Difference between revisions of "History:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork Proposal"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
(Link to SubOptimalCredits + categorising. (Imported from MoinMoin))
m (CallerNo6 moved page Proposal:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork to History:Miscellaneous Production Relationship Type/Artwork Proposal: https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/3675767/)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{proposal|ar=true}}
 
==Cover art-related Relationships proposal==
 
==Cover art-related Relationships proposal==
  
I propose a few enhancements to the general "covert art" category; the current three relationships are (in my experience) not very pliable to what's actually on many covers (i.e., on the covers I've seen).  
+
I propose a few enhancements to the general "cover art" category; the current three relationships are (in my experience) not very pliable to what's actually on many covers (i.e., on the covers I've seen).  
  
 
First, I suggest to group all such roles under a general "artwork" category. (Or class, I don't know which is the preferred term.)  
 
First, I suggest to group all such roles under a general "artwork" category. (Or class, I don't know which is the preferred term.)  
Line 25: Line 26:
 
** '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided photography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
 
** '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided photography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
 
** '''release''' or '''track''' ''has photography by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''  
 
** '''release''' or '''track''' ''has photography by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''  
 +
** '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided front cover painting for'' '''release''' or '''track'''
 +
** '''release''' or '''track''' ''has front cover painting by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''
 +
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I've actually seen this on a release [[release:36cbbb31-c6eb-4452-b072-d495f4faa309|wiki:release:36cbbb31-c6eb-4452-b072-d495f4faa309]]; other similar albums (where the same artist created painted artwork from the cover) had only "cover art by". I don't see any harm adding "painting" -- it's the same with photography and illustration -- but if we multiply this for any back/front cover, booklet, etc., this could become huge. See the "Domains" proposal below.
 +
</ul>
  
 
* '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided typography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
 
* '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided typography for'' '''release''' or '''track'''  
 
* '''release''' or '''track''' ''has typography by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''  
 
* '''release''' or '''track''' ''has typography by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''  
 
+
* '''artist''' or '''URL''' ''provided cover/artwork concept for'' '''release''' or '''track'''
==Discussion==
+
* '''release''' or '''track''' ''has cover/artwork concept by'' '''artist''' or '''URL'''
 
+
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I don't know if it's worth it to differentiate these two, but I'm wary of another "art design/illustration" problem, so it may be a good idea to separate them.  
If you're not certain about adding something to the list above, or you need to discuss anything else about this proposal, discuss the item in this section.
+
</ul>
 
 
====Recording unfulfilling ARs====
 
 
 
While you wait on the above to be added, please feel free to use [[User:FrederikSOlesen/SubOptimalCredits|FrederikSOlesen/SubOptimalCredits]] to records ARs that aren't able to be fulfilled with current list. -- [[User:FrederikSOlesen|FrederikSOlesen]] 09:56, 02 May 2007 (UTC)
 
 
 
====Breaking the current "art design/illustration" relationship====
 
 
 
I recommend breaking this relationship in two, as the two are not very closely-related (they're even in different subtrees of the hierarchy above) and this seems confusing. The only problem is what to do with the ARs that already use this relationship. I see only a few possibilities, but they don't seem very satisfactory, so maybe someone can suggest something better:
 
* Just delete them. Of course, that looses data.
 
* (1) Add the new relationships, and leave the old one in a "deprecated" state where it can't be added to new releases. (2) Then auto-add an edit note to all edits that added such relationships, asking the moderator to re-do the edit with the new AR types. (3 - optional) After a while, send a note to subscribers of the artists that still have such ARs asking them to change them. (4) Make a list of still-existing ARs, if there are not lots maybe we can do a "clean-up week" where volunteers can clean up some more. (5) Finally, drop whatever's left :(
 
* The "lazy" version: just leave the old version together with the new ones. (And maybe "deprecate" it, so it's not used anymore.)
 
 
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Proposed Advanced Relationship Type]]
 

Latest revision as of 21:48, 28 August 2016


Status: This page describes an active advanced relationship proposal and is not official.



Proposal number: RFC-Unassigned
Champion: None
Current status: Unknown



Cover art-related Relationships proposal

I propose a few enhancements to the general "cover art" category; the current three relationships are (in my experience) not very pliable to what's actually on many covers (i.e., on the covers I've seen).

First, I suggest to group all such roles under a general "artwork" category. (Or class, I don't know which is the preferred term.)

Below is a list of roles that should be in the category. The list contains the previously existing relationships (I assume they were added for good reasons), and a few more that I encountered on covers. Anyone who has encountered others should add them here. The list is hierarchical, I believe that's possible, right?

  • artist or URL provided art direction on release or track
  • release or track has art direction by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided design for release or track
  • release or track has design by artist or URL (this is broken from "art design / illustration", I don't see why they should be together.)
    • artist or URL provided graphic design on release or track
    • release or track has graphic design by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided executive design on release or track
    • release or track has executive design by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided layout for release or track
    • release or track has layout by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided artwork for release or track
  • release or track has artwork by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided cover art for release or track
    • release or track has cover art by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided illustration for release or track
    • release or track has illustration by artist or URL (this is broken from "art design / illustration", I don't see why they should be together.)
    • artist or URL provided photography for release or track
    • release or track has photography by artist or URL
    • artist or URL provided front cover painting for release or track
    • release or track has front cover painting by artist or URL
  • I've actually seen this on a release wiki:release:36cbbb31-c6eb-4452-b072-d495f4faa309; other similar albums (where the same artist created painted artwork from the cover) had only "cover art by". I don't see any harm adding "painting" -- it's the same with photography and illustration -- but if we multiply this for any back/front cover, booklet, etc., this could become huge. See the "Domains" proposal below.
  • artist or URL provided typography for release or track
  • release or track has typography by artist or URL
  • artist or URL provided cover/artwork concept for release or track
  • release or track has cover/artwork concept by artist or URL
  • I don't know if it's worth it to differentiate these two, but I'm wary of another "art design/illustration" problem, so it may be a good idea to separate them.