History talk:Revised Sortname Style: Difference between revisions

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
*Bob Marley & The Wailers wasn't a collaboration; the name of the group was "Bob Marley & The Wailers". The same is true for Bill Haley & His Comets - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haley_%26_His_Comets . Ie, either is equivalent to "Hootie & The Blowfish"; the current split in the table given is factually inaccurate. [[User:99.243.33.163|99.243.33.163]]
*Bob Marley & The Wailers wasn't a collaboration; the name of the group was "Bob Marley & The Wailers". The same is true for Bill Haley & His Comets - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haley_%26_His_Comets . Ie, either is equivalent to "Hootie & The Blowfish"; the current split in the table given is factually inaccurate. [[User:99.243.33.163|99.243.33.163]]
**About Bob Marley: fair enough. I assumed, I guess wrongly, that since there's [[Artist:c9e99d40-4a2c-4ca7-ac5b-e842264ee271|The Wailers]], then there's at least a chance that BMatW becomes an NGS collaboration. In any case, I thought it was funny that BMatW doesn't follow the current guideline, and hasn't for years.
**About Bob Marley: fair enough. I assumed, I guess wrongly, that since there's [[Artist:c9e99d40-4a2c-4ca7-ac5b-e842264ee271|The Wailers]], then there's at least a chance that BMatW becomes an NGS collaboration. In any case, I thought it was funny that BMatW doesn't follow the current guideline, and hasn't for years.
*** The guideline was changed in March 2010, and that specifically changed the "correct" sortname for BM&TW. The old sortname was correct, per that version of the guideline (though there were multiple failed attempts to change it to "Marley, Bob & Wailers, The", on the same incorrect assumption that it was a collab.). After the change to the guideline, the sortname was changed to be correct per the new version - it looks like someone's since changed it to the wrong one again. I've just edited to fix it back to conform with the current guideline. [[User:99.243.22.211|99.243.22.211]] 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
**About Bill Haley vs. Hootie: you're right (AFAIK). Neither is a collaboration, and neither is treated as one in the current or proposed Sortname Style. Why are they treated differently in the examples? Because, as I understand the current guideline, Bill Haley is a person while there is no "Hootie" in H&TB. So H&TB is treated as a single "name" while BH&HC is treated as a person with a backing/support band.[[User:Caller_number_six]]
**About Bill Haley vs. Hootie: you're right (AFAIK). Neither is a collaboration, and neither is treated as one in the current or proposed Sortname Style. Why are they treated differently in the examples? Because, as I understand the current guideline, Bill Haley is a person while there is no "Hootie" in H&TB. So H&TB is treated as a single "name" while BH&HC is treated as a person with a backing/support band.[[User:Caller_number_six]]
*** I don't follow the difference you're seeing? H&TB gets sortname "Hootie & the Blowfish", BH&HC gets "Haley, Bill & His Comets", and BM&TW gets "Marley, Bob and the Wailers". All three are consistent with each other (regardless of the 'personhood' of Hootie). Hootie isn't mentioned in 2a because, even if "Hootie" were a person, that name's only one word long, thus it still wouldn't be affected by 2a. (Same reason "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" isn't also mentioned under 2a; it'd be redundant to the "Guideline 2a overriding guideline 2" mention just above.) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
***In any case, even if "The Blowfish" was a supporting band, it wouldn't change the sortname. But maybe I'll take H&TB out of the examples, since it's such a "corner case".[[User:Caller_number_six]]
***In any case, even if "The Blowfish" was a supporting band, it wouldn't change the sortname. But maybe I'll take H&TB out of the examples, since it's such a "corner case".[[User:Caller_number_six]]
****All three were included because they've been the example corner cases used in various sortname style discussions in the past. [[User:99.243.22.211|99.243.22.211]] 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
**The reason "collaborations" aren't mentioned in the guideline, current or proposed, is that (AFAIK) NGS collaborations won't ''have'' Sortnames, at least at first. [[User:Caller_number_six]]
**The reason "collaborations" aren't mentioned in the guideline, current or proposed, is that (AFAIK) NGS collaborations won't ''have'' Sortnames, at least at first. [[User:Caller_number_six]]

I'm unclear as to why there is a need to specially separate prefixes and suffixes. The goal of a sortname is to have like things sort together; why then is "John, Elton Sir" better than "John, Sir Elton"? [[User:99.243.22.211|99.243.22.211]] 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the change to the "Name of a person in a group artist name" guideline? You're dropping the separator comma where a name has been removed - current guideline: "Hendrix, Jimi, The, Experience", this proposal: "Hendrix, Jimi, The Experience". (Ie, the "where doing so" bit of Typographical guideline #1) Taking the Elton John example above, it now becomes unclear whether "Sir" is a middle name or a prefix. [[User:99.243.22.211|99.243.22.211]] 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Typographical Guidelines #3 compared with #s 5-8 of the current guideline, there's a very different intent, and the proposed text is far less clear. The intent of the current guideline is that the resulting sortname be as close to a basic character set (A-Za-z0-9&ßÆ挜ij) latin script as possible. How "logical collation" would be interpreted, conversely, is unclear, and serves a different purpose. Specifically, dropping current guideline #6, wrapping it into proposed typographical guidelines #3, makes it far less clear if the correct sortname would be "49" or "fourty-nine". The same unclarity is created for "Spın̈al Tap", "10,000 Maniacs", "Maroon 5", "trance[]control", "My$t:c DJz" - pretty much any of the current guideline's examples which have stylized characters anywhere but at the beginning of the name. I understand intent #7, but first, these are guidelines, not rules, and second, the way to "simplify" isn't to simply leave such types of cases (which have been added to the guideline over time as they've been brought up on the style list) unaddressed. T Guideline #3 would perhaps address them far more clearly, but the "(if doing so allows an artist's name to be more logically collated)" exception pretty much cancels any of that clarity out. [[User:99.243.22.211|99.243.22.211]] 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re articles, how is "would otherwise have been the first word in the sort-order" clearer than "beginning with"? (Ie, intent #6) [[User:99.243.22.211|99.243.22.211]] 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:00, 1 April 2011

  • Bob Marley & The Wailers wasn't a collaboration; the name of the group was "Bob Marley & The Wailers". The same is true for Bill Haley & His Comets - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haley_%26_His_Comets . Ie, either is equivalent to "Hootie & The Blowfish"; the current split in the table given is factually inaccurate. 99.243.33.163
    • About Bob Marley: fair enough. I assumed, I guess wrongly, that since there's The Wailers, then there's at least a chance that BMatW becomes an NGS collaboration. In any case, I thought it was funny that BMatW doesn't follow the current guideline, and hasn't for years.
      • The guideline was changed in March 2010, and that specifically changed the "correct" sortname for BM&TW. The old sortname was correct, per that version of the guideline (though there were multiple failed attempts to change it to "Marley, Bob & Wailers, The", on the same incorrect assumption that it was a collab.). After the change to the guideline, the sortname was changed to be correct per the new version - it looks like someone's since changed it to the wrong one again. I've just edited to fix it back to conform with the current guideline. 99.243.22.211 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • About Bill Haley vs. Hootie: you're right (AFAIK). Neither is a collaboration, and neither is treated as one in the current or proposed Sortname Style. Why are they treated differently in the examples? Because, as I understand the current guideline, Bill Haley is a person while there is no "Hootie" in H&TB. So H&TB is treated as a single "name" while BH&HC is treated as a person with a backing/support band.User:Caller_number_six
      • I don't follow the difference you're seeing? H&TB gets sortname "Hootie & the Blowfish", BH&HC gets "Haley, Bill & His Comets", and BM&TW gets "Marley, Bob and the Wailers". All three are consistent with each other (regardless of the 'personhood' of Hootie). Hootie isn't mentioned in 2a because, even if "Hootie" were a person, that name's only one word long, thus it still wouldn't be affected by 2a. (Same reason "The Sensational Alex Harvey Band" isn't also mentioned under 2a; it'd be redundant to the "Guideline 2a overriding guideline 2" mention just above.) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • In any case, even if "The Blowfish" was a supporting band, it wouldn't change the sortname. But maybe I'll take H&TB out of the examples, since it's such a "corner case".User:Caller_number_six
        • All three were included because they've been the example corner cases used in various sortname style discussions in the past. 99.243.22.211 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The reason "collaborations" aren't mentioned in the guideline, current or proposed, is that (AFAIK) NGS collaborations won't have Sortnames, at least at first. User:Caller_number_six

I'm unclear as to why there is a need to specially separate prefixes and suffixes. The goal of a sortname is to have like things sort together; why then is "John, Elton Sir" better than "John, Sir Elton"? 99.243.22.211 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the change to the "Name of a person in a group artist name" guideline? You're dropping the separator comma where a name has been removed - current guideline: "Hendrix, Jimi, The, Experience", this proposal: "Hendrix, Jimi, The Experience". (Ie, the "where doing so" bit of Typographical guideline #1) Taking the Elton John example above, it now becomes unclear whether "Sir" is a middle name or a prefix. 99.243.22.211 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Typographical Guidelines #3 compared with #s 5-8 of the current guideline, there's a very different intent, and the proposed text is far less clear. The intent of the current guideline is that the resulting sortname be as close to a basic character set (A-Za-z0-9&ßÆ挜ij) latin script as possible. How "logical collation" would be interpreted, conversely, is unclear, and serves a different purpose. Specifically, dropping current guideline #6, wrapping it into proposed typographical guidelines #3, makes it far less clear if the correct sortname would be "49" or "fourty-nine". The same unclarity is created for "Spın̈al Tap", "10,000 Maniacs", "Maroon 5", "trance[]control", "My$t:c DJz" - pretty much any of the current guideline's examples which have stylized characters anywhere but at the beginning of the name. I understand intent #7, but first, these are guidelines, not rules, and second, the way to "simplify" isn't to simply leave such types of cases (which have been added to the guideline over time as they've been brought up on the style list) unaddressed. T Guideline #3 would perhaps address them far more clearly, but the "(if doing so allows an artist's name to be more logically collated)" exception pretty much cancels any of that clarity out. 99.243.22.211 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re articles, how is "would otherwise have been the first word in the sort-order" clearer than "beginning with"? (Ie, intent #6) 99.243.22.211 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)