On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 04:59:15PM +0100, david scotson wrote: > This will of course lead to the creation of many of the dreaded "bogus > artists", the prevention of which sometimes seems like our prime > directive, the 0th Law of MusicBrainz. Seems worth it to have useful, > consistent and correct data, to me at least.
Except using separate artists for every single featuring artist can be a complete mess. If an artist changes their name slightly, we have to edit numerous artists (unless now we only enter exactly what's on the cover, same person/band or not, which still doesn't deal with capitalisation and sortname changes) and has the potential for many misspellings to occur because the artist's name in the collaboration's name isn't linked to the collaborating artist's name. That's hardly consistency. I would be much less opposed to all these hundreds of collaboration artists if that weren't a problem. I'd also like a way of searching without getting a page full of collaborations but I guess I'm out of luck there. Technically it would be possible if we had a collaboration type as well as person and group, but the Lucene search still can't send you to a direct match. --Nikki _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
