Handling name of transgender artist

As style leader, yes, this is fine - if someone complains, please point them to this statement :slight_smile:



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.


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.


How would that work if you actively remove the aliases?

Obviously the name has to be stored for a redirect to work.

Your words seem contrary to your actions:


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.


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


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 :joy:

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

A " … But releases are a history point of fact and shouldn’t be retro-actively changed. …"

B “… completely remove the deadname if the artist asks for that …”

Is B the path that Musicbrainz is taking?

If “yes” then A will only be an acceptable approach in some circumstances, and not “when the artist has asked for the removal of a deadname”.

1 Like

Yes, B. has been explicitly stated here:

(linked by me maybe four posts into this thread :stuck_out_tongue: )


I feel like I’m kicking multiple hornets’ nests with bare feet here, but I’ll cave in.

May I see an URL, screenshot, or a plain text quote at least, explaining what are Patricia Taxxon’s exact wishes?

Why: Even if it may seem so, I don’t wish to keep a dead name in the database if the artist feels vulnerable with us doing so. And yet, removing the alias is useless, because you can just look at the editing history, which is public.

It’s one thing if she doesn’t like being called by her old alias. That would mean enough has been done; if I’m not mistaken it’s been erased from all releases.

Another completely different thing would be her employing her “right to be forgotten”, in another user’s words which post I don’t feel like looking for right now.

If the requirements are fulfilled, we should aim to fix this problem as well. [Edit: You can have the opinion that we should do this without asking for confirmation. That’s a valid opinion. Please give your opinion and debate if you so wish.]

If not, well… One click takes you to page 10, which shows her old credit already. Take that as you will.

1 Like

She has asked to have her deadname removed, the style lead has been included in that discussion :+1:

Oh, that’s a news I didn’t notice.
Good to know but how did you know?

I’d like to know too.

I mean, I believe it because I would assume her of all people would wish for it and it would be silly to assume malice.

But we still need a source. If anything, could you link to it?

1 Like

I talked to her :smiling_face:

Hmm I don’t think it’s necessary to offer it up for public dissection, even if this thread was more pleasant (sad face)

@reosarevok was included, I don’t think more is needed. He mentions it briefly in one of the last contested edits on this artist if someone wants to dig it out.


TBH I was suspicious of this response, until I realized @reosarevok is part of the staff.

Indeed, you don’t need to prove anything to the public if the staff itself agrees that it’s true. It’s not like we’d have any say anyways…