Hurray! Basing it off the Writer wording, what about:
- Arranger: Where applicable, the instrumentator and/or orchestrator types should be used instead of the arranger type. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline. - Engineer: In many cases, the Audio Engineer, Editor, Mastering Engineer, Mix Engineer, Recording Engineer, Sound Engineer and/or Programmer types should be used. If the Engineer type is either Balance Engineer or Tonmeister, the generic Engineer type should be used, and not one of the more specific Engineer types. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline. - Performer: Select as specific instruments or vocal types as possible, but only if you have a source or if you can deduce the instrument or vocal type. For details, see the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline. Regards, Jeroen On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Nikki <aei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since 48 hours have passed without a veto, this has passed. > I'll update the Advanced Relationship Style wiki page, but I'm not sure > what text you wanted to be added to the other relationship pages. > > Nikki > > Jeroen Latour wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > As all the active participants in the discussions have indicated they > > are happy with the current state of the proposal, I am putting it > > forward for RFV. > > > > The proposal would add guidelines to the Advanced Relationship Style > > page on when to use the generic types of relationship, and when it's > > more appropriate to use a more specific type of relationship. > > The guidelines build on two principles: > > > > 1. Comply or explain. The editor should use the specific relationship > > types, or otherwise explain his or her reasons in the edit note > > and an annotation. > > 2. Trust editor judgement. The guideline does not force the editor to > > use the more specific types. Instead, it says the editor should > > attempt to deduce, but to stay on the safe side. > > > > These guidelines were first discussed in relation to the Writer AR RFC > > (which I will push to RFV4 in the coming days, barring any veto on > > this), but apply to similar AR types, including Arranger, Engineer, > > Engineer Position and Performer, and their subtypes. The proposal also > > adds a reference on the pages for each of those generic types, to point > > editors to this guideline. > > > > The details of this proposal are available > > at: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Prefer_Specific_Relationship_Types > > This RFV will expire on 19 December 2010. > > > > I'm feeling good about this one. > > > > Take care, > > Jeroen > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
