As style leader, yes, this is fine - if someone complains, please point them to this statement
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 someoneâs idea from a few months ago isnât a bad idea for now. we change all credits to the new name and then add an annotation that says âoriginally credited as ___â. i at least believe all credits should be under the new name, preserving historical names in a database isnât 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 taxxonâs 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 havenât been open to any of my ideas, especially tigerman. every edit, i get a reply with the classic âfacts donât care about your feelingsâ and itâs 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 shouldnât be retro-actively changed.
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.
i am not bullying you. iâve been as polite as possible and iâve made sure to respect your opinion. youâve been calling me names and taking this personally when iâm just trying to keep musicbrainz as respectful and accurate as possible. no bullying, just respect.
iâm removing aliases because deadnames are not aliases. i meant that as an idea for later, because right now the system canât 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 donât 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 âfrom the topâ 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 itâs pretty case by case whether a trans artist actually wants their deadname gone.
thatâs reasonable. iâll cancel my edits for laura jane grace since itâs 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 donât like dupes
Well, itâs a start
Personally Iâd use the date the page/release changed, as we would with a release update anyway, but Iâm sure thereâs a discussion to be had there. (With this approach I wouldnât consider it a âdupeâ release, I do this for changed releases all the time)
Are you still working on some code re. alternative presentation?
A " ⌠But releases are a history point of fact and shouldnât be retro-actively changed. âŚ"
B â⌠completely remove the deadname if the artist asks for that âŚâ
Is B the path that Musicbrainz is taking?
If âyesâ then A will only be an acceptable approach in some circumstances, and not âwhen the artist has asked for the removal of a deadnameâ.
Yes, B. has been explicitly stated here:
(linked by me maybe four posts into this thread )
I feel like Iâm kicking multiple hornetsâ nests with bare feet here, but Iâll cave in.
May I see an URL, screenshot, or a plain text quote at least, explaining what are Patricia Taxxonâs exact wishes?
Why: Even if it may seem so, I donât 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.
Itâs one thing if she doesnât like being called by her old alias. That would mean enough has been done; if Iâm not mistaken itâs been erased from all releases.
Another completely different thing would be her employing her âright to be forgottenâ, in another userâs words which post I donât 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. Thatâs 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.
She has asked to have her deadname removed, the style lead has been included in that discussion
Oh, thatâs a news I didnât notice.
Good to know but how did you know?
Iâd 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?
I talked to her
Hmm I donât think itâs necessary to offer it up for public dissection, even if this thread was more pleasant (sad face)
@reosarevok was included, I donât 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 donât need to prove anything to the public if the staff itself agrees that itâs true. Itâs not like weâd have any say anywaysâŚ