I appreciate dudek's peaceful approach to the matter.... "Whoever wants to use them, let him enjoy them. And the one who wants to concentrate on the facts, doesn't have to pay attention to these features."
Well, whenever someone tags anything I added, I have to pay attention. Or should I say: I would have to pay attention? Editors don't even seem to be notified of such behaviour.
IMO, suggesting and introducing tags/'Highlights' was mainly actionism. Also, quite some of them were tailor-made according to some editors' personal preferences rather than being of any real use (except for saving from adding more detailed public comments)
Why tagging releases as 'cover versions albums' or 'Talent show'? The entries show so, anyway. If according data is added to public comments, there is also no need for a 'hit' tag. Etc. Nevertheless, no big problems.
However, I do, f. ex., mind if somebody tags versions I added as 'definitive', 'more famous than the original' etc. 'Definitive' is purely a subjective matter of taste (unless defined by a musicologist), and the latter may fit for Manfred Mann's various versions of "Mighty Quinn" and a few more examples.
But why should Jeff Buckley's version of "Hallelujah" be the 'definitive' one? Cohen's own official versions are surely more so (although indefinite...). Many will consider John Cale's or Lucky Jim's (cover) versions 'definitive'. And some superb versions in other lanuages may be even more 'definitive' (covers).
To stay with that example: I don't mind about 'editor's pick', which I consider sort of a personal recommendation by music lovers to other music lovers. That tag is actually a better and more direct way to indicate versions personally considered 'definitive'.
PS: I guess it's obvious from my earlier postings for the matter that I'm on MaryHelen's (thanks for quoting) and Wayne's side, here.