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

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Included Brian's comments + updated proposal infobox)
(RFV)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Template:proposal
 
{{Template:proposal
 
|proposal=295
 
|proposal=295
  +
|discussion=http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2010-November/010413.html
|discussion=
 
 
|champion=Jeroen
 
|champion=Jeroen
 
|rfc=2010-11-17
 
|rfc=2010-11-17
|rfv=
+
|rfv=2010-12-17
|status=RFC
+
|status=RFV
 
|ar=
 
|ar=
 
|style=Advanced_Relationship_Style
 
|style=Advanced_Relationship_Style

Revision as of 12:10, 17 December 2010


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



Proposal number: RFC-295
Champion: Jeroen
Current status: RFV
Initial Discussion [2010-11-17 RFC] [2010-12-17 RFV]


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 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

Here is a list of "generic types" and examples of preferred specific types:

Examples