View source for History talk:Featuring Artist Style

''Comment:'' Remove "(feat. ...)" from the title of songs: 
# It conflicts with artists ("Little Feat"). 
# It conflicts with titles ("No Mean Feat" by External Menace). 
# Is implemented inconsistently amongst song databases. 
# Is not the song's title (from the original sheet music, or what Joe Average calls it). 
# Makes searching for songs by title inaccurate (e.g., "exact matches"). 
# Is difficult to parse. 
# Featured artists are extended attributes of a song. 
# Makes accurate searching for specific featured artists difficult. 
# Naming conflicts can be resolved using track numbers (if the same song appears twice on an album), or other uniquely identifying traits (such as extended attributes). 
# It runs counter to an object-oriented way of thinking (one field, one responsibility). 
# Hinders the normalisation of data (3rd or 4th normal form). 

-- Thangalin 2008-10-06 

''Comment'': You've dropped out the second part of the current [[Featuring Artist Style|FeaturingArtistStyle]], "If no artist can be considered secondary...", which describes what to do in the event of an equal collaboration.  I think it's needed here, because I don't see it described elsewhere.  Maybe in [[Release Artist|ReleaseArtist]]?  If so put a reference to that.  [[Collaboration Relationship Type|CollaborationRelationshipType]] doesn't tell the story about creating a [[Collaboration Artist|CollaborationArtist]], that's for sure.  —[[User:JimDeLaHunt|JimDeLaHunt]] 2008-02-06 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">IMO the previous guidelines was incorrect and shouldn't have been here in the first place. I would be happy to create a [[Collaboration Artist Style|CollaborationArtistStyle]] but it would be little more than "''If two or more artists are credited equally as primary artist on a release, without using a new group name, represent them as a new artist "Artist X & Artist Y" (or, for multiple artists: "Artist X, Artist, ... & Artist Z")''". We need to move away from trying to work out who contributed what to a release, and instead look at how they're credited. —[[User:Gecks|Gecks]] 2008-02-07 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Indeed, that part of the guideline dates from before collaboration artists (with AR's) were possible.  There is no reason in the world to keep it here. -- [[User:KrazyKiwi|KrazyKiwi]] 2008-02-07 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">So what do we have now (written text) about duets [[Track Artist|TrackArtist]] ? Don't you think removing guidelines ("Artist A & Artist B" [[Track Artist|TrackArtist]] + two [[Collaboration Relationship Type|CollaborationRelationshipType]]) on this is too much ? -- [[User:jesus2099|jesus2099]] 08:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">What's to say about it, though? If it's credited as a collaboration ("Artist A & Artist B") and there's no guideline for what to do with it, then users will add it in as is, which is exactly what any guideline would say anyway :) In any case it would require a new page as it's nothing to do with Featuring artists. -- [[User:Gecks|Gecks]] 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Yes, it makes sense. Thank you murdos for the discussion page. -- [[User:jesus2099|jesus2099]] 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>

''Comment'': I'd like to see some text at the beginning saying that this does not apply when [[Classical Style Guide|ClassicalStyleGuide]] is in use. Note that CSG and [[Classical Release Artist Style|ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle]] already takes a different position from [[Release Artist|ReleaseArtist]] and [[Featuring Artist Style|FeaturingArtistStyle]] on how to handle [[Release Artist|ReleaseArtist]] for collaborations. [[Classical Release Title Style|ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle]] is about to discourage [[Featuring Artist Style|FeaturingArtistStyle]] altogether, I expect. How about this text, after second paragraph of "Official Guideline". —[[User:JimDeLaHunt|JimDeLaHunt]] 2008-02-06 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">This guideline applies to most [[Musical Genre|MusicalGenre]]<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>s, but it does not apply to entries covered by the [[Classical Style Guide|ClassicalStyleGuide]]. Collaboration takes a different form in [[Classical Music|ClassicalMusic]]. See the [[Classical Style Guide|ClassicalStyleGuide]], and especially [[Classical Release Artist Style|ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle]] and [[Classical Release Title Style|ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle]], for guidance. 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Well, I would disagree with dropping [[Featuring Artist Style|FeaturingArtistStyle]] from the CSG. I think it still has a place there, but I've said my piece on the list. —[[User:Gecks|Gecks]] 2008-02-07 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">Do we really need to say "Except for CSG" here?  It'll apply to every style guideline.  It'd be more succinct to put on the CSG "...and ignore every other guideline MB has".-- [[User:KrazyKiwi|KrazyKiwi]] 2008-02-07 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I agree, but more because using (feat.) is already not part of the current (unofficial) CSG - the only place within CSG it does occur is the messy release title exception in CSG - and that too is just waiting on a database / interface change to go away.  I'd think it'd be rather easiest to leave CSG out here, and just add in to the title section of newCSG "until the db can do better, this guideline overrides [[Featuring Artist Style Amendment|FeaturingArtistStyleAmendment]]" or some such.  It's cleaner, and makes it so when such a db interface does happen, we only have one guideline, not two, in need of updating. -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 17:50, 07 February 2008 (UTC) 
</ul>Yes, I think we really need to say "Except for CSG" here. One of the problems MB poses for contributors is that the style guidelines are often inconsistent and ambiguous.  Without an "Except for CSG" disclaimer, then a contributor reading this guideline but not the CSG may not know the rules are different there. A contributor who reads both may not be sure which takes precedence.  If both refer to the other and both say that CSG (actually, [[Classical Release Title Style|ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle]]) takes precedence where CSG applies, then MB is more consistent and less ambiguous. — [[User:JimDeLaHunt|JimDeLaHunt]] 2008-05-14 
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">If such a note is considered to be needed, perhaps, rather than making it confusing by having editors read through (and possibly miss it) to find it in the text on each page, perhaps it would be better done as a what-cha-ma-call-it icon thingie "Does not apply to classical", or something like that, on each such page, so any guideline that we do think needs such a classical exemption can be easily identified before anyone (who already is likely confused trying to follow the rules of CSG) gets even more confused trying to integrate yet another guideline (and then de-integrate it when they do find that "except for CSG" buried in the text)?  Would also help make the guidelines themselves less wordy, as they wouldn't have to work that wording into the page text... -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 05:37, 09 October 2008 (UTC) 
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>

''Comment:'' This text doesn't define the term "name-check".  It would be helpful if it did. — [[User:JimDeLaHunt|JimDeLaHunt]] 2008-05-14 

[[Category:Discussion]]