Difference between revisions of "History:Prefer Specific Relationship Types Proposal"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Added examples, refined guideline, added headings)
(Add proposal to add link)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
}}
 
}}
   
This proposal adds the following section to [[Advanced_Relationship_Style|Advanced Relationship Style]].
+
This proposal adds the following section to [[Advanced_Relationship_Style|Advanced Relationship Style]]. It also adds a reference to this section to each of the relationship types mentioned below.
   
 
==Prefer Specific Relationship Types==
 
==Prefer Specific Relationship Types==

Revision as of 18:08, 17 November 2010


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



Proposal number: RFC-Unassigned
Champion: Jeroen
Current status: Unknown



This proposal adds the following section to Advanced Relationship Style. It also adds a reference to this section to each of the relationship types mentioned below.

Prefer Specific Relationship Types

You should make an effort to make the relationship type as specific as possible. This means that you should avoid any of the generic types, if:

  • The liner or another source specifies which of the subtypes apply, or
  • You can easily deduce which of the subtypes apply.

In these cases you should use the specific relationship types, and omit a relationship of the generic type. If the liner provides no information on which of the subtypes apply, you should do a quick search for sources that provide more specific information.

If you feel the generic type is more appropriate - for example, if the evidence provides conflicting information, or if no specific information is available - then add your reasons and supporting information to the edit note and an annotation. This will help voters confirm your analysis and will make sure other editors are aware of the background when doing later edits.

Generic Types

The following relationship types are considered 'generic types':

Examples