The artist already has a way to keep an eye on the DB, with no extra admin required - they just have to make an account, and hit ‘subscribe’ on the artist MBID.
The person would be asking (explicitly or by implication) that the deadname be removed and not re-entered.*
Having to keep manually checking that a deadname had not re-appeared would be a stress, and I think an unreasonable one given that an semi-automated method would appear to be easily constructed.
*The person is asking that the deadname be removed with the goal that the deadname not appear now or in the future.
They are not asking that the deadname be removed for 1 second/1 day/1year/1decade before replacement.
“Look we’ll take your deadname down but it could be totally up to you whether it is re-added almost immediately. Yeah there are anti-trans activists who go round trying to out transgender people but thats your problem, do not try to make it ours”, appears unlikely to be received with gratitude by many transgender artists or their supporters.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but I don’t think having an admin check monthly emails (essentially, have them check subscriptions on behalf) is realistic. This whole discussion needed admin/mod input about a hundred posts ago but MB doesn’t even have staff resource for that minimum.
This is the reality of massive global and community driven databases. I think artists would be very grateful for a guideline that allows them to take control. Wikipedia is well known enough now for people to understand that the internet is something that you sometimes have to keep an eye on.
But by all means, suggest away. I just think a guideline is the part that’s more likely to happen 
2 Likes
Maybe you’re right.
I’m no coder.
Maybe an automated monthly email could auto activate a search for a Artistdeadname and then have an Admin notified only if there is a match found.
Which would result in the same amount of work for the Admin as when a Artist reports that their deadname has been re-added.
The extra cost to MB would seem to be in setting up and maintaining the “email-> autosearch-> notify admin if instance found” process. This one process would work for all artists seeking removal of re-added deadnames (and for any other instances where a name needs to be kept out of the db).
As I said I’m no coder but it would seem a cool thing to create. I’m thinking that MB IRC would be the place to see if this kite gets any love.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
I’ve been gone from editing for a while, but now I’m back. Unfortunately, it seems like that there are no editing guidelines yet regarding this issue.
The one thing that everyone agreed with from what I can tell is that changing the name on release groups and recordings is fine. That’s what I will do for now then. I expect those edits to go through unopposed.
8 Likes
As style leader, yes, this is fine - if someone complains, please point them to this statement 
10 Likes
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82246296
looks like the digital release with updated metadata issue is back
if i could give my opinion, i personally think someone’s idea from a few months ago isn’t a bad idea for now. we change all credits to the new name and then add an annotation that says “originally credited as ___”. i at least believe all credits should be under the new name, preserving historical names in a database isn’t worth deadnaming over. eventually, i think there should be a way for the system to completely redirect those names. for example, if you searched for patricia taxxon’s deadname, it would come up with her new name and it would be hidden rather than even have to be shown in the system.
i do want to mention that chaban and tigerman325 immediately vote no on all of my edits about deadnames. they haven’t been open to any of my ideas, especially tigerman. every edit, i get a reply with the classic “facts don’t care about your feelings” and it’s incredibly annoying. everyone here should at least try to care about trans people. transphobic ideologies are showing in many of these users.
4 Likes
Whatever. My points have been no less valid than yours. The only no vote I gave was on the blanket must change every single mention of the deadname. I have no issue with changing the release groups and recordings. But releases are a history point of fact and shouldn’t be retro-actively changed.
2 Likes
How would that work if you actively remove the aliases?
- Edit #82265045 - MusicBrainz
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82265024
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82265006
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82251085
- Edit #82251068 - MusicBrainz
- Edit #82246285 - MusicBrainz
Obviously the name has to be stored for a redirect to work.
4 Likes
i am not bullying you. i’ve been as polite as possible and i’ve made sure to respect your opinion. you’ve been calling me names and taking this personally when i’m just trying to keep musicbrainz as respectful and accurate as possible. no bullying, just respect.
1 Like
i’m removing aliases because deadnames are not aliases. i meant that as an idea for later, because right now the system can’t do my idea of hidden aliases. i would be open to adding the annotations if the credit had changed. that particular artist was okay with having her older work under her deadname, so we don’t need an annotation pointing it out, especially when it was in the wikipedia page right there.
As it stands I am quite happy with leaving the original release as released (with deadname), adding a new release with their real name, and renaming all release groups, works and recordings (which is pretty great). Without needing the artists input.
This in conjunction with the other ‘from the top’ agreement to completely remove the deadname if the artist asks for that seems like a solid base to edit from with minimum argument required .
Just since it’s pretty case by case whether a trans artist actually wants their deadname gone.
5 Likes
that’s reasonable. i’ll cancel my edits for laura jane grace since it’s still listed on streaming with her deadname Tom Gabel | Spotify
3 Likes
i feel like there were issues with the duplicate release strategy, both regarding release dates (use original? date artist came out publicly as trans? date the streaming/download page updated?) and the lack of context surrounding the presentation of deadnames on release pages
idk, maybe i just don’t like dupes
1 Like
Well, it’s a start 
Personally I’d use the date the page/release changed, as we would with a release update anyway, but I’m sure there’s a discussion to be had there. (With this approach I wouldn’t consider it a ‘dupe’ release, I do this for changed releases all the time)
Are you still working on some code re. alternative presentation?
1 Like