Label encapsulating both "Inc." and "Corp."

label
relationships
merging
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f8d6383e620> #<Tag:0x00007f8d6383e468> #<Tag:0x00007f8d6383e2d8>
#1

In adding relationships to a release the back cover credits as being “Distributed by Universal Music & Video Distribution, Corp,” I found two potential label entities that could fit: Universal Music & Video Distribution and Universal Music & Video Distribution, Corp. The latter is obviously closer to the proper name, but it seems to be a minor entity (having only five associated releases and no label-label relationships) while the former is much more developed (and has aliases for the more specific names) but also includes the period when the label was known as Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc., which has the same issue. What’s the proper structure for this? We obviously need to keep the first – if nothing else, until we’re able to resort all of the linked releases into one of the others – but should the latter two entities be merged into it or be given the proper relationships and remain separate?

#2

I’d personally prefer to keep both entities until we have “label credits” and to link to the more properly named one.

2 Likes
#3

That’s what I was leaning toward as well. I’ll add the proper relationships to make them a bit less orphaned. What’s the best way to link to the umbrella name from the Inc. and Corp.? “parent label”?

#4

Submitted merge
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/58406981

#5

This topic did conclude to not merge until we have artist credits on labels.

#6

We have relationship credits for labels now. Isn’t that enough?

2 Likes
#7

Great to know! Thanks. :slight_smile:

#8

No worries, I just found out about it myself!

#9

A question: if we are merging renamed labels, when do we use “renamed to” relationships?

#10

The following text is from the guideline for the Label rename relationship

Try to remember that MusicBrainz is not a corporate database, so keep it simple. Avoid abusing this relationship by trying to follow companies’ existences too closely. A company slightly altering its name, without significant change to its imprint(s) or ownership details, is not enough to justify adding new labels to the database (to then be used as targets for this relationship).

Keep in mind that the minor benefit of that extra bit of detail is far outweighed by the complexity involved in ensuring that editors assign the correct version of the company as the label for releases.

So basically, use the relationship when it’s a significant name change. The example given is Satellite Records being renamed into Stax

3 Likes