Shhsh. Don’t blow my cover. We need complex communications you can’t understand to keep the legal team busy. See Terms and Conditions.
Someone just added this: [God] - MusicBrainz
(It wasn’t put to a vote nor discussed anywhere which I can see.)
Agree that it does seem to needlessly just attempt to stir up an argument - “there is only one God” etc…
Especially pointless as it is just copying a Discogs link which is clearly just someone using an alias for a specific release. No logic to having square brackets in MB world as that one release on the Discogs page is clearly just an unknown person.
MB should not be copying Discogs stupidity.
I believe that the annotation is lifted verbatim from Discogs.
the editor who added the artist in question here
there was a very brief discussion on the unofficial public Discord between me, @lazybookwyrm, and @druimalban (not sure if they’re on the forum). but yes, I probably should have brought it up here before adding
in fact, if we want to add a note about how not to use this artist (i.e. they’re not a compiler, vocalist and instrumentalist, featured artist, etc.), I’d be more than down~ maybe something like:
“if a relationship requires human input, such as vocals, mixer, or producer, create a new artist”?
I’ll try and hunt through my CD collection in the next couple days and see if I can find some dedications.
I’ll admit, I didn’t actually look at what the credit on Discogs was, I just saw there was something credited without even reading it… that’s my bad, lol
I do agree with you on this point tho. when that release is added to MusicBrainz, it should either be credited to [unknown] credited as “God”, or a new, separate artist named “God”.
You have literally copy\pasted the Discogs comment… so I don’t know how you can say you didn’t look at it.
So far I don’t see the point apart from starting an argument. There is no MB release needing this. What I meant by the “unknown” comment is a human claiming to be “god” is just that. A human who does not want to give their name.
for clarity, the Discogs page was shared in the Discord. I opened it up on my phone, saw and read what’s highlighted in green, scrolled down for a sec and saw there was stuff credited (in red), but didn’t read what was credited.
I can remove the Discogs link if that would help… as said above, the Discogs release in question would be an incorrect use of this artist.
edit: I went ahead and did the edit
It has now been removed, as there were no relationships linked to it.