On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Brian Schweitzer < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Brian Schweitzer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> This is RFC-256. Assuming a seconder, and that debate has ended, it will >> move to RFV on 2010-03-27. >> >> There is currently an open question on the discussion page for the >> Involved With RT. This would simply add a guideline to that RT to clarify >> how that AR and the Married RT should be combined. >> >> Add to the guidelines for Involved With Relationship Type: >> >> * Marriage should not be represented with this [[:Category:Relationship >> Type|relationship type]]. It should instead be represented using the >> [[Married Relationship Type]]. >> >> Brian >> > > Proposal page: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Involved_With_Relationship_Type_Proposal I don't actually see anything that answers the question on the talk page, and now I have that same question myself. If an artist was in a relationship before getting married, what happens to the existing 'involved with' relationship once the 'married' relationship is added? Do both relationships exist simultaneously (both with blank end dates)? Does the 'involved with' relationship end once the 'married' relationship starts? Perhaps saying "long term relationship" instead of just "relationships" would make the distinction clearer. Like so: Instances of this relationship type should represent that the artists were in a long term relationship. This relationship type should not be used to indicate a "one night stand". On a side note, now we're not only confusingly inconsistent about only storing start dates and not end dates, but we're now inconsistent about not storing the end date! :) (what I mean to say is, why are we storing the end date for this particular relationship, but not for others?) Pavan Chander // navap
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
