Hi Brian, On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding "It also adds a reference to this section to each of the > relationship types mentioned below.", is this really needed? *Every* AR is > subject to Advanced Relationship Style, so adding a link to ARStyle on each > of those ARs' pages seems superfluous. > I added this because it only applies to a handful of relationship types, and otherwise I expect most editors will not notice this guideline. > In both the guidelines and the examples, the text seems to make it a > requirement that editors should proactively try to decompose "fuzzy" AR > credits in a liner. Ie, "You can easily deduce which of the subtypes > apply.", "you should do a quick search for sources that provide more > specific information.", "Instead of a Writer relationship, Imogen is > credited using a Composer relationship.", etc. I think this is too strong. > None of these "fuzzier" ARs is wrong, if the liner only gives that info. > Yes, the argument is that there are various cases where 3rd party sources > and/or logic lead perhaps to less fuzziness in the AR. However, I think it > should be left to the editor to decide if he/she feels comfortable making > that leap. If the credit is "writer" on the liner, then imho, there's > nothing wrong with using the "writer" AR, and there should be no requirement > for the editor to research and/or guess as to the 'less-fuzzy' AR. > I added this to stimulate editors to add more specific link types, where possible. Personally, I don't have a problem with adding Writer ARs when that's the information you have available - the data is correct, and other editors can check whether the AR is deliberately general by checking the annotation - but I wanted to sufficiently address the concern that editors would only add the supertype. Your position is clear, but I'd like to hear from some of the people who were expressing this concern. Would it be acceptable not to ask editors to do a search, given the proposed guideline? The sentence on deducing subtypes should probably stay, unless you feel editors should not convert Writer to Composer for instrumental tracks. Last, under "Generic Types", I think there should also be identification of > the ARs which are the "less fuzzy" version for each of those generic types. > Ie, "Arranger" -> "Instrumentator", "Orchestrator", and so on. > Added: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Prefer_Specific_Relationship_Types Do you have a suggestion on how to do deal with Engineer and Engineering Position, given the RFC that is pending implementation? Regards, Jeroen
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
