The ideal process to get such a change done is:
- propose the change on the UsersMailingList
- If you get some positive feedback,
- For an existing type add the proposal to the discussion section of the existing relationship type page.
- For a new type write a full proposal on a page named like this SomethingRelationshipType.
- Propose the change to the StyleMailingList. If you get consensus there, the change will be implemented.
- AlexanderDupuy (dupuy)
- DaveEvans (djce)
- DonRedman (donredman)
- LukasLalinsky (lukz)
- mo (mo)
- RobertKaye (rob)
- WolfSong (wolfsong)
Perhaps the term RelationshipTypeEditor (although there are also relationship attributes) might be better than this one? Or LinkTypeEditor? Currently, "link editor" is probably the most common usage, although the site actually says "link moderator".
- "Link" is BadTerminology. But, 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 impliment such changes, perhaps "RelationshipEditImplementor" would be more correct? -- BrianSchweitzer 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)