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

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (→‎Prefer Specific Relationship Types: Change header of generic types list)
m (CallerNo6 moved page Proposal:Prefer Specific Relationship Types to History:Prefer Specific Relationship Types Proposal: https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/3675767/)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
This proposal has now passed, see [[Advanced Relationship Style]], however, two lines depend on other changes, those have been left here until the relevant changes happen.
{{Template:proposal
 
|proposal=
 
|discussion=
 
|champion=Jeroen
 
|rfc=
 
|rfv=
 
|status=
 
|ar=
 
|style=
 
|trac=
 
}}
 
   
  +
==RFC-251==
This proposal adds the following section to [[Advanced_Relationship_Style|Advanced Relationship Style]].
 
  +
When [[Talk:Proposals#RFC-251:_Change_how_we_handle_Engineers_and_their_roles|RFC-251]] is implemented, change:
  +
* [[Engineer_Relationship_Type|Engineer]]: prefer [[Audio_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Audio Engineer]], [[Editor_Relationship_Type|Editor]], [[Mastering_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Mastering Engineer]], [[Mix_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Mix Engineer]], [[Recording_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Recording Engineer]], [[Sound_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Sound Engineer]] and/or [[Programmer_Relationship_Type|Programmer]]. If the Engineer type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer type should be used, and '''not''' one of the more specific Engineer types.
   
  +
to
==Prefer Specific Relationship Types==
 
   
  +
* [[Engineer_Relationship_Type|Engineer]]: prefer selecting the correct information from the Engineer tree.
You should make a best effort to make the relationship type as specific as possible. This means that you should avoid any of the generic types, if:
 
 
* [[Engineer_Position_Relationship_Type|Engineer Position]]: prefer selecting the correct information from the Engineer tree.
* 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 - 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.
 
   
The following relationship types are considered 'generic types':
 
* [[Arranger_Relationship_Type|Arranger]]
 
* [[Engineer_Relationship_Type|Engineer]]
 
* [[Engineer_Position_Relationship_Type|Engineer Position]]
 
* [[Performer_Relationship_Type|Performer]]
 
* [[Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type|Writer]] (proposed)
 
   
  +
Examples (todo):
 
 
and on [[Engineer_Relationship_Type]], change:
* (example liner): liner explains Engineer role
 
  +
* In many cases, the [[Audio_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Audio Engineer]], [[Editor_Relationship_Type|Editor]], [[Mastering_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Mastering Engineer]], [[Mix_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Mix Engineer]], [[Recording_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Recording Engineer]], [[Sound_Engineer_Relationship_Type|Sound Engineer]] and/or [[Programmer_Relationship_Type|Programmer]] relationship types should be used instead. If the Engineer relationship type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer relationship type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer relationship types. For details, see the [[Advanced_Relationship_Style#Prefer_Specific_Relationship_Types|Prefer Specific Relationship Types]] guideline.
* (deduce): writer on instrumental track
 
  +
* (unclear): controversial writer
 
  +
to
  +
  +
* Be as specific as possible and specify the type of engineering that was performed, but only if you have a source or if you can deduce this information. For details, see the [[Advanced_Relationship_Style#Prefer_Specific_Relationship_Types|Prefer Specific Relationship Types]] guideline.
  +
  +
  +
  +
and to [[Engineer_Position_Relationship_Type]], add:
  +
  +
* Be as specific as possible and specify the type of engineering position that was held, but only if you have a source or if you can deduce this information. For details, see the [[Advanced_Relationship_Style#Prefer_Specific_Relationship_Types|Prefer Specific Relationship Types]] guideline.

Latest revision as of 20:33, 28 August 2016

This proposal has now passed, see Advanced Relationship Style, however, two lines depend on other changes, those have been left here until the relevant changes happen.

RFC-251

When RFC-251 is implemented, change:

to

  • Engineer: prefer selecting the correct information from the Engineer tree.
  • Engineer Position: prefer selecting the correct information from the Engineer tree.



and on Engineer_Relationship_Type, change:

to

  • Be as specific as possible and specify the type of engineering that was performed, but only if you have a source or if you can deduce this information. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline.


and to Engineer_Position_Relationship_Type, add:

  • Be as specific as possible and specify the type of engineering position that was held, but only if you have a source or if you can deduce this information. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline.