Proposal talk:Artist Type Other

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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)
Yes, I'm not planning to use this text in any official page. As can be read in the proposal, the new page would be User:hrglgrmpf/Artist Type. Here the definition text for other is: 'This type should be used if neither "person" nor "group" fits'. This is quite non-controversial, since it doesn't explicitly allow (or disallow) types of artists, isn't it? --Hrglgrmpf 23:18, 25 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)