relationship Attribute|InstrumentRelationshipAttribute]] hierarchy should include the [[Vocal Relationship Attribute|VocalRelationshipAttribute]] hierarchy, and "Performed instrument on" be merged with "Performed vocal on"?  There are other roles for members of a band as well: [http://musicbrainz.org/showrel.html?id=44954&type=artist The Prodigy] has two dancers as "official" members.  IMO these could probably be adequately covered by "other" --[[User:MatthewExon|MatthewExon]]
==Also Known As==
The current Alias property should be repurposed now that AR is ready. Artist who have recorded under multiple names should have a relationship instead. The existing Alias property would still be usefully for misspelled names but there are some artists like Aphex Twin and Wynonna Judd who have recorded under different names and the release should be reflected correctly for those artists. The current "is the legal name/is the performing name" is insufficient since in some cases an artist might perform under two names and neither is their legal name (i.e. Wynonna and Wynonna Judd) --[[User:WolfSong|WolfSong]]
==Rename Legal Name to Birth Name==
I propose renaming this simply because more often than not, finding someone's birth name is more plausible than their legal name since names can be changed and although in the US such information becomes public record, this may not be the case everywhere. This was actually changed from official name to legal name due to discussions over Wendy/Walter Carlos. In this scenario Wendy is probably the legal name and Walter is the birth name. Both names should be listed separately since this person has released recordings under each name. --[[User:WolfSong|WolfSong]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">It might be solved with the [[Linking Different Artist Names|LinkingDifferentArtistNames]] proposal. -- [[User:murdos|murdos]] 10:16, 04 June 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:Candidate for Deletion]] [[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Development]] [[Category:Advanced Relationships]]

Latest revision as of 15:56, 26 May 2015

Redirect to: