Clarify CK relationships

I sometimes enter CK relationships, and never know which direction to use.

Timna Brauer is Arik Brauer's Daughter. If I enter that should it read Brauer, Arik (daughter) or Brauer, Arik (father)?

The examples don't help me. If an example contained both the author whose page it was on and the related person of the other sex, it would be crystal clear.

In the parentheses you put the relation of the person whose name you just typed to the person whose CK page you're on. The word(s) in parentheses tell you who the person is/was.

Perhaps it could be added to the examples that they all are for Aldous Huxley?

yes it would be an idea to have an example on the page.
Looking I notice someone used the all purpose sibling for Charles on Mary Lamb's on her page.
we could start
maybe if gave Spot(dog) as an example relationship. that would be sufficient.

Showing one person and the unambigiously related the examples would be better, If only Charles and mary had a few more relationships listed they would be ideal. the Durrells to show only filial relationships, Can any one think of some with both filial and professional relationships with other authors?

3> But that still only helps if you know how those people are related.

I still have no idea whether I did it right or not.

Urgh While I was editing Yes Anglemark of course the present example shows a variety.

I think the ideal example would show a relationship that involved different sexes. Brother when referring to two men is still ambigious in its direction, something that brother/sister husband/wife, owner/dog relationships make explicit.

How telling it is that I places those relationships in such a patriarchal order.

If we are are on Aldous Huxley's page and we see

Huxley, Julian (brother), we must interpret that ALDOUS is Julian's brother.
Orwell, George (student), and ALDOUS is Orwell's student.
Huxley, Leonard (father), and ALDOUS is Leonard's father.

So this on Timna Brauer's page
Brauer, Arik (father) would mean TIMNA is Arik's father.

no?

The examples are ambiguous unless you KNOW, (as wikipedia does), that ALDOUS is actually Leonard's son!

So Julian is his brother. (useless as an example because brothers ARE brothers)
Leonard is his father... (you shouldn't have to go look that up)
so George Orwell was Aldous' student?? (who knew? who knows these things?)

and thus Arik is Timna's father.

I agree that the examples could be (should be) improved, but as I wrote, the word(s) in parentheses tell you who the person before the parentheses is/was. It's perfectly parallel to Tolkien, JRR (author). Why would it be different here?

Why is someone's student in the "relationship" field anyway? Might as well have "next door neighbor".

10> Professional relationships are quite proper to include, That you or I may not consider a particular relationship noteworthy does not mean it is of no merit. if it has been entered then it is because someone considers it noteable.

> 11

"Professional relationships are quite proper to include".

No, they're not.

See the CK wiki page: We've also added a "Relationships" field, intended to capture when an author's spouse, son or other relative is also an author

Given that one of the examples that staff put in the examples next to the field is "Orwell, George (student)," I think it's safe to say that the relationships in that field need not only be familial.

However, some judgment is needed about notability, both of the relationship and of the people. The relationship between Huxley and Orwell is particularly notable, I assume, because both are well known and it's an interesting fact given their writings (even if, afaik, Huxley only taught Orwell for a very brief time). Similarly, the fact that one philosopher or scientist was the student of another may well be noteworthy.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of people just list spouses' or children's names in that field, when those people are neither authors nor any kind of public figure. As far as professional relationships go, some are not noteworthy enough to go in there; there was a discussion once about co-authors and, if I'm remember correctly, the conclusion was that that was not significant enough.

ETA, this is from conceptdawg's semi official comments on co-authors, and it bears on this question of professional relationships. He said that co-authors don't belong there, and should be listed using the authors field. By contrast,

"Collaborators" intuits a more meaningful relationship, one which the field was certainly meant to handle.

He also said "collaborator" needs to mean something long-term, something more than just co-authorship on a book or an article.