Changing the Featuring and Presents rules.

[b]Changing the Featuring and Presents rules.[/b]

http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesArtist
http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesGeneralRules

The rules that restrict entering the ‘Featuring’ or ‘Presenting’ artists from being entered into the main artist field will be removed. These rules were made some time ago on the understanding that the featured or presenting artist was a secondary role. It is now apparent that this is not always true, and in fact, in the majority of cases, it is a equal role.

Further enhancements to the database MAY take place in the future to enable some type of subjective division of these roles, but at this point in time it is felt it is more important to streamline the rules, and also allow releases to reflect the real life main artists as billed on the front cover artwork.

[b]New Rules regarding ‘Featuring’ and ‘Presents’:[/b]

‘Featuring’ and ‘Presents’ (or variations and abbreviations thereof) should be used the same way as other joins in the main artist fields, to reflect how the artists are presented on the release artwork.

In the credits section, the correct role must be used to credit the artist if available, for example “Vocals”. Adding Featuring or Presents inside the brackets is not required, but it is acceptable if it reflects the text on the release.

If no specific credit is apparent on the release, an artist with a preceding ‘Featuring’ joiner must be credited with ‘Featuring’ in the credits section, with specific tracks indicated if relevant. An artist with a following ‘Presents’ joiner must be credited with ‘Presenter’ in the credits section, with specific tracks indicated if relevant.

The Featuring and Presents joins can be entered as they appear on the release, for example shortened to Feat. or Pres. The usual capitalization rules apply.

The ‘Featuring’ credit can still be used as any other credit, either where this term is used on a release, or when the artist is known to have contributed to the music but the specific role is not known.

[b]The Join field and Artist Collabarations[/b]

The join field is used for the words such as “vs.”, “Meets”, “And”, “&”, “w/”, “With” that link two or more artist names together. Abbreviations are accepted if they appear that way on the release. Lower case joins are accepted only for the abbreviations “vs.” and “w/”.

Artists which commonly collaborate together should be listed as one artist. Examples: “Ed Rush & Optical”, “Dom & Roland” (it’s really one person), “Giovanni & Mosler” and “Olga+Jozef”.

Artist collaborations which are one-off recordings should be listed as separate artists. If this one-off collaboration becomes an ongoing recording team then they can be updated to one artist entry later.

Do NOT attempt to split artists who regularly collaborate (Definition of regular: Any artist that has more than 2 collaborations (different releases), excluding remix EPs)

[b]Updates:[/b]

We will rely on manual updates to amend the entries where these roles should be a main artist credit. Reference to the original release [b]must[/b] always be made in order to do the correct update. The featuring credit appearing in the credit section must not be taken as a cue to automatically add the artist to the main artist section.

[b]Rules that will be removed:[/b] [quote]”Featuring” should always be listed in the credits field (see below) and not in a join field. This is to provide a consis when it is a full collaboration between two unique artists. IE; Final Fantasy presents Tom Stevens” (from http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesGeneralRule )
[/quote] [quote=Old_splitting_guideline] *** Splitting Guidelines

1 Don’t split artists you don’t know about
2 Don’t split one release and leave behind 20 compilation appearances
3 Clean up beforehand, remove redundant links, images and profiles.
4 Split one artist at a time until you have reached your submission limit, and then move on to another one.
5 Do NOT attempt to split fake collaboration. A fake collaboration can be a (often bootleg) remix of a famous artist by a wannabee famous artist. Example: Par-T-One vs. INXS.
6 Do NOT attempt to split artists who regularly collaborate (Definition of regular: Any artist that has more than 2 collaborations (different releases), excluding remix EPs)[/quote]


Return to Discogs Blog
70 Comments
  • Apr 10,2007 at 11:12

    Firstly, welcome to Discogs!
    Secondly, for future reference, there’s no need to create a brand new forum for questions about how to submit info to the database. You’re best place to ask these sorts of questions is in the [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/board?forum_id=17]Adding & Updating Forum[/url]. Just start a new [b]topic[/b] there, rather than an entire new forum. (I’d also suggest deleting that forum you created, since it’s just taking up space.)

    Now, to your question:
    [quote=djelectronik]because “Reflektor Falke” alone is no artist. you´ll never find a release by “Reflektor Falke”. this name only exists in combination with “Thomas D”. “Thomas D Präsentiert Reflektor Falke” is a solo sideproject of Thomas D.[/quote]I would therefore suggest the following:
    Ask yourself: Is there any artistic difference between “Thomas D” and “Thomas D Präsentiert Reflektor Falke”, or are they basically the same style of music?
    If there’s no artistic difference between the two then make “Thomas D Präsentiert Reflektor Falke” an ANV of “Thomas D” as you did in the first updates, but explain clearly in the submission notes why you’re doing that. You can also add a link to this forum in the submission notes, so mods can see the discussion that’s been had.

    If there is a big artistic difference between the two and the artist set them up intentionally to release different styles of music, then they should exist as Aliases of each other. If this is the case, once again, make sure you explain clearly in the submission notes why you’re making the alias. Provide a link to this forum.
    Hope that helps!

  • Apr 10,2007 at 09:18

    [quote=Kergillian][/quote]
    because “Reflektor Falke” alone is no artist. you´ll never find a release by “Reflektor Falke”. this name only exists in combination with “Thomas D”. “Thomas D Präsentiert Reflektor Falke” is a solo sideproject of Thomas D.

  • Apr 9,2007 at 15:30

    Why not just do as requested? Thomas D [JOINER] Präsentiert [/JOINER] Reflektor Falke

    and then make Reflektor Falke an alias of Thomas D?

  • Apr 9,2007 at 05:45
  • Mar 31,2007 at 06:55

    [quote=digirami]But there are already exceptions, like if the artist’s role is stated, don’t add featuring to the credits.[/quote]

    That’s not an exception; that’s the rule! The rule is that if there’s no role explicitly stated for the ARTIST (not including an alias) then you have to add the featuring credit. Not adding it when there’s an alias credit would be an exception to the rule.

    [quote=digirami]But in the last example from my earlier, neither is the role of the artist whose name is before featuring since his roles are credited through an alias also; why should the featured artist be treated different? (Plus, if any person were to click on System F to go to his profile, they will see it is Ferry Corsten).[/quote]

    1) Because the main Artist doesn’t need a role added – it’s his/her/their release! The whole point is to try and specify just what the role of the ‘featured’ artist is on a release. If I have a guest on my release, what are they doing there? Many releases specify that the featured artist is a vocalist, a guitar player, etc. But many don’t, and those ones have the featuring credit as a catchall.

    2) Also, Ferry Corsten might be written as the real name or alias of System F on the profile page, but that’s not so obvious when you’re looking at a release. And a user might not be inclined to click on every role on the release to try and find out which one, if any, is System F, or to click on System F find out all of his/her/their other identities and compare them all to the release to see if any of them have a role. Having a direct featuring credit keeps it simple and straightforward.

    [quote=digirami]The rule should probably be changed where featuring should only be used as a credits if the role of the featured artist is not mention, including aliases.[/quote]

    Well, I’ll leave any further comment to nik or Random Mod X (heck, they might even contradict everything I’ve said…) but it seems to me that if you have an alias in the first place where everything that is credited to that alias already appears on an entirely separate page from the main page of the artist, then you have to separate feat and pres credits as well. It doesn’t make sense to separate everything else but leave this connected.

  • Mar 31,2007 at 01:15

    [quote=Kergillian]1) Because the rule is streamlined so as not to have exceptions floating around.
    [/quote]

    But there are already exceptions, like if the artist’s role is stated, don’t add featuring to the credits.

    [quote=Kergillian]2) So that an ‘appears on credit’ can be listed under the artist page and not just the alias page[/quote]
    But now that featuring is a joiner in the main artist field, tracks where an artist is featured will now be found under “releases” or “tracks appears on”.

    [quote=Kergillian]3) because the role of the artist under the artist name isn’t specififed, only the role of the artist’s alias (ie: System F is an artist name chosen by Corsten for a reason. In either instance, his role on the release as System F isn’t specified, thereofre System F gets a featuring credit.)
    [/quote]
    But in the last example from my earlier, neither is the role of the artist whose name is before featuring since his roles are credited through an alias also; why should the featured artist be treated different? (Plus, if any person were to click on System F to go to his profile, they will see it is Ferry Corsten).

    The rule should probably be changed where featuring should only be used as a credits if the role of the featured artist is not mention, including aliases.

    Just a thought.

  • Mar 30,2007 at 22:53

    Well, I’m sorry my status isn’t high enough for ya, but my logic should still work;)

    There are mutliple reasons:

    1) Because the rule is streamlined so as not to have exceptions floating around.

    2) So that an ‘appears on credit’ can be listed under the artist page and not just the alias page

    3) because the role of the artist under the artist name isn’t specififed, only the role of the artist’s alias (ie: System F is an artist name chosen by Corsten for a reason. In either instance, his role on the release as System F isn’t specified, thereofre System F gets a featuring credit.)

    It’s not enough to just have an artist named and assume everyone who looks at the release will automatically know the writer is an alias. Adding the featuring credit tidies up the database and doesn’t presume knowledge of the user.

  • Mar 30,2007 at 16:05

    Right.

    But I will still like to discuss the necessity of adding featuring as a credit in some cases… I can understand where it might be needed say in my examples below (note: examples made up for reference only and do not necessarily reflect what is actually on a release).

    1) artist of a release is [u]Rising Star featuring System F[/u], but the credits say [i]Written & Produced By Armin van Buuren[/i] (not System F, or Ferry Corsten for that matter [Ferry Corsten is System F & Rising Star is Armin van Buuren, for those who don’t know]). In this case, Featuring is definitely needed (that I understand why for obvious reasons).

    But, I do not see the need to add featuring as a credit if the above was like this:
    2) artist of a release is [u]Rising Star featuring System F[/u], and the credits say [i]Written & Produced By Armin van Buuren & Ferry Corsten[/i]. The release will still be linked to System F as a principle artist when Featuring is used a joiner & both artists are being equally credited for their role via their real names. So why is there the need for System F to have a featuring credit when, in essence, he did the same work Rising Star did? And is credited for work via an alias?

    PS: I would like a moderator, an editor, and/or a much-higher-up to logically explain the necessity of that part of the featuring-joiner rule, kindly please. Much thanks.

  • Mar 29,2007 at 11:34

    [quote=digirami]Question is, why is still the need to add a featuring credit for Artist-B if the credits for that artist are the same for the main artist? I mean, as long as the person is credit, via an alias or something, shouldn’t that be enough?[/quote]

    Because the role the person has as the Artist isn’t written in this instance – only the role as the alias. As long as there is a rule completely separating credits for aliases, then we have to continue treating them as separate entities for the purpose of the database.

    So a featuring credit is necessary for said Artist if the only actual credits on the release are to an alias of the artist.

    [quote=digiramiAnd do I still have to add featuring if there is a role for an ANV of the featured artist?[/quote]

    I wouldn’t think so. An ANV is a credit to the same artist, just under an alteration of the name. As long as that Artist has a credit, the Featuring shouldn’t be necessary, even if the credit is under an ANV…

  • Mar 29,2007 at 10:16

    Thanks, but that doesn’t really give me a definitive answer to my question.

  • Mar 26,2007 at 16:10

    Question…

    You have an artist on a release as such: Artist-A featuring Arist-B. In the credits, it says; Written & Produced By Artist-X & Artist-Y, where Artist-X is an alias for Artist-A, and Artist-Y is an alias for Artist-B.

    Question is, why is still the need to add a featuring credit for Artist-B if the credits for that artist are the same for the main artist? I mean, as long as the person is credit, via an alias or something, shouldn’t that be enough?

    And do I still have to add featuring if there is a role for an ANV of the featured artist?

  • Mar 17,2007 at 04:48

    my two cents for what its worth re: Presents / Featuring vs. presents / featuring …

    [quote=nik]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization#Headings_and_publication_titles

    different conventions are used for capitalizing words in publication titles and headlines, including chapter and section headings. The exact rules differ between individual house styles. The main examples are (from most to least capitals used):

    #1 – all caps

    #2 – “The Vitamins Are In My Fresh Brussels Sprouts – capitalization of all words (“Title Case”), regardless of the part of speech

    In creative typography, such as music record covers and other artistic material, all styles are commonly encountered, including all-lowercase letters.

    [/quote]

    I think that the creative typography should most definitely be maintained 1) always in titles and 2) almost always in artist names. I say almost always because of this Presents/presents issue. Preservation of capitalization formats in artists’ names such as a-ha or The KLF (thank you!) insomuch as the entire artist name is contained in one field. The debate over DJ A presents Artist B/DJ A Presents Artist B involves two fields and a joiner. The joiner is the real issue here. I think everyone would agree that were there a mash-up of Take On Me and 3AM Eternal (!) that the artists would appear as

    ARTIST _ JOINER _ ARTIST
    a-ha _ vs. _ KLF, The

    because vs. is only acceptable as vs. … not vs, not Vs, not VS. – only vs. Since we no longer create a new artist for mash ups etc. we no longer look at vs. as part of the artist name (in this example we no longer have a separate artist named “a-ha vs. The KLF”) I think we need to look at Featuring/featuring and Presents/presents (and for that matter Meets/meets) in the same manner – featuring, presents, meets – are now akin to vs. in that they serve a [i]function[/i] and are not a part of the artist name. If any of these three are part of the artist name then they’re not joiners and are not an issue. Given that Featuring Presents and Meets are all now only functional only when they’re used as joiners, it seems to me that we should follow the same format as vs. and keep them lowercase. IMHO, it creates a uniformity throughout Ogs, helps to visually distinguish Artist Number One and Artist Number Two, and just generally looks cleaner.

    Then again, I use all lowercase letters for my ‘stage name’ anyway so maybe I’m biased?… :)

    Thanks – hope that all made sense….

    rich

  • Mar 15,2007 at 08:46

    [quote=elexxii]No, it shouldn’t. [/quote]
    I agree, it’s not an ANV, not an alias. We’ve got to follow the title of the release and give valuable informations.With the new “featuring” join field, it’s not a good idea to let go with some entry like [url=http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ruffneck+Featuring+Yavahn]Ruffneck featuring Yavahn[/url], better [url=http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ruffneck]Ruffneck[/url] Featuring [url=http://www.discogs.com/artist/Yavahn]Yavahn[/url], never mind they do 1, 2 or 10 releases together.
    @elexxii : Yavahn sing in “the Power-The rhythm” (credit for background vocals as Joanne Thomas who was her real name) ;-).
    @DS Helder : Ruffneck doing a remix is Ruffneck and the Supremes without Diana Ross are the Supremes ! basta cosi! :D

  • Mar 15,2007 at 08:22

    [quote=elexxii]There’s RuffNeck without Yavahn: [/quote]
    Just like there was Supremes without Diana Ross?

  • Mar 15,2007 at 08:01

    [quote=voodoolove]Shouldn’t “Ruffneck Feat. Yavahn” be an anv of “Ruffneck”, then?[/quote]
    No, it shouldn’t.
    There’s RuffNeck without Yavahn:
    [r=173825]
    [r=49760]

  • Mar 14,2007 at 23:20

    [quote=voodoolove]eg Ruffneck group of producer,Yavahn “lead singer, co-founder of Jomanda, writing partner, and the voice behind Ruffneck” , and Ruffneck Feat. Yavahn [/quote]
    Shouldn’t “Ruffneck Feat. Yavahn” be an anv of “Ruffneck”, then?

  • Mar 14,2007 at 18:52

    [quote=elexxii]
    [quote=helix]
    If Featuring or Presents is a joiner between regularly collaborating artists, can they be joined into a single artist?

    You mean like in Praga Khan Featuring Jade 4U? Yes![/quote]

    If “Praga Khan Featuring Jade 4U” is a name of a group , collective, band and if they don’t have self release that’s ok, but I can’t see why in other cases? if I follow this way you have entry for ArtistA, another for ArtistB, another one for artistA feat artistB, this last one must be add to the “in Groups” field of artistA & artistB (2 or more people doing music for a while… it’s a group, band, collective…), and perhaps sometines as an ANV, all I see is redundancy (not sure in english, redondance en francais)
    eg [url=http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ruffneck]Ruffneck[/url] group of producer,[url=http://www.discogs.com/artist/Yavahn]Yavahn[/url] “lead singer, co-founder of Jomanda, writing partner, and the voice behind Ruffneck” , and [url=http://www.discogs.com/artist/Ruffneck+Featuring+Yavahn]Ruffneck Feat. Yavahn[/url]
    Yavahn is on every releases of Ruffneck but for some commercial/artwork reasons, she’s sometimes “featuring”, and sometimes not, the fact : Yavahn is a “member” of Ruffneck.
    IMO the third entry must be split/delete using “featuring” in the join field if the release is called like that, with 2 entries we’ve got correct & useful info, with three and all the stuff (group anv alias) it’s a mess with useless info… no?

  • Mar 13,2007 at 21:25

    [quote=naggersexer]i propose one standard that applies to titles in English.[/quote]
    you cannot allow correct capitalization in just one language, and disallow it for all others. equality for all!

  • Mar 13,2007 at 18:11

    [quote=naggersexer]i propose one standard that applies to titles in English.[/quote]

    That again forces people to memorize quite a few rules and more than a few exceptions – which shouldn’t be too difficult for an English-native, but would likely be quite a lot harder for a German, Italian, Russian, Francophone, Scandinavian, etc.

    To be honest, just the fact that it would back up the queue because non-English mods would hesitate to vote, or if they did and voted incorrectly due to language constraintes there would be a ton of resubmits, is enough for me to be against this type of update.

  • Mar 13,2007 at 17:48

    [quote=Kergillian]the chaos that would ensue with multiple formatting standards allowed to different people.[/quote]
    you exaggerate. i propose one [url=http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmar98.htm]standard[/url] that applies to titles in English.

  • Mar 12,2007 at 19:51

    [quote=JT_X]So everything on this site is to be put to a vote? I don’t see a substantive reason here.[/quote]

    No, everything will be decided by [u=nik] and [u=teo] as they’re the site owners. But they tend to make changes based on what is a) wanted by a sustantial number of people, and b) is integral towards upgrading the site. Making changes based on a the wishes of a handful of people doesn’t make sense in either regard.

    [quote=JT_X]I’ve never suggested that non-English speakers try to use unfamiliar rules. I just think that those of us who know how to write things in our mother tongues be allowed to do so, regardless of what language that is.[/quote]

    That creates a chaotic mess of differing standards which will not only get confusing due to different versions of the same releases with differing formatting standards, but will also uglify the site due to differing title practises. And it’s doubly hard to mod, as different mods will have differing ideas of what the standards are, so that legitimate submissions on both sides of the title fence will get N-Voted as mods of different origins and sensibilities apply their standards. This, in turn, will back up the already massive queue, as some mods will choose not to vote on certain submissions due to their unfamiliarity with the formatting rules, while other proper releases will get voted down and have to be continuously re-submitted an argued over. Not to mention the massive swarm of format purists who will start to update every second release on Discogs to conform with the ‘proper’ standards, only to have them updated right back again.

    [quote=JT_X]I don’t understand this argument.[/quote]

    What I mean is that it’s more important to get all of the releases up, and database them, than to apply formatting standards to the titles to conform to what person X deems as ‘proper English’.

    [quote=JT_X]Again, if it’s so unimportant to you, why not let those of us who find it important have options? I don’t think allowing articles and prepositions be lowercase is going to ruin discogs forever…[/quote]

    See my above response on the chaos that would ensue with multiple formatting standards allowed to different people.

    That aside, what I’m saying is that there are more pressing issues at hand that need to be deal with before any sort of standardization of titling is discussed, debated and potentially implemented. It’s simply not necessary, and, IMO, not worth the hassle.

    [quote=JT_X]http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=123395#1620306
    http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=123395#1624030%5B/quote%5D

    [u=nik] said that it’s OK to have exceptions – and [u=Donnacha]’s point is just that: an exception. On that thread, I also said (and still stand by):

    “other languages, however, are a different cup of tea. I agree with the point Donnacha made – in Gaelic it would be absolutely bizarre to capitalize the first letter in some instances (and I only took one year of the language in college…)

    I think that for those languages where it changes the words or doesn’t make sense, if person X can prove it, they should write the titles as they appear on the release (Gaelic, German, French, Hungarian, etc), and those releases should be voted on by mods of that language if there’s some dispute about the capitalization of the titles.

    Otherwise, best to let it be – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it :)”

  • Mar 12,2007 at 19:33

    [quote=Kergillian]Otherwise, English speakers are as likely to screw up titles in German, Dutch, etc as they are to screw up English titles, due to format and language differences.

    So having an unusual format with exceptions allowed is better than having a flawed system where everything gets screwed up by submitters who are unfamiliar with other languages, and accepted by equally unfamiliar mods. This way, there’s is a standardized rule that EVERYONE can easily and conceptually understand, which makes it feasible for all users.[/quote]
    Well, I’ve never argued that someone unfamiliar with the title capitalization standards of a particular language should make guesses when submitting. If I were to submit a release with German titles, I would rever to a First Letter Capitalization Scheme, but I resent having to mangle titles in my own mother tounge.

    [quote=Kergillian]1) Why should a few users be allowed to dosomething that the majority either don’t want or don’t prefer?[/quote]
    So everything on this site is to be put to a vote? I don’t see a substantive reason here.

    [quote=Kergillian]2) Why should a format be introduced that would be very difficult for many users to be able to use? There are a LOT of non-English speakers on this site; making their Discogs life very difficult so a handful of language purists can get their way isn’t what’s best for the community as a whole.[/quote]
    Title capitalization rules are not new, they’ve been in place here before, and these rules were in fact established long before discogs was created. I’ve never suggested that non-English speakers try to use unfamiliar rules. I just think that those of us who know how to write things in our mother tongues be allowed to do so, regardless of what language that is.

    [quote=Kergillian]3) Because the data collection is more important than forcing format standards that apply to other catalog systems.[/quote]
    I don’t understand this argument.

    [quote=Kergillian]4) Because there are a lot of more important functions to be applied before we worry about capitalization, which is purely aesthetic in the vast majority of cases.[/quote]
    Again, if it’s so unimportant to you, why not let those of us who find it important have options? I don’t think allowing articles and prepositions be lowercase is going to ruin discogs forever…

    [quote=nik]Can you give examples of this please? I think it is OK to have exceptions when the meaning is altered.[/quote]
    http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=123395#1620306
    http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=123395#1624030

  • nik
    Mar 12,2007 at 04:33

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization#Headings_and_publication_titles

    [quote]different conventions are used for capitalizing words in publication titles and headlines, including chapter and section headings. [b]The exact rules differ between individual house styles[/b]. The main examples are (from most to least capitals used):

    #1 – all caps

    #2 – “The Vitamins Are In My Fresh Brussels Sprouts – [b]capitalization of all words (“Title Case”), regardless of the part of speech[/b][/quote]

    [quote]In creative typography, such as music record covers and other artistic material, all styles are commonly encountered, including all-lowercase letters.[/quote]

    [quote=JT_X]the standard by which we are forced to capitalize titles here is wrong for most of these languages, in some cases drastically changing the meaning of said titles, or reducing them to nonsense.[/quote]

    Can you give examples of this please? I think it is OK to have exceptions when the meaning is altered.

  • Mar 11,2007 at 22:43

    [quote=JT_X]Your perceived multitude of standards does not change the fact that the discogs standard is very unusual.[/quote]

    Not so much for music – while music labels are a quagmire of formatting standards, the Cap Every Word’s First Letter Rule is often seen on releases…

    [quote=JT_X]And, has been discussed repeatedly, the standard by which we are forced to capitalize titles here is wrong for most of these languages, in some cases drastically changing the meaning of said titles, or reducing them to nonsense. So, really, this capitalization fails most languages, yet we’re still saddled with it.[/quote]

    As I said: exceptions (those releases where the actual meaning is changed fall under this category) should be dealt with case by case.

    Otherwise, English speakers are as likely to screw up titles in German, Dutch, etc as they are to screw up English titles, due to format and language differences.

    So having an unusual format with exceptions allowed is better than having a flawed system where everything gets screwed up by submitters who are unfamiliar with other languages, and accepted by equally unfamiliar mods. This way, there’s is a standardized rule that EVERYONE can easily and conceptually understand, which makes it feasible for all users.

    [quote=JT_X]Consistant, yes. But still wrong. And ugly.[/quote]

    -shrug- it’s not ‘wrong’ because Discogs can choose to create its own format if it likes. This is a music database – there can be no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ formats in a multilingual databasing environment. Any format is subjective and arbitrary.

    And the chaos ensuing from a free-for-all format system – or a multi-language system with zillions of regulations – would be MUCH uglier,

    [quote=JT_X]All I, and a few others, wish to do, is to be able to capitalize titles correctly. If it’s so unimportant to data collection to everyone else, why aren’t we given this ability?[/quote]

    Multiple reasons:

    1) Why should a few users be allowed to dosomething that the majority either don’t want or don’t prefer?

    2) Why should a format be introduced that would be very difficult for many users to be able to use? There are a LOT of non-English speakers on this site; making their Discogs life very difficult so a handful of language purists can get their way isn’t what’s best for the community as a whole.

    3) Because the data collection is more important than forcing format standards that apply to other catalog systems.

    4) Because there are a lot of more important functions to be applied before we worry about capitalization, which is purely aesthetic in the vast majority of cases.

    5) Because nik said so, and he’s the grand poobah ;)

  • Mar 11,2007 at 19:38

    [quote=Kergillian]That’s a ridiculous statement. For one, there are several ways of ‘properly capitaizing’ titles, depending on the format and standards you’re using and the purpose.[/quote]
    Your perceived multitude of standards does not change the fact that the discogs standard is very unusual.

    [quote=Kergillian]As well, this is a global community with a LOT of different anguages being databsed, not just English. The most intelligent way to deal with this is to find a format that suits everything most intelligently and to deal with exceptions on a case by case basis.[/quote]
    And, has been discussed repeatedly, the standard by which we are forced to capitalize titles here is wrong for most of these languages, in some cases drastically changing the meaning of said titles, or reducing them to nonsense. So, really, this capitalization fails most languages, yet we’re still saddled with it.

    [quote=Kergillian]Capping the first letter of every word is the best solution, because it’s the most consistent, and extremely easy to remember for everyone, regardless of language. It’s clean on the page, and legible.[/quote]
    Consistant, yes. But still wrong. And ugly.

    [quote=Kergillian]There are enough issues to deal with on this database with regards to language barriers and databasing functions without squabbling over such a small issue. If it doesn’t interfere with data collection (and it doesn’t), then it ain’t broke so don’t fix it.[/quote]
    All I, and a few others, wish to do, is to be able to capitalize titles correctly. If it’s so unimportant to data collection to everyone else, why aren’t we given this ability?

  • Mar 11,2007 at 09:47

    (it also wouldn’t hurt for some people to READ THE RELEASE INFO before randomly updating releases in this way)

  • Mar 11,2007 at 09:35

    ^^ Agreed.

    People need to learn the difference between an alias and an ANV, and mods/editors need to be a LOT more discriminating in voting on them.

    It took me a while to learn it myself, so I understand the difficulties – which is WHY the mods/editors need to be more careful when voting artist name changes.

    IMO, unless there is a specific, justified reason for any artist name change – merge, convert to ANV, rename, etc – it shouldn’t be allowed. There are too many ‘corrections’ being erroneously applied right now.

  • Mar 11,2007 at 03:24

    Please, if you (as moderator) or the submitter have no clue if “The Presenter” is an artist or not [u][b]then don’t include it[/b][/u].

    An example I just stumbled accross: [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2782943]the add submission[/url] & [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2797359]my fixing update[/url]

  • Mar 10,2007 at 23:23

    “If it doesn’t interfere with data collection (and it doesn’t)… ” we could use all caps it it wouldn’t interfere either…

    the rules are simple
    basically just
    prepositions under five letters and conjunctions are lowercased
    but first and last words are always capitalized regardless

  • Mar 10,2007 at 23:12

    one day discogs will use title caps, and not just capitalize the first letter of each word because it’s convenient, but change is slow. i knew that this day (feat / pres changes) would eventually come too.

  • Mar 10,2007 at 15:53

    [quote=JT_X]Yet, those of us who learned how to properly capitalize titles of English works are forced to capitalize them incorrectly because other people don’t feel like learning how to do it.[/quote]

    That’s a ridiculous statement. For one, there are several ways of ‘properly capitaizing’ titles, depending on the format and standards you’re using and the purpose.

    As well, this is a global community with a LOT of different anguages being databsed, not just English. The most intelligent way to deal with this is to find a format that suits everything most intelligently and to deal with exceptions on a case by case basis.

    Capping the first letter of every word is the best solution, because it’s the most consistent, and extremely easy to remember for everyone, regardless of language. It’s clean on the page, and legible. Yes, it’s a touch awkward for those who are used to certain titular styles – but it’s no different than having to write in Chicago when you’re used to MLA or APA, etc.

    There are enough issues to deal with on this database with regards to language barriers and databasing functions without squabbling over such a small issue. If it doesn’t interfere with data collection (and it doesn’t), then it ain’t broke so don’t fix it.

  • Mar 10,2007 at 13:08

    [quote=nik]Discogs is not a library, record titles are not book titles.[/quote]
    Titles are titles.

    [quote=nik]The site is made up of many users from all over the world, trying to catalog many releases from all over the world in many languages. Capitalisation is the most minor aspect of ANY of the data entry issues, and further, capitalisation rules for English are not even universal or fixed.[/quote]
    Yet, those of us who learned how to properly capitalize titles of English works are forced to capitalize them incorrectly because other people don’t feel like learning how to do it.

  • Mar 9,2007 at 17:28

    Capitalizing The First Letter Of Each Word Is Like A Shoe That Fits.

    You May Not Like The Shoe. But, If The Shoe Fits, Wear It.

  • Mar 9,2007 at 17:10

    [quote=nik]Discogs is not a library, record titles are not book titles. The site is made up of many users from all over the world, trying to catalog many releases from all over the world in many languages. Capitalisation is the most minor aspect of ANY of the data entry issues, and further, capitalisation rules for English are not even universal or fixed. Capitalizing Each Word is easy, it looks fine, is a more modern way of doing things, is the way Discogs has done it for six years now, and therefore it is the way we want to continue to do things.[/quote]
    no–it’s not a library, but title case universally applies to titles. also note i said i’d “like to see discogs adopt these rules (at least for English)”.
    and just because “we’ve done it for six years” doesn’t really mean it’s the correct way to do it. great example of that right here. (these new feat / pres changes)

  • Mar 2,2007 at 13:39

    [quote=nik]Sure, I don’t see a problem there. [/quote]
    Great ! Thanks.

  • Mar 2,2007 at 12:53

    [quote=nik]No, only vs. is allowed lower case. If it was up to just me, I would not allow vs. lower case either. [/quote]

    I thought w/ is allowed too with lowercase letter

  • nik
    Mar 2,2007 at 07:31

    [quote=Iron_Fist]Can we use the Presenter credit in cases where the Presenter joiner cannot be used[/quote]

    Sure, I don’t see a problem there.

    [quote=z33k]shouldn’t “Feat.”/”Feauturing” and “Pres.”/”Presents” and abbreviations here of be listed in lowercase, like done with “vs.” ? I think that would be the most logical thing. [/quote]

    No, only vs. is allowed lower case. If it was up to just me, I would not allow vs. lower case either.

    [quote=naggersexer]personally i would like to see discogs adopt these rules of capitalization (at least for English) They’re not hard.
    http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmar98.htm

    simply capitalizing the first letter of every word looks uber newbie
    go to the library and pay attention to the capitalization patterns in book titles–you’ll see these line up[/quote]

    Discogs is not a library, record titles are not book titles. The site is made up of many users from all over the world, trying to catalog many releases from all over the world in many languages. Capitalisation is the most minor aspect of ANY of the data entry issues, and further, capitalisation rules for English are not even universal or fixed. Capitalizing Each Word is easy, it looks fine, is a more modern way of doing things, is the way Discogs has done it for six years now, and therefore it is the way we want to continue to do things.

  • Mar 2,2007 at 01:29

    [quote=mizukagami]I think an “Artist” Presents “Title” case does not need a joiner field.
    It’s artist and title just like any other release in Discogs[/quote]
    the question was:
    [quote=Iron_Fist]Can we use the Presenter credit in cases where the Presenter joiner cannot be used[/quote]

    I understand no joiner is needed, (and) it cannot be used for just 1 Artist, BUT: should a “Presenter” Credit be used?

  • Mar 1,2007 at 20:47

    I think an “Artist” Presents “Title” case does not need a joiner field.
    It’s artist and title just like any other release in Discogs.

    A “Label” Presents “Title” case… is not the title fine for that as it is?

  • Mar 1,2007 at 20:25

    [quote=Conceited_2](and) what about 1 main Artist presenting his record, i.e.: “Artist” Presents “Title”
    [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/771326](example)[/url][/quote]

    or a label presenting a release
    like [r=915648]

    i think this is important

  • Mar 1,2007 at 20:16

    feat. is an abbreviation for featuring
    pres.–presents
    you want us to capitalize those abbreviations
    but
    vs. is an abbreviation for versus
    so why shouldn’t it be capitalized as well?

    i don’t know, but
    personally i would like to see discogs adopt these rules of capitalization (at least for English) They’re not hard.
    http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmar98.htm

    simply capitalizing the first letter of every word looks uber newbie
    go to the library and pay attention to the capitalization patterns in book titles–you’ll see these line up

  • Mar 1,2007 at 17:03

    [quote=z33k]nik, shouldn’t “Feat.”/”Feauturing” and “Pres.”/”Presents” and abbreviations here of be listed in lowercase, like done with “vs.” ? I think that would be the most logical thing. [/quote]
    Oh yes.

  • Mar 1,2007 at 12:41

    nik, shouldn’t “Feat.”/”Feauturing” and “Pres.”/”Presents” and abbreviations here of be listed in lowercase, like done with “vs.” ? I think that would be the most logical thing.

    Btw. this is the best update ever! Thank you!

  • Mar 1,2007 at 02:11

    ^good question by [u=Iron_Fist]

    (and) what about 1 main Artist presenting his record, i.e.: “Artist” Presents “Title”
    ([url=http://www.discogs.com/release/771326]example[/url])

  • Feb 28,2007 at 15:49

    [quote=Credit_List]An artist with a following ‘Presents’ joiner must be credited with ‘Presenter’ in the credits section[/quote]
    Can we use the Presenter credit in cases where the Presenter joiner cannot be used. [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/548087]Example[/url].

  • Feb 28,2007 at 08:59

    Damn, I missed this complete decision. Did some wrong votes now.

  • Feb 27,2007 at 07:12

    Thanks, this is long overdue :)

  • Feb 25,2007 at 03:20

    Could get messy….

  • Feb 21,2007 at 14:37

    Wow…Good to know. Thanks!

  • Feb 21,2007 at 14:24

    [quote=little_alien]So if I have this right, the rule also applies to compilation appearances? Split using featuring (if it’s a one-off) and add the exact role to the Extra Artist field?[/quote]
    Yes.

  • Feb 21,2007 at 09:57

    So if I have this right, the rule also applies to compilation appearances? Split using featuring (if it’s a one-off) and add the exact role to the Extra Artist field?

  • Feb 20,2007 at 21:19

    OK…simple questions with reference to the links I posted ealrier:

    Can i split the presents artists?
    Can I more the featuring artists to the extra artist fields?
    Can I keep them as ‘featuring’?

  • Feb 20,2007 at 08:39

    [u=nik], you are working a lot
    http://help.discogs.com/timeline

  • nik
    Feb 20,2007 at 08:21

    Yes this update didn’t address the joining rules, that is for another day.

  • Feb 20,2007 at 07:57

    [quote=Jayfive]And now the rules have been clarified and finalised[/quote]

    Sorry, but it’s still not clear how a regular collaboration is exactly defined.
    I see users joining artists, just because the same remix appears on more than three releases. A proper definition of [i]collaborations (different releases)[/i] is still missing in the guidelines.

  • Feb 20,2007 at 07:53

    Anyway, consensus is dont have a cattle call. Righto, Ill try to do some myself when I get chance :D

  • Feb 20,2007 at 07:43

    [quote=elexxii]Sorry, but what are you talking about? There is NO new rule that says “Featuring” is not a valid joiner for collaborations. [/quote]

    I was referring to this:
    ‘Artist collaborations which are one-off recordings should be listed as separate artists. If this one-off collaboration becomes an ongoing recording team then they can be updated to one artist entry later. ‘

    Many many of those presents/featuring artists are one-off recordings or one entry for the releases and a number of compilation appearances.

  • nik
    Feb 20,2007 at 03:15

    [quote=daniele]Why this radical decision?[/quote]

    Not radical at all, it has been on the cards for ages, just finally got it resolved.

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]how come measures to increase the queue seem to have high priority
    in the “what to fix”-list?

    how about focusing on some queue decreasing measures, like
    automated checks for credits, catalog numbers, artists during the submission process?[/quote]

    Indeed that is top priority, but one thing does not stop the other.

    [quote=Jayfive]Calling All Rankhunters [/quote]

    I would rather that things were updated slowly, especially in the beginning where the rule is fresh and we may come across complications that need worked out.

  • Feb 20,2007 at 02:48

    Why this radical decision?

  • Feb 19,2007 at 23:06

    [quote=Jayfive]Would everyone feel ok if I posted something similar to that above in ‘adding and updating’ as a Calling All Rankhunters thread?[/quote]
    Sorry, but what are you talking about? There is NO new rule that says “Featuring” is not a valid joiner for collaborations.

    On the contrary, as the search results show, it was allowed in the past, and there will probably be a few new collaborations created due to yesterday’s Guideline change.

  • Feb 19,2007 at 22:55

    [quote=fleshmeatdoll]how come measures to increase the queue seem to have high priority
    in the “what to fix”-list?quote]

    I was thinking the same thing. However, this update really is a must-have. I agree with [u=BenHancer], don’t understand why it haven’t been corrected until now, really. But thank the lord (i.e. nik) that it is here now.

  • Feb 19,2007 at 21:54

    how come measures to increase the queue seem to have high priority
    in the “what to fix”-list?

    how about focusing on some queue decreasing measures, like
    automated checks for credits, catalog numbers, artists during the submission process?

  • Feb 19,2007 at 19:28

    Would everyone feel ok if I posted something similar to that above in ‘adding and updating’ as a Calling All Rankhunters thread?

  • Feb 19,2007 at 18:05

    Ah, yes. Ok.

  • Feb 19,2007 at 17:19

    All ‘feat.’ and ‘pres.’, joined or split, should be changed to ‘Featuring’ and ‘Presents’?

  • Feb 19,2007 at 16:27

    Stuff to split to be found here:
    http://www.discogs.com/search?type=artists&q=featuring
    http://www.discogs.com/search?type=artists&q=feat.
    http://www.discogs.com/search?type=artists&q=presents
    http://www.discogs.com/search?type=artists&q=pres.

    Not all of them obviously, but many need doing. And now the rules have been clarified and finalised, we can all steam in and sort them out :D

  • Feb 19,2007 at 16:21

    [quote=helix]If Featuring or Presents is a joiner between regularly collaborating artists, can they be joined into a single artist?[/quote]
    You mean like in [a=Praga Khan Featuring Jade 4U]? Yes!

  • Feb 19,2007 at 15:49

    Good.

    If [b]Featuring[/b] or [b]Presents[/b] is a joiner between regularly collaborating artists, can they be joined into a single artist?

  • Feb 19,2007 at 15:34

    At last….this was long overdue. Could have saved a lot of edits of it had been changed earlier, but here we go now.

  • Feb 19,2007 at 13:30

    I hope this is the ultimate decision!!!

    Queue is growing a lot!

Leave A Reply