Trying to sum things up: I think there are two very distinct issues here.
#1. when does an artist entry deserve to be split, and when not? I was apparently naive enough to think that SameArtistWithDifferentNames would do it for sorting things out on this front. It indeed appears that my "be wise" and "a matter of common sense" notes were *not* enough :] as some people actually argue that a *single punctuation character change* in a name deserves a split. Sorry, by I just can't buy that. This is utterly silly. In the Disco Panic case, it even violenty contradicts ArtistIntent! What I find deeply disturbing is that we *do* have a guideline (a couple weeks old one! that was agreed on *unchallenged*) and that it's *not* adhered to, making me question the fact that an opposed quideline would be adhered either... Anyway, what good is it if *autoeditors* can't play by the rules we have? So, the problem actually morph into: what can we do differently/better (documentation/communication wise?) so that guidelines are actually adhered to? Fact is in MB (current data model incarnation) we *DO* harmonize/tweak/fix/change things. People who don't cope with that *basic* principle would probably be better with freedb. Now, our guidelines ought to try be helpful in explaining how, when and why such "modifications" are done, but apparently something is not done properly on that front (/me blames the stoopid wiki editors). Addressing whatever it is would probably help smoothing things out. #2. the need for a new AR allowing to relate differently named *groups* Assuming we sort out the above and have people not create distinct entries for micro variations, and that we are left just dealing with *real* name changes cases... The problem I see with that is the deeply idiosyncratic nature of name changes, which makes me doubt a unique solution is adequate for all. Starting simply with: a* a given group (same persons) goes by different names at the same time, to cover very different projects We don't have no legal name concept. How would you relate these (if there is a need to)? If not, how would you clearly differentiate that case from the example just below? b* a given group (same persons) goes by different names at the same time, using the names in an interchangeable manner to cover essentially the same stuff This is pretty much Sun Ra and his whole Shebang Arkestra case. There is in this case more reasons why we would relate them. Now, how do you do that? The appropriate AR is probably "is a variant name for group", right? c* a given group (same persons) changes its name at some point in time, for legal reasons This is already covered by SameArtistWithDifferentNames and was agreed on earlier last month. Do we need to reopen that one? d* a given group (same persons) changes its name at some point in time, for other reasons This is mainly what I saw in that thread. The AR would essentially be "changed its name to", as proposed. But to me really looks different from the first case (a) More? Now, I can't help but think we are maybe overstating the importance of the problem here. What about trying to first assess that, as Don Redman suggested (http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-October/003813.html) one year and a half ago when this was raised? eg: make a list of bands concerned by this on a wiki page. Starting with: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SameArtistWithDifferentNamesDiscussion Can we try stuff up things there and see what comes out of it? Regards, - Olivier _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
