Difference between revisions of "Relationship Editor"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
((Imported from MoinMoin))
(response to Brian's comment + deletion of obsolete parts of my comments (Imported from MoinMoin))
Line 25: Line 25:
 
==Discussion==
 
==Discussion==
  
Perhaps the term [[Relationship Type Editor|RelationshipTypeEditor]] (although there are also relationship ''attributes'') might be better than this one? Or [[Link Type Editor|LinkTypeEditor]]?  Currently, "link editor" is probably the most common usage, although the site actually says "link moderator".  
+
Perhaps the term [[Relationship Type Editor|RelationshipTypeEditor]] (although there are also relationship ''attributes'') might be better than this one? [[User:Dupuy|@alex]]
 +
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Yes you are right, [[Relationship Type Editor|RelationshipTypeEditor]] would be more correct. If you want to fix this, go ahead. I for myself think that RelationshipEditor is ok enough. --[[User:DonRedman|DonRedman]]
 +
</ul>
  
[[User:Dupuy|@alex]]  
+
"Editor" would tend to imply that the RelationshipEditor<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s are the proposers of change, in the way we use the term "Editor" elsewhere.  Based on the above description, where the general population proposes changes/additions, and the RelationshipEditor<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s then eventually become the ones to implement such changes, perhaps "[[Relationship Edit Implementor|RelationshipEditImplementor]]" would be more correct? -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">"Link" is [[Bad Terminology|BadTerminology]]. But, yes you are right, [[Relationship Type Editor|RelationshipTypeEditor]] would be more correct. If you want to fix this, go ahead. I for myself think that RelationshipEditor is ok enough. --[[User:DonRedman|DonRedman]]  
+
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Well, as these are a subset (or subclass) of Editors, and by analogy with [[Auto-Editor|AutoEditor]]<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s (and the more recent [[Transclusion Editor|TransclusionEditor]]<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s), I now feel the term is fine as it is. [[User:Dupuy|@alex]]  
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
"Editor" would tend to imply that the [[Relationship Editors|RelationshipEditors]] are the proposers of change, in the way we use the term "Editor" elsewhere.  Based on the above description, where the general population proposes changes/additions, and the [[Relationship Editors|RelationshipEditors]] then eventually become the ones to impliment such changes, perhaps "[[Relationship Edit Implementor|RelationshipEditImplementor]]" would be more correct? -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 
  
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Terminology]] [[Category:Advanced Relationships]]
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]] [[Category:Terminology]] [[Category:Advanced Relationships]]

Revision as of 19:32, 24 August 2007

Relationship Editors

RelationshipEditors are users of MusicBrainz who have the permission to change AdvancedRelationshipTypes and AdvancedRelationshipAttributes and to add new ones.

The ideal process to get such a change done is:

  1. propose the change on the UsersMailingList
  2. If you get some positive feedback,
    1. For an existing type add the proposal to the discussion section of the existing relationship type page.
    2. For a new type write a full proposal on a page named like this SomethingRelationshipType.
  1. Propose the change to the StyleMailingList. If you get consensus there, the change will be implemented.

Current RelationshipEditors are:



Discussion

Perhaps the term RelationshipTypeEditor (although there are also relationship attributes) might be better than this one? @alex

  • Yes you are right, RelationshipTypeEditor would be more correct. If you want to fix this, go ahead. I for myself think that RelationshipEditor is ok enough. --DonRedman

"Editor" would tend to imply that the RelationshipEditors are the proposers of change, in the way we use the term "Editor" elsewhere. Based on the above description, where the general population proposes changes/additions, and the RelationshipEditors then eventually become the ones to implement such changes, perhaps "RelationshipEditImplementor" would be more correct? -- BrianSchweitzer 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, as these are a subset (or subclass) of Editors, and by analogy with AutoEditors (and the more recent TransclusionEditors), I now feel the term is fine as it is. @alex