Handling name of transgender artist

Nothing. I’m cold like that, sorry.
EDIT: I suppose I could elaborate. Might take me a while to think about my response though.


this is a case where the “withdrawn” status makes the most sense to me

if we remove releases, they’ll just pop back up. the best we can do is provide proper context, linking public statements of apology etc.

a withdrawn status could enable flexibility in how/where the release is presented

i don’t think a withdrawn flag makes sense for trans artist credit changes, as the release isn’t being withdrawn, the credits are being updated to reflect reality. in order to provide proper context around that, I think something like

artist credit display options

would do a better job

neither of these changes seem huge, they’re still not defined enough to turn into code, but i wouldn’t expect any data migration or api issues

if we can nail down exit criteria i’m down to get a dev env set up and try to get a pr out


This was the downside to my idea. You’d probably have to give the alias an MBID. But I still think we need a way to handle these changes automatically, or at least in batches. The number of edits would still be messy.

actually good idea, props

Taylor Swift would enjoy that

My question: Is this really solving the problem at hand? Has someone called for deadnaming to require an extra click in the UI?

I’m not against the principle, it just seems to be adding complexity to the db when imo all this needs is a guideline.

i have

Please elaborate

“In situations where a trans artist does not wish to be deadnamed, please do not revert release credits to the deadname.”

As a guideline would directly address the edits/case in point (I’m sure that there is more detail that could be added ofc, not every situation will be as simple as this one, but that’s a different bridge imo)

Seems straightforward to me. As mentioned this has already been acknowledged as a agreeable path forward by the MB style leader.

1 Like

Seems fair to me. But again, how do we establish such a case? And what do we do when it is not the case?

Sorry for arguing, i want to have the cake and eat it too

so if i change a physical release away from using a deadname the policy would be to keep it inconsistent with the printed name?

i think that idea has gotten some pushback

1 Like

Yes that would be the policy, and yes it has not (and most likely will not) found agreement.

So, a call needs to be made, because a good DB needs consistency and clear guidelines. I would hope that everyone would abide by whatever guideline is decided upon.

Eat away :yum: edit: And also… keep it?? :exploding_head:

Guidelines are just guides, and the voting and edit note system are there to help editors navigate the fuzzy lines together. So I don’t think it would need more elaboration personally, people can use their noggins figure out (or debate about and then vote on) what “when an artist does not wish to be deadnamed” means. Edge cases may need digging into (e.g. do we remove cover art? Personally I think not without a removal request from the artist… already we’re in a different can of worms), but anything is a step forward.

1 Like

That’s… not how it works.

I… don’t know? So far I’ve argued exclusively for releases that are digital, which can change in credit over time. I don’t know that physical releases can get the same treatment. We need a search hint for these at the very least.

We need to establish where the line is. The truth is, neither side knows where to stop.

But keep it respectful. I know it has been for a while, but it warrants repeating. So far all disrespectful comments seem to have been ignored, so do yourself a favor and cool down before you reply.

1 Like

a good DB needs to be structured in a way that allows accurate recording and respectful presentation of information

returning to the juno example

we’ve found an area in which accurate data in the db leads to deadnames being presented without context

the only guidelines i can think of involve putting inaccurate data in fields in certain cases to ensure respectful presentation, such as

if that policy does not find agreement, then the policy will stay the status quo of “accurate to what was printed”

i can’t think of any guidelines that would find agreement that can solve this, but i have thought of technical solutions that could be agreeable

if there’s a guideline that works i’m all ears, but i think this is a problem of tools, not rules

1 Like

OK with changing download release but in this example, a CD, Ellen is printed on the back cover of a physical release.
In this case, we cannot change the reality.


which is why i keep proposing technical changes to how “credited as” is handled

right now, “credited as” completely replaces the artist name with the credited name, there’s no room for nuance or context

imdb provides context in their listings, “a credited as b”

as editors, we should have the ability to present credited names with proper context

if we don’t we’re publishing pages that refer to people by deadname only and that’s just not a good look


You say you want to be respected.
But you repeatedly post inflamatory statements.

Someone taking the risk of proclaiming their true gender gives you or anyone else no right whatsoever to expose them to the danger of deadnaming.

If this isn’t relevant to your position on naming trans Artists then stop posting such statements.


AIUI French privacy law recognises “the right to be forgotten”.
So if MB wishes to abide by French law then the db has to forget some things when requested.

1 Like

I don’t agree that it’s inflamatory. It’s just my opinion and you aren’t arguing against it, you just say it’s wrong and it seems like we’re just supposed to believe you. (EDIT: I thought about it. I can see how it could seem inflamatory. I meant it literally though)

I feel like it is relevant though. If an artist outs itself as trans, records the fact, and doesn’t do anything to erase his old name off the internet, I feel like we aren’t doing anything wrong.

1 Like

This is a colossal underestimation of the near-impossibility of scrubbing all trace on one’s past from the internet, though, especially in a country like the UK, where name changes have to be public record.

And also a very :grimacing: choice of pronouns (“their” was right there).


Look, if I was talking about Patricia, fine. But I was talking about an hypothetical artist with no gender, because they are imaginary. (Also, nouns have gender in Spanish. I was thinking “el artista”. That’s why I messed up.)

Please don’t make this harder for me. This thread is already extremely difficult to stay in. I only want to fix Patricia’s page, and I’m not talking about leaving the old half under her birth name.

Because as you surely remember, I don’t want that.


This just gets worse.

You know, given that it was a one off thing, her reply to this tweet, I’d be willing to let it slide and not mention it again.

But yeah, Eric Taxxon was not actually her legal birth name, and has never been even her legal name.

Worse, this implies that Taxxon also (Edit: or Patricia) aren’t part of her legal name, though it doesn’t confirm it.

Props to the one who pointed it out on the open edit in her MB page. Not gonna link to it 'cause… yeah.


This also confirms that she does take issue to being called that, of course, but it doesn’t confirm that she’d be opposed to keeping a search hint; be it UI hidden, user privilege-walled, whatever.

Also, I’m not going back to Twitter. That was a one time deal. I’m not going to search for anything there, you can’t make me