History talk:Don't Make Relationship Clusters

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 19:13, 15 March 2009 by Nikki (talk | contribs) (New page: For relationships, such as SiblingRelationshipType, which are transitive, it would be nifty if the server could treat all the related items as a set, rather t...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

For relationships, such as SiblingRelationshipType, which are transitive, it would be nifty if the server could treat all the related items as a set, rather than exposing the representation of the set as a set of links (the difference being that removing a link potentially breaks the set in half, while removing an item from the set will not). Also, being treated as a set would result in all items in the set being displayed, rather than only the directly linked items. --MRudat

To be honest, I don't really see the problem. The two reasons given for not creating clusters that I see above are

  • 1) If they're wrong, they're more confusing to fix
  • 2) They are "unnecessary moderation work". Regarding #1, this seems more a verification issue than a moderating issue - the goal ought to be preventing incorrect ARs from being added, not preventing correct ARs from being created. There are many other ARs where things are redundant, but we vote not to remove them, because the ARs are still "correct". As long as correct ARs are being formed, I don't see why any are bad. Regarding #2, this seems to make an assumption regarding the priorities of the moderator. No one *has* to create ARs, but if someone chooses to do them, realistically, for any editor, any editing they do is "unnecessary moderation work". We all do it because we like to, not because we're required to. The only reason I can see to not create these is that it creates additional edits to be voted on. However, consider: The above example of the Jackson family creates 36 edits. To take an even more extreme example, the 13 children of Bob Marley create 91 sibling relationships, plus 26 parent relationships, for a total of 117 ARs. This sounds like a lot, until you consider the number of ARs created by a single classical work. Take a standard mixed composer release. Assume 8 tracks, each with a composer, librettist, SATB, orchestra, and backing chorus, plus conductors for the chorus and orchestra. That's 80 ARs for the tracks, plus all the standard ARs for the liner notes, artwork, etc. Essentially, 1 classical CD of ARs is just about equal to the entirety of ARs for the Marleys - and the Marley ARs only need to be done once. Essentially, it all boils down to this question: Why are relationship clusters, if done correctly the first time, a bad thing? -- BrianSchweitzer 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The assumptions on this page are wrong anyway, I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. ;) Sibling relationships for example are not transitive - if you take into account half-siblings, adoption and whatnot. Example 1: Bob has a son Peter from an earlier marriage. Alice has a daughter Mary from an earlier marriage. Bob marries Alice and they have a son Paul. Now Peter and Paul are half-siblings and Paul and Mary are half-siblings. But Peter and Mary are not siblings, not even half ones. Example 2: Peter and Paul are entered as siblings in the database. Bob is entered as the father of Peter, Alice is entered as the mother of Paul. Can you conclude that Alice and Bob are married or in any way related? No - you don't have to marry to have childs, you can divorce, you can adopt children, ... -- Shepard 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we please delete this nonsense page. I have had people thinking this is an official styleguidline and removing valid relationships based on this "official" page, when all this is, is a failed proposal. (maybe it could be strongly marked as failed proposal). I don't know wiki very well, could someone help.

  • -- drsaunde 17:10, 07 December 2008 (UTC)