[mb-style] RFC: How to handle band/artist name changes (Was a RFV)

[Don Redman]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:07:03 +0100, Age Bosma wrote:

> Kerensky97 wrote:
>> Add me as another person who really likes this idea but not the wording  
>> of
>> "legal".  If we can just think of a different way to word it I think it
>> would be great.
>>
>
> Who are the other people who don't like the wording of 'legal'? ;-)

I do not think we need a rewording, but I believe that we should state  
very clearly that the common world definition of the term differs from the  
MB definition.

Could it be that we just have to *define* that in MB a person has *one and  
exactly one* LegalName?

>> Offtopic:  RFV already?
>
> Yeah, there was no response on the other thread any more and this RFV  
> was the consensus of that discussion. It's a bit strange that people  
> start to object to the 'apply attribute automatically' bit now instead  
> of earlier.
>
> I have to agree with the arguments given and we shouldn't apply the  
> 'legal' attribute to the existing ARs automatically for the reasons they  
> pointed out. I do, however, see no reason to leave the 'legal name'  
> attribute out or change it. I can't think of any other way of naming it  
> and I think we all agree that we should be able to make the distinction.
>
> We could change the AR even more to allow it to be used for all these  
> relations:
> - 'legal name <-> legal name'
> - 'performance name <-> performance name'
> - 'legal name <-> performance name'
>
> It will get complicated but at least it will allow us to specify  
> multiple legal names where it's needed.
>
> A way to implement it could be:
> - Provide a dropdown or radio button selection to choose a) 'performance  
> name' or b) 'legal name'
> - Change the phrases to:
> 1. '*artist* is/was a name used by *artist*'
> 1a. '*artist* is/was a performance name used by *artist*'
> 1b. '*artist* is/was a legal name used by *artist*'
> 2. '*artist* is/was using the name *artist*'
> 2a. '*artist* is/was using the performance name *artist*'
> 2b. '*artist* is/was using the legal name *artist*'
>
> I guess we are starting the process all over again but how does this  
> sound?

Starting over again sounds right to me. At least drop back to RFC (I  
changed the subject).

As I said before, this could change the semantics of MB in a substantial  
way. I think you need to have clear responses to these questions before  
doing a RFV:

  * How will this affect the question which release
    is stored under which artist?
    If this will change, then you _must_ do beta editing.

  * Will this create relationship clusters?
    If so why is this desirable (we try to avoid them as
    much as possible).

   DonRedman

-- 
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
the MusicBrainz documentation system.
Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/<SomeTerm>
(you might need to transform the term to singular)