History:Prefer Specific Relationship Types Proposal

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 15:30, 16 November 2010 by Jeroen (talk | contribs) (Initial draft for proposal)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

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.

Prefer Specific Relationship Types

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:

  • 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.

This guideline applies to the following generic types:

Examples (todo):

  • (example liner): liner explains Engineer role
  • (deduce): writer on instrumental track
  • (unclear): controversial writer