nik wrote:

Wiki page is at http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Dis...ge4-Artist

julesparis wrote:

Explain ANV usage (or not) for marriage / name changes
add: gender reassignments - never understood why Wendy / Walter are aliases rather than ANVs
thanks

julesparis wrote:

anyways, isn't all a bit sterile to discuss proper ANV rules without proper ANV tools, as in convert to ANV or switch PAN?

nik wrote:

I suspect that wide sweeping tools such as those won't be created in the near future Jules. Both are quite serious functions in terms of what they would affect, and the mechanisms behind them to make them operate smoothly.

Better to work on the guidelines for the current feature set, and keep new features for a separate time.

mawiles wrote:

Another annoying and still unresolved topic is the non-performing main artist (like DJ, compiler, composer etc.).

We have some guidelines that non-performing main artists must get a corresponding credit (DJ Mix, Compiled By etc.).
But we still have no clear guideline what a main artist is. At the moment, this is purely up to personal opinion.

Exmaple:
Does "Mixed by DJ XY" on the front cover mean that DJ XY is a main artist?
In my opinion this is a simple credit, no matter if on the front or back cover. There is no guideline that says we should add credited artists as main artists, just a "Main Artist Credit" guideline that says we should add credits for main artists.

There should be an explicit rule about that, maybe with examples:
"Artist - Title" -> Main Artist (as usual + Main Artist credit rule)
"Title - Mixed By Artist" -> ?? (still unresolved)

DS_Helder wrote:

Then it should be. If Discogs should be the place to come to enter your record collection, I for one would like to have this indexed under Smokey Robinson, and this  indexed under Curtis Mayfield.

rassel wrote:

Well, it would make the things a lot easier if we could transcribe, what's on the release.
For example "Mixed by DJ XY" could be treated as:
Main artist: DJ XY, Various
Credits: DJ Mix: DJ XY
This would allow to use DJ XY as main artist, as his name usually is quite dominant on the relase, but also the artists whose tracks he mixed would be reflected as various. And to make the things clear, what DJ XY did, it would need a credit.
I don't see the problems to credit a non performing artist as main artist, this is used all the time on classical releases.



Good point jules. What happens, if you get married and you change your name (this applies not only to women btw.). You have to change all your official papers, driving licence, passport, you even change you signature. It's soemthing like an official "Alias", no ANV because you can't choose what name to use once you have switched.
But you can divorce and get you old name back. So the time being married denotes a certain period in your life (hopefully a long one). I personally would use an Alias for this.
I don't see why for example Betty Miller, getting married and changes her name to Betty Barcellona, could be ANVed to Betty Miller.

DS_Helder wrote:

And you are right, according to the existing practice (recommended by Nik): If you feel the artist name used is very different from the main artist name, use an alias. If you don't, use an ANV. So, as it is now, it's really up to the judgement of each user to say if it's an ANV or alias.

Discogs used to have a clear definition of what an alias was: A name used in a certain artistic context, to define an artist different from other artistic contexts of the person behind the artist, or indeed from the person himself/herself.

ANV then was created for the instances differences in artist names did not fit this criteria and were more random.

Now that the use of aliases and ANVs are defined by the degree of differences in spelling, it's hard to see that's a reason strong enough for keeping them both. We should either go back to the old definition (but Nik thinks that is too hard to understand for the submitters) or merge them into one function (which would be in the line of user friendliness).

nik wrote:

I have added in the current guideline text to the wiki page.

I have added in the two new sections for ANV's, after reviewing the discussion http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/to...59#2154320

nik wrote:

There shouldn't be any weight given to whether or not there is a role defined together with an artist name.

The current guidelines say:




I am not sure how much more of a guideline we need for this. We could give some examples, and we could also explain about not entering lists of artists on the front cover if they are seperated from the main artist name in some way (and probably not listed on the spine etc), as discussed at http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/170056 and evidenced at http://www.discogs.com/history?release=1422905&diff=6




Indeed, the current method is fine here.




I think this is getting a bit involved rassel. Also, the guidelines and current method point to using DJ XY if he is billed as the main artist. I don't think there is any advantage in also billing Various as main artist.

nik wrote:

I have added two 'how to' sections for How Do I Add A Solo Artist + Generic Band Of Musicians and How To Add A New Artist To The Database

nik wrote:

Looking at this once again for resolutions to the last 2 TODO issues:

* Solve / explain the joined / separated artist name problem - Why is Simon And Garfunkel joined? When should this rule be followed?

The old three rules for this seem to do for most cases. Without a major rethink about how we do things (for example, how the site would work if we always divided up distinct artists), they should probably stay, and we have to accept there will always be some edge issues to deal with from time to time:




* Should there be an automatic separator used for the join field? ATM it defaults to no separator, but this is usually (always?) not applicable. http://www.discogs.com/help/submissio...ng_Artists "a comma between them if there is no joiner on the release itself.". mjb I believe suggested that the slash (/) seems to be a good default, but pipes and commas are also a possibility.

So here, the discussion is should this be changed to a slash? I believe mjb thought it was more appropriate as it didn't hint that the artists may be collaborating. Personally, I find the comma less obtrusive, but I understand his point. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Also, this brings up a programming issue, which is should there be an automatic application of the default join (either slash or comma) when a submitter doesn't use anything else? I think this would be good if it is possible, one less error to have to correct.

mawiles wrote:

This needs rewording with further clarification.
The main questions on this:
- Do different versions of a release count as different releases?
- Do Remixes count?
- Do Appearances count as releases (e.g. compilations) ?

mawiles wrote:

*bump* nik

nik wrote:

Sorry, I thought I had answered this :-0




No.




Yes.




No.

That would be my thoughts on those, does that sound reasonable?

mawiles wrote:

My main concern is that people just count all the rows on the artist page together, since there is no specification what a collaboration is.

For me, it's clear that collaboration means the output of their work, that is the track they have sent to the label, not a record where the track was released on.

nik wrote:

I agree, and we can explain that in the guidelines.

nik wrote:

Copied across from http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/to...15#2202534

nik wrote:

Ok, I have edited the above text a bit, and added it to http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Dis...med_Groups

I am not 100% on this yet, it seems a little clumsily worded between Crediting Unnamed Groups and Crediting Non-Specific Groups, I'm not sure that it is really very clear at the moment the distinction between these ideas.