The normal case in any other database I know would be the correct full name of an artist unless an alias or nickname is even better known (ex. "Count" Basie instead William / Bill Basie). The Discogs speciality is somewhat different and NOT common in the rest of the world. However I do agree to Maherto's suggestion to stay in the Discogs to have a line to which a majority of can agree upon in connections with the GL.
His artist name is Bruce Fowler, that's the way he is credited in nearly 300 releases, so that's the most used one and here in Discogs the PAN is the more used one.
nik
However, I am still against wholesale PAN swapping unless we discuss the clear need to do it, on an artist by artist bases. 'Clear need' goes beyond grammatical correction or even counting the number of releases under a certain ANV, although all these factors can be included in the argument for the change.
nik
Obviously if the PAN is not used on any releases and was incorrectly entered to start with and is causing submitting problems (incorrect artist links), then there would be a clear need IMHO.
It should be noted that the PAN is used on releases; it was not incorrectly entered to begin with; it doesn't cause any problems when submitting. Thus there is no clear need for this PAN change.
syke
Obviously if the PAN is not used on any releases and was incorrectly entered to start with
that wrong PAN it was obviously created to avoid creating Bruce Fowler (2) or by someone that didn't know that Bruce Fowler (2) should be the correct name.
syke
the PAN is used on releases; it was not incorrectly entered to begin with; it doesn't cause any problems when submitting. Thus there is no clear need for this PAN change.
This.
washizu
At least in two releases I just randomly checked (Frank Zappa - Scherade Pt. 1 and Frank Zappa And The The Mothers Of Invention* - Tiny Nightmares) the PAN was incorrectly entered: both only credit as "Bruce Fowler"
Maherto
that wrong PAN it was obviously created to avoid creating Bruce Fowler (2) or by someone that didn't know that Bruce Fowler (2) should be the correct name.
do you have any proof for that staement? Do you have any proof that the first entry wasn't in fact the name used on the release and thus the correct name?
Even if it was incorrectly added, the PAN appears on releases and thus a PAN change is not valid per management decision
OK - let's use the wrong name then...!!!
2 more releases using wrong PAN instead of ANV Bruce Fowler: Frank Zappa - Mothers Including Beef.
Seems the 'new name' was used in latest releases, in the 70s he was known as Bruce Fowler.
Maherto
this new absurd one with his complete name
Why absurd? It's his real name and he is credited with it at least on the Captain Beefheart albums?
And why moving 300 credits now from a 9 year old PAN to Bruce Fowler (3) having 2 credits?
does it cause any problems when submitting? no
is the PAN totally wrong? no
is the PAN used on releases? Yes
thus the move is invalid per management decision. Easy as that
Maherto
We can leave it 9 more years if you wish, but it would be wrong anyway. It depends on what we want to have on base, a correct information or a wrong one.
it's not wrong. The actual writing is reflected with the ANVs anway. nothing wrong here
gunkldunk
That helps me make up my mind - he is MORE OFTEN credited as "Bruce Fowler".
(So in this case the PAN and ANV relationship is actually reversed)
you did read the quote from the database manager above that says that counting the number of releases does not constitute a mass PAN change like this, right?
syke
gunkldunkThat helps me make up my mind - he is MORE OFTEN credited as "Bruce Fowler".
(So in this case the PAN and ANV relationship is actually reversed)
you did read the quote from the database manager above that says that counting the number of releases does not constitute a mass PAN change like this, right?
*I* (me, personally) think it's important to do what makes the most common sense.
The database manager(s) may have other ideas, or they may have a change of heart in a particular case... we'll see soon enough (?)
I agree with everything Nik's stated on this topic. That doesn't mean any PAN change cannot ever be considered. It just means there needs to be really really really solid reason why we should do that. It's a huge process and not something that should be taken lightly.
auboisdormant
Considering how many credits I've fixed from Bruce Fowler to Bruce Lambourne Fowler over the years, I actually wish we could move him to Bruce Fowler.
This is a valid concern. The fact that it causes general usability issues is something we should consider when looking at PAN changes.
Maherto
With that spelling there are only 23 releases from his nearly 300 releases...
I feel this is a valid concern. The Lambourne ANV has a total of 13 combined credits. The Bruce Fowler ANV has over 270.
nik
'Clear need' goes beyond grammatical correction or even counting the number of releases under a certain ANV, although all these factors can be included in the argument for the change.
I believe that this should be interpreted that grammatical issues and percentage can factor in to the reason, should not be the key reason, but should not be disqualified automatically.
Because moving "Bruce Lambourne Fowler" to "Bruce Fowler (3)" doesn't really solve that much.
Diognes_The_Fox
there needs to be really really really solid reason why we should do that
And that's exactly the point.
"Bruce Lambourne Fowler" is not incorrect. At a certain time (mainly late 1970s) this was apparently the artist's "preferred stage name" on particular releases, namely with Beefheart. I'd assume that it was one of those releases that created the PAN. Yesterday I was trying to find it but there are already too many variations in the respective MRs.
Diognes_The_Fox
This is a valid concern. The fact that it causes general usability issues is something we should consider when looking at PAN changes.
given that he will be "Bruce Fowler (3)" and not "Bruce Fowler", the same issues will persist. you're just changing the profile the incorrect credits will be shuffled to.
Diognes_The_Fox
I believe that this should be interpreted that grammatical issues and percentage can factor in to the reason, should not be the key reason, but should not be disqualified automatically.
Indeed. He also said that clear needs only applies when the PAN is never used and incorrectly entered to begin with. neithe rbeing the case here. And the "problems while submitting" won't change because of a suffix
Leaving as is now it would be as incorrect as using Michael Phillip Jagger.
:-)
Seriously, seeing all links provided before you see that his artist name is Bruce Fowler, so should be his PAN.
Maherto
Leaving as is now it would be as incorrect as using Michael Phillip Jagger.
This is what I keep coming back to, in my mind.
To address a previous point though, I think it matters not if he became 'Bruce Fowler (3)' or 'Bruce Fowler (999)'
OK, that is an exaggeration, but that argument is a bit of a distraction, given the way that Discogs has generally worked.
For reference, see some of the lesser-known or one-off releases from 'Chrome' thru 'Chrome (7)' before you arrive at 'Chrome (8)' (better known, with hundreds of releases)... or 'Luna' thru 'Luna (4)' before you arrive at 'Luna (5)'... etc.
That is just the "normal" learning curve for Discogs in general - nothing new.
...or Europe (2) (the mainly known hard rock band) - should we move them also to 'Europe'? That's absurd.
We have to use the correct name, if he is the third one with that name, we have to use Bruce Fowler (3).
Personally, I hate to see the constant need to use an ANV when a PAN is set up on some name variation that is rarely used. Ideally, I'd like to see the PAN established on the most commonly used version of the name.
Maherto
that his band is named The Bruce Fowler Big Band , NOT The Bruce Lambourne Fowler Big Band
awesome, so now we know that the band was supposed to be entered in a different profile... oh wait, we already did that? i guess that doesn't matter much then...
loukash
Because moving "Bruce Lambourne Fowler" to "Bruce Fowler (3)" doesn't really solve that much.
syke
awesome, so now we know that the band was supposed to be entered in a different profile... oh wait, we already did that? i guess that doesn't matter much then...
Sorry, I don't quite understand this. I was just adding the info about that band to prove that his artist name is Bruce Fowler and not Bruce Lambourne Fowler
syke
Because moving "Bruce Lambourne Fowler" to "Bruce Fowler (3)" doesn't really solve that much.
What is not solved? That we have to search between the different artists named Bruce Fowler?
We do that every time we have more than 1 artist with same name: Europe (2)... for instance.
Maherto
Sorry, I don't quite understand this. I was just adding the info about that band to prove that his artist name is Bruce Fowler and not Bruce Lambourne Fowler
there are literally thousands of examples in the database (and reality) where bands are named slightly diff. from the bandleader. It's no proof and has no bearing on a PAN
Maherto
What is not solved? That we have to search between the different artists named Bruce Fowler?
it doesn't matter if you have to search for "Bruce Fowler (x)" or "Bruce Lambourne Fowler" and that was Brents point
That's not very serious - preferring a PAN name used on 11 releases over other one used in 300!!!
But if staff say so, OK - I wait for a statement exactly on this matter and saying wich one should we use and which one should be marked as invalid.
vivaldi55
I'd like to see the PAN established on the most commonly used version of the name.
And that's how it should be. ANV should be for exceptions, not for the most common variation. Entering data should be as straightforward as possible.
I know the benefit of changing it to Bruce Fowler (3) is not as big as Bruce Fowler would be, but I still think it would be easier than the current PAN.
And of course Victor (2) so it wouldn't be the first time. ;-)
It's down to 9 now, I was able to confirm two more. I'm suspecting there are probably a couple more that are incorrect, I'll try to see if I can get those confirmed as well.
Diognes_The_Fox
I believe that this should be interpreted that grammatical issues and percentage can factor in to the reason, should not be the key reason, but should not be disqualified automatically.
Agreed, I don't think his intention was to say that a really uncommon variation should stay the PAN no matter what.
"And that's how it should be. ANV should be for exceptions, not for the most common variation. Entering data should be as straightforward as possible."
How refreshing to hear common sense!!!! We often don't hear it here on Discogs.
I know that correct wrong info means a lot of work, but many other times have been decided to correct wrong info no matter the work involved.
The matter here is: do we want to have correct info on base or do we have to keep previous mistakes to avoid work?
syke
given that he will be "Bruce Fowler (3)" and not "Bruce Fowler", the same issues will persist. you're just changing the profile the incorrect credits will be shuffled to.
again Brent, what does this help? This does not solve any issues. Instead of looking up the middle name you're now looking up the suffix. Nothing is gained from this.
As staff has dedided to change to correct name (following common sense), please stop discussing and let's start correcting things. Please someone with voting rights mark the wrong one Bruce Fowler (3)
I will go along with this clearly bad decision to change the PAN from a clear, used, and distinct, name to a unclear, vague, numbered, name.
But I'd like to have it noted I agree with Syke, and think this is a stupid decision to make. We have a valid name with which to clearly differentiate this Artist with and we're moving to a more vague name based on Numbers? Bad, stupid, annoying, unclear, and I couldn't disagree more.
what I'm wondering about right now is why the person who has been going on and on about this pointless mass change isn't even helping moving all the entries... Normally it's the person asking for mass changes who does the editing afterwards...
To add an another agument even if it seems the discussion is over and settled: We do not have here a staff decision" but only a suggestion. In another request staff has told me this database is " driven". The responsabilities are here with the s and not staff. Otherwise we should have a"final decision bord".
Discogs and its community act sometimes very strange. This often happens in "closed shop" communities.
just some thoughts.
Thanks
Mr. Maherto: "ing" a suggestion and "to order it to be executed" are 2 different levels. I dont see the latter! The wide discussion has shown (see loukash pl - an important voice) the direction is not convincing. I would however follow a good majority line. How many votes do we have here then to make it a "majority decision" and not a mixed bunch of opinions?
The full name profile has at the moment 69 Items btw. That IS a majority for me just to point out the current situation (speaking for the jazz segment - my hobby only).
typoman2
Staff has pointed out this is a built database and there are no longer "final staff decisions" just in case you missed that … the problem hasn't been solved by using Bruce Fowler (3).
"Winning" in a thread and doing the right thing are two different things. https://discogs.mejorespelis.org/forum/thread/714430?page=2#7100694
in other words, some s have just executed a mass merge that was against the guidelines and without consensus just because one single wouldn't back down. sweet
I'm afraid I've moved quite a bit to Bruce Fowler (3) before someone pointed out to me that they didn't think the thread had a final decision. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of Bruce Fowler (3) because it is hands down the name that is used most often. Once again, I don't favor a PAN that necessitates constant use of an ANV. This is why the PAN form has a "full name" field.
I am with any solution when at this place a result is seen as the final result.
I am againt the change of the profile ----> invalid so you cannot revert the changes as vivaldi55 has pointed out
This IMHO to fast made change shoulds get an EI vote or our complete discussions are only a joke.
So no action before we have the common solution.
A Discogs specific solution with the most common PAN is not necessarily what is valid for the rest of the world. There are other databases.
Thanks
jazzcornerneuwied
This IMHO to fast made change shoulds get an EI vote or our complete discussions are only a joke.
This thread has been open for about a month, it's not like the discussion was started yesterday and the edits started 2 hours later. Before the editing started, there were 9 s for the change (including Diognes_The_Fox), and 3 s against the change. Considering how much merge and PAN change threads usually get, those are pretty good numbers.
Even now the numbers are still 9 for and 6 against.
Sometimes the change is not what you'd personally prefer. The final result wasn't what I hoped for either, but sometimes you just have to let go. There are things that are worth fighting for, and things that are not. From my point of view whether the PAN is Bruce Lambourne Fowler or Bruce Fowler (3) is pretty small thing in the grand scheme of things, even if we're just talking about Discogs.
I always to use the (most frequent) artist name.
With or without number.
I doesn't matter if the previous name was not incorrect, this change is better.
Diognes_The_Fox
mirva
Considering how many credits I've fixed from Bruce Fowler to Bruce Lambourne Fowler over the years, I actually wish we could move him to Bruce Fowler.
This is a valid concern. The fact that it causes general usability issues is something we should consider when looking at PAN changes.
Agreed - if he extensively used Bruce Fowler, then adding a (3) will be the best solution in the long run
auboisdormant
....... From my point of view whether the PAN is Bruce Lambourne Fowler or Bruce Fowler (3) is pretty small thing in the grand scheme of things, even if we're just talking about Discogs.
I can agree to that. My concern is a proper and correct prodedure with a convincing result. What we do here is valid for all and therefore a plus of 3 for the change seemed to me no "majority" decision plus the thread is still going on. Who will be the one to declare then this thread as "solved" in what direction?
The problem here is that we are solving a "problem" (I disagree that there ever was one to begin with) with another "problem". The argument that these should be moved because many credits are entered to the incorrect profile falls entirely flat when moving the artist to (3) as the credits will still be entered to the wrong profile by careless submitters.
All that was achieved here was to shuffle around hundreds of credits from one profile to another without solving anything just because one single was adamant to not let this go. If the credits had been moved to Bruce Fowler and those there to (3), something would have been achieved. The way it is now, it was an entirely pointless undertaking and the same errors will happen.
All to "achieve common sense", while common sense is not to spend valuable time to change things that aren't broken and instead of focusing on things that are indeed incorrect. There's more than enough of that around here
syke
The argument that these should be moved because many credits are entered to the incorrect profile falls entirely flat when moving the artist to (3) as the credits will still be entered to the wrong profile by careless submitters.
I don't mean to appear rude, though I want to speak plainly, but the point you're repeatedly trying to make here still doesn't seem relevant (?)
Please see my comments above about artists such as Luna (5). Nothing is changing in that regard (that I know of), that is just what we have to work with in the Discogs system (at this time) when multiple artists share a name. Nothing is going to "idiot-proof" the system from careless submitters (not that that was the point anyhow to begin with)
I don't think anyone is/was proposing to take the artist with the most releases and make sure they get the lowest slot (without a number) and then the second most popular artist gets the (1) and then the next gets the (2), etc. That would be an insane undertaking, and I don't think that's what is/was ever on the table here. It would be a horrible mess, in some cases, of people with different opinions of who deserves the lower slot moving things back and forth. I don't think that was ever up for discussion, really. Like, I don't think that is even *feasible*, so bringing it up again and again, is that what they call the "straw man argument" (?)
The point as I see it is that, from currently available data analysis, "Bruce Lambourne Fowler" only appears as a credit (that we know of) on *ONLY SIX* unique releases:
It kind of boggles my mind that anyone would still think it would have been better to leave "Bruce Lambourne Fowler" as the PRIMARY Artist Name, rather than an Artist Name VARIATION.
(That would actually be a complete perversion of the concept of the relationship between PRIMARY and VARIATION)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
By way of contrast, we do not have to go very far to find an opposing example: Eric Drew Feldman
Compare the number of times he is credited as "Eric Drew Feldman" vs. "Eric Feldman"
Nobody could expect to make a successful argument to move all credits to PAN "Eric Feldman" with ANV "Eric Drew Feldman". It wouldn't make sense.
(And it's nothing to do with whether there are or are not multiple Eric Feldmans in the system, but merely due to the sheer numbers of how the credits are used)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I hope that I've been clear here, and not rude. Though I do want to say one more thing: for someone who also has repeatedly cast aspersions on another 's motivations in this thread, and repeatedly made statements such as:
"just because one single wouldn't back down"
or
"just because one single was adamant to not let this go"
...it seems to me that those statements themselves are a bit dishonest, if you look back and see, for example, I agreed with these changes one month ago, and I see others agreeing as well along the way here, until ultimately an actual staff member also expressed their agreement.
As much as you might have been trying to browbeat or bully someone into your (and only your) line of thinking here, it is refreshing to me that the dialogue continued, and that more people were able to have their say. To paraphrase what someone else said above, there was a much higher level of participation in this thread than I have seen in past similar threads, and I think that was a good thing.
(Ironically, it appeared to me here that syke was in fact the "one single " who "wouldn't back down" or "was adamant to not let this go")
Thanks to all involved we've managed to correct the wrong PAN with all credits moved to the correct Bruce Fowler, but this was used for another artist (American classical tenor, specialized in Italian Bel canto) and we can't change suffixes because of our tastes...
"2.4.1. Different Artists with the same name (for example, two artists named "John B") should be entered as "John B" and "John B (2)". ... Never swap about the suffixes, once an artist is designated a numerical suffix, the artist must remain with that suffix. The suffix has no relation to popularity or historical order...."
Just for fun, as Bruce Lambourne Fowler, the previous wrong PAN, credited on just 6 releases!: https://discogs.mejorespelis.org/artist/2636463-Bruce-Fowler-3?filter_anv=1&anv=Bruce+Lambourne+Fowler
syke
oh sure. I'm sure you're aware of this 's history with mass change requests? Let's just say I'd take anything he says in that regard with a huge grain of salt after he knowingly used an entirely diff. orchestra's name to justify a PAN change to a PAN that does not appear on any releases: https://discogs.mejorespelis.org/forum/thread/689105
I will freely it to not knowing the entire history of everything that has come before in Discogs.
But I don't think that is what matters here.
What I saw here was a reasonable, logically thought out change proposed.
I, and others here, *even if we didn't necessarily agree*, reacted based on that, and not on any past dealings or grudges.
You seem to be the one who, rather than using logic, has let your emotions get the best of you here (?!)
(i.e. You now *actually* just itted above, that you were personally biased against this idea, just because of WHO it was that proposed it?)
gunkldunk
You seem to be the one who, rather than using logic, has let your emotions get the best of you here (?!)
no emotions involved at all.
I have linked to a decision on PAN changes by management - multiple times in fact. And if you look up the forums I have linked the same decision many times on similar issues, entirely without involvement by the Maherto or his Spunny .
The above was linked to, and removed, that there is no bullying involved. Just trying to protect the database from any such attempts linked above (plus similar other's I don't care to dig out right now)
The fact is simple: we've gone from precise and unique to vague and likely to cause more errors.
I understand Why the change was done, I just think it was an extremely stupid decision and that management decided that using a number suffix versus a unique name was a better move disappoints me.
I just don't have it in me to fight such massive levels of bad decision making. Not since the thread where the same staff member decided that hijacking submissions was OK. It's becoming a lost cause; the database is becoming harder to use, not easier, because of decisions like this.
Maherto
"2.4.1. Different Artists with the same name (for example, two artists named "John B") should be entered as "John B" and "John B (2)". ... Never swap about the suffixes, once an artist is designated a numerical suffix, the artist must remain with that suffix. The suffix has no relation to popularity or historical order...."
Just for fun, as Bruce Lambourne Fowler, the previous wrong PAN, credited on just 6 releases!: https://discogs.mejorespelis.org/artist/2636463-Bruce-Fowler-3?filter_anv=1&anv=Bruce+Lambourne+Fowler
At least we have to agree that Bruce gets around. He's played on a lot of albums and seems now to be orchestrating top Hollywood movies. A success, no matter what we call him.
