Advanced Relationship Type Proposal

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 08:08, 1 March 2010 by BrianSchweitzer (talk | contribs) (CforD, taking away other categories. This page is dead. Moving the three semi-alive ideas over to the talk page at Proposals)


Proposals of Additions or Changes to Advanced Relationship Types

Attention.png This page is superseded by ProposedAdvancedRelationshipType.

Initially this page was designed to collect all additions and changes that need to be done to the initial set of AdvancedRelationshipTypes. Unfortunately this page has become an unmaintainable TooLongList in which things get LostInLists. Additionally, the StyleCouncil really needs a tracker to be able to keep an overview of all OpenStyleIssues and assign them priorities. Lastly, this page has a BadWikiName. The correct one being ProposedAdvancedRelationshipType (to fit in with ProposedStyleGuideline).

Therefore this page is slowly going to die. The new page is 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 CategoryProposedAdvancedRelationshipType. --DonRedman

So this page is a CandidateForDeletion and should be deleted once the remaining proposals here are migrated - or removed if outdated - to standalone wiki pages. -- murdos 12:40, 04 June 2007 (UTC)

  • 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 DeletedPage? -- dmppanda 09:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And here follows the TooLongList:

RelationshipEditors are able to change relationship types or add new ones. but for this to happen you will need consensus on first the UsersMailingList and then the StyleMailingList, and an AdvancedRelationshipType page that describes the new relationship in all details.

Inconsistent Link directions

(by 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...

  • I'm not sure to understand the issue here: the current behavior - as of mid 2007 - seems satisfactory. -- murdos 12:40, 04 June 2007 (UTC)