Proposal talk:Artist Type Other

Wouldn't type 4 point to AR types that ought to be added as label-foo ARs, rather than creating fake Other-type artists which would exist only to force otherwise incorrect label-as-artist ARs? Type 4 in this listing seems a mistake to include. Also, should SPAs really be included here, rather than making them a distinct subset type of this type? That'd make generating lists of all SPAs (official or otherwise, especially otherwise) quite simply compared to how things are now. -BrianFreud

Well, of course "label as artists" should be handled differently, but until then it is best to mark them as "Other", because Person/Group clearly doesn't fit. The content of this page will not be any official style guide, but will be removed once the proposal passes, so no harm done! --Hrglgrmpf 02:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're not planning that this text would be the definition text for what "Other" is? Ie, on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artist_Type ? In any case, my point is that this text legitimates label-as-artists; the "handled differently" for such a thing is that a label entity ought to be created, not that a bogus label-as-artist artist gets dumped into a (legitimate per this text) Other-type artist. 99.243.22.211 23:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought about a distinct type for SPAs, but decided to first only go for the "Other" type. MusicBrainz is really mostly about persons and groups, it seems excessive to have 2 (or more) types for just 0.1% of all artists. Let us first introduce "Other", and then see if it is necessary/good/wanted to introduce more types. In any case, listing them as "Other" is better then "Person/Group/Unknown". --Hrglgrmpf 02:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)