Discussion:
[mb-style] STYLE-534: When to merge artists?
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2015-06-27 14:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Hi!

When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"), I
took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names page (
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846)
and turned them into
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names

That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only if
they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very
followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually
writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that,
but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means
we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all
except different projects".

On the comments for STYLE-534, KRSCuan said:
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a
relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all
the examples on the current version of https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases,
but not much more. The rationale is that even a user unfamiliar with an
artist (which e.g. appears on a VA compilation) should be able to pick the
correct one just going by liner notes."

My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which alias
(best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so that if
people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance name
back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way. I
feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge.
But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!

Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently
using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work
databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really
count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should
be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.

But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing and
where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)

Cheers,
Nicolás
Daniel Sobey
2015-07-01 10:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Hello List,

I have added a lot of legal names artists for writing credits as this makes
the task a lot easier to have 2 things in the dataabse.
Using the databases listed in
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Work#External_databases that deal with legal
names it makes it easier to find someone in the database that already
exists.
Having these extra entries allows me to search for artists and see if the
ipi matches the works database.
As long as the policy allows for these to exist in some form it makes my
job easier.

Now the works databases can be quite inconsistent with some artists and the
way they are credited can change a lot over the years.
Some artists will use an alias at the start of thair career and later it is
changed to thair first and last name and sometimes this is then changed to
first middle last name with 3 or more ipi numbers for the artist.
One example of this is groove armada where we have Andy Cato / Andrew
Derek Cocup and some being credited with one or the other variation of name.
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/35723b60-732e-4bd8-957f-320b416e7b7f/works
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/15649f44-ae4f-40d6-857e-820db654f1ea/works
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/a37337bd-bcf4-412a-9cce-434ca7c41e87/works


I have a preference to not merge artists as i usually assume that someone
created it for a reason.
Not to say that I don't do it but I try and see if there is a lot of
overlap between the two.


One thing that I would like is someone to create a plugin for picard that
for writing credits looks to see if there is a legal name alias and uses
that instead of the name. This will make things more consistent and if
someone has created an alias it will have the same effect than creating a
new artist in the database and changing who wrote the work.

Regards,

Daniel

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Hi!
When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"), I
took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names page (
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846)
and turned them into
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names
That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only if
they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very
followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually
writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that,
but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means
we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all
except different projects".
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a
relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all
the examples on the current version of
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases, but not much more. The rationale is
that even a user unfamiliar with an artist (which e.g. appears on a VA
compilation) should be able to pick the correct one just going by liner
notes."
My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which alias
(best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so that if
people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance name
back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way. I
feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge.
But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!
Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently
using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work
databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really
count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should
be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.
But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing and
where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)
Cheers,
Nicolás
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2015-07-01 12:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi!

Aren't most of those issues solved by us being now able to use the legal
name as a credit for the writing relationship though? I mean, it definitely
feels like a better choice than adding a Picard hack for it.

In any case, in theory we follow covers, rather than legal name only rights
databases.
Post by Daniel Sobey
Hello List,
I have added a lot of legal names artists for writing credits as this
makes the task a lot easier to have 2 things in the dataabse.
Using the databases listed in
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Work#External_databases that deal with legal
names it makes it easier to find someone in the database that already
exists.
Having these extra entries allows me to search for artists and see if the
ipi matches the works database.
As long as the policy allows for these to exist in some form it makes my
job easier.
Now the works databases can be quite inconsistent with some artists and
the way they are credited can change a lot over the years.
Some artists will use an alias at the start of thair career and later it
is changed to thair first and last name and sometimes this is then changed
to first middle last name with 3 or more ipi numbers for the artist.
One example of this is groove armada where we have Andy Cato / Andrew
Derek Cocup and some being credited with one or the other variation of name.
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/35723b60-732e-4bd8-957f-320b416e7b7f/works
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/15649f44-ae4f-40d6-857e-820db654f1ea/works
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/a37337bd-bcf4-412a-9cce-434ca7c41e87/works
I have a preference to not merge artists as i usually assume that someone
created it for a reason.
Not to say that I don't do it but I try and see if there is a lot of
overlap between the two.
One thing that I would like is someone to create a plugin for picard that
for writing credits looks to see if there is a legal name alias and uses
that instead of the name. This will make things more consistent and if
someone has created an alias it will have the same effect than creating a
new artist in the database and changing who wrote the work.
Regards,
Daniel
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Hi!
When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"),
I took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names
page (
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846)
and turned them into
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names
That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only
if they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very
followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually
writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that,
but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means
we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all
except different projects".
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a
relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all
the examples on the current version of
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases, but not much more. The rationale
is that even a user unfamiliar with an artist (which e.g. appears on a VA
compilation) should be able to pick the correct one just going by liner
notes."
My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which alias
(best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so that if
people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance name
back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way. I
feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge.
But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!
Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently
using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work
databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really
count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should
be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.
But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing and
where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)
Cheers,
Nicolás
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
SwissChris
2015-07-01 19:24:54 UTC
Permalink
The advantage of merging is of course to find all appearances/credits of a
given artist at one place. If (if!) the new crediting system at
relationship level works out as it should, there is IMO no good reason left
to keep legal name and performance names (or different performance names
like for the infamous Cat Stevens /Yusuf Islam) separate. But I would
certainly want to know how the new (writing) credit works first and be sure
that the (writing) credits attributed e.g. to Renaud Séchan
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/40eb4b8a-7f15-4545-bbd1-b0e08a16fefc/relationships
will be properly maintained when we merge this artist with his performance
name Renaud
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/de1edf40-2b3d-4ddd-873c-e4f59585ba92 In any
case I'd plead to give the editors some time to get used to the new
relationship credit feature before making a (maybe too) hasty decision
either way

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Hi!
Aren't most of those issues solved by us being now able to use the legal
name as a credit for the writing relationship though? I mean, it definitely
feels like a better choice than adding a Picard hack for it.
In any case, in theory we follow covers, rather than legal name only
rights databases.
Post by Daniel Sobey
Hello List,
I have added a lot of legal names artists for writing credits as this
makes the task a lot easier to have 2 things in the dataabse.
Using the databases listed in
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Work#External_databases that deal with legal
names it makes it easier to find someone in the database that already
exists.
Having these extra entries allows me to search for artists and see if the
ipi matches the works database.
As long as the policy allows for these to exist in some form it makes my
job easier.
Now the works databases can be quite inconsistent with some artists and
the way they are credited can change a lot over the years.
Some artists will use an alias at the start of thair career and later it
is changed to thair first and last name and sometimes this is then changed
to first middle last name with 3 or more ipi numbers for the artist.
One example of this is groove armada where we have Andy Cato / Andrew
Derek Cocup and some being credited with one or the other variation of name.
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/35723b60-732e-4bd8-957f-320b416e7b7f/works
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/15649f44-ae4f-40d6-857e-820db654f1ea/works
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/a37337bd-bcf4-412a-9cce-434ca7c41e87/works
I have a preference to not merge artists as i usually assume that someone
created it for a reason.
Not to say that I don't do it but I try and see if there is a lot of
overlap between the two.
One thing that I would like is someone to create a plugin for picard that
for writing credits looks to see if there is a legal name alias and uses
that instead of the name. This will make things more consistent and if
someone has created an alias it will have the same effect than creating a
new artist in the database and changing who wrote the work.
Regards,
Daniel
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Hi!
When we recently released MBS-7489 ("Artist Credits for Relationships"),
I took the gist of the guidelines in the old Artist/With Multiple Names
page (
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=Style/Artist/With_multiple_names&oldid=67846)
and turned them into
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Artist#Performance_names_and_legal_names
That current guideline basically continues our old "leave separate only
if they're different projects" guideline, but admittedly that wasn't a very
followed one because a lot of people wanted to keep legal name (usually
writing) credits separate not to lose that detail. MBS-7489 allows that,
but some people have requested a discussion whether it *allowing* it means
we *should* do it, or whether the limits should be more strict than "all
except different projects".
"My suggestion is to only merge artist entries that can be considered a
relatively small variation of each other. Which encompasses pretty much all
the examples on the current version of
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Aliases, but not much more. The rationale
is that even a user unfamiliar with an artist (which e.g. appears on a VA
compilation) should be able to pick the correct one just going by liner
notes."
My own opinion on that is that it should be solved by showing which
alias (best) matched the search term for each entity when searching, so
that if people search for (for example) a legal name and get a performance
name back, it will show "Performance name (Alias: Legal name)" in some way.
I feel it's a display issue that shouldn't affect what we choose to merge.
But I'm happy to hear opinions on it!
Another thing that could be discussed is whether an artist consistently
using their legal name for songwriting credits (on releases - work
databases basically default to legal name anyway so they shouldn't really
count) should be seen as a different "project" and kept unmerged, or should
be merged unless there's explicit artist intent.
But basically, I'm curious about people's opinions on the whole thing
and where each of you would set the limit for merges, so opinions away! :)
Cheers,
Nicolás
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2015-07-01 19:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by SwissChris
The advantage of merging is of course to find all appearances/credits of a
given artist at one place. If (if!) the new crediting system at
relationship level works out as it should, there is IMO no good reason left
to keep legal name and performance names (or different performance names
like for the infamous Cat Stevens /Yusuf Islam) separate. But I would
certainly want to know how the new (writing) credit works first and be sure
that the (writing) credits attributed e.g. to Renaud Séchan
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/40eb4b8a-7f15-4545-bbd1-b0e08a16fefc/relationships
will be properly maintained when we merge this artist with his performance
name Renaud
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/de1edf40-2b3d-4ddd-873c-e4f59585ba92 In
any case I'd plead to give the editors some time to get used to the new
relationship credit feature before making a (maybe too) hasty decision
either way
They are maintained:
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/b7f91315-c3d6-4a3a-b10b-a927f8766ebd/relationships
Tom Crocker
2015-07-01 20:22:26 UTC
Permalink
For me it makes most sense for legal and performance name data to be under
one artist unless there's performance names that represent distinct
projects.
The main UI issue with this is the one KRSCuan said. This is important and
I could understand waiting for this before getting on with merging. It
would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar
relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.
Of course the other way of looking at it is that they should stay separate
and the UI issue is that legal and performance name artist pages should
show both credits together.
Either way wouldn't seem to work brilliantly when a person has several
performance names but uses their legal for writing.
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2015-07-01 20:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Crocker
The main UI issue with this is the one KRSCuan said. This is important and
I could understand waiting for this before getting on with merging.
Yeah, while I don't personally feel a need to wait for that, I wouldn't be
against us waiting if that's what most people want (might also make it
happen sooner).
Post by Tom Crocker
It would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar
relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.
I *think* there's a checkbox for that in the relationship editor. I haven't
used it but I remember seeing it.
KRSCuan
2015-07-02 09:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Crocker
It would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar
relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.
I *think* there's a checkbox for that in the relationship editor. I
haven't used it but I remember seeing it.
It can change all credits for the same artist entry on the page, so
merging legal and performance names currently breaks this functionality
if e.g. the legal name is used for writing and the performance name for
instrument credits.

Though refining it to similar relationships as Tom suggested would iron
this out.
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
2015-07-02 10:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Oooh, OK, got it now. A ticket for that would be useful then!
Post by KRSCuan
Post by Tom Crocker
It would also be nice to be able to change the credit for similar
relationships only on a release, rather than all or one as it is now.
I *think* there's a checkbox for that in the relationship editor. I
haven't used it but I remember seeing it.
It can change all credits for the same artist entry on the page, so
merging legal and performance names currently breaks this functionality
if e.g. the legal name is used for writing and the performance name for
instrument credits.
Though refining it to similar relationships as Tom suggested would iron
this out.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Tom Crocker
2015-07-02 21:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Oooh, OK, got it now. A ticket for that would be useful then!
added http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-8465 :)

Loading...