“Written By” update

Effective immediately, there is a new role to allow a linked Written By credit as well as the unlinked version. The linked version is entered using a dash like this ‘Written-By’, and the unlinked version is entered the usual way ‘Written By’.

Both credits can be used in the same submission.

The unlinked version should be used to include punctuation, abbreviated and unclear names, and joined names exactly as they appear on the release.

The linked version should be used to link to the artist page. This should be used in the same way as all other linked credits.

Additionally, the ‘Music By’ credit has had the restriction lifted of just being available to non-music.

Please try to use the credits as close to the way they are listed on the release as possible. Further additions or corrections to the [url=http://help.discogs.com/wiki/SubmissionGuidelinesCreditList]Credit List[/url] are possible, this should be viewed as an ongoing process.

Return to Discogs Blog
73 Comments
  • Dec 20,2006 at 16:25

    excuse me.
    it was a test.

  • Dec 20,2006 at 16:25

    dfsa

  • Nov 19,2006 at 07:51

    SORRY…

  • Nov 19,2006 at 07:51

    http://WWW.RAVIVMUSIC.COM
    IT’S OUT!!!
    MADI

  • nik
    Nov 6,2006 at 06:46

    I don’t think there will be any more batch conversion of Written By.

  • Nov 5,2006 at 23:17

    Good to see that the batch conversion of “Written By” went through.

    I’ve noticed users are still using the unlinked/unindexed Written By in the same line other linked credits.

    Will there be another batch conversion to convert the Written By to Written-By that have slipped through since the conversion or will this conversion be made automatic?

  • Oct 27,2006 at 08:46

    [quote=helix]nik, can you please confirm that it is acceptable to have both Written By and Written-By credits together in order to represent a credit exactly as shown on a release? [/quote]

    It would be the best,if the names were displayed as they entered by the submitter when using Written-By. So these problems would be avoidable.

  • Oct 27,2006 at 07:24

    [u=nik], can you please confirm that it is acceptable to have both [b]Written By[/b] and [b]Written-By[/b] credits together in order to represent a credit exactly as shown on a release?

    This includes symbols (-/ etc.) and name ordering.

    Moderators are not consistent with these:-
    [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2274345]Example 1[/url]
    [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/1887470]Example 2[/url]
    [url=http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2290497]Example 3[/url]

    I have better things to do than argue about this repeatedly.

    Thankyou.

  • Oct 27,2006 at 06:36

    [quote=assaiki]Maybe the two submitter has just “corrected” Written-By ?[/quote]
    improbable.
    i’ve seen it on various pending submissions in the meantime,
    some of them by mods (who are most probably aware of that role!).

  • Oct 26,2006 at 15:51

    [quote=julesparis]looks like the Written By to Written-By conversion fucked up with pending updates, where Written-By have been changed to Written By: see http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2257879?highlight=1
    or http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2261989?highlight=1 [/quote]

    Maybe the two submitter has just “corrected” Written-By ?

  • Oct 26,2006 at 15:33

    looks like the Written By to Written-By conversion fucked up with pending updates, where Written-By have been changed to Written By: see http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2257879?highlight=1
    or http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2261989?highlight=1

  • Oct 26,2006 at 15:16

    [quote=nik]This is a great summary![/quote]

    Are you really agree with this sub?
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/1887470

    It will be the rankhunters’ paradise to add all of these “extra informations”

  • Oct 26,2006 at 09:38

    * ANV? :)

  • Oct 26,2006 at 09:10

    * [u=SirTweak]

  • Oct 26,2006 at 09:09

    [quote=little_alien]Yes, because they should not always be linked if only a part of the name is given etc and we don’t know who the artist is.
    [/quote]

    Yeh I know but in my case it was quite obvious. :)

    No probs @ {u=SirTweak]. ;)

  • Oct 26,2006 at 08:21

    OK…I understand now. Apologies to [u=BenHancer] !

  • Oct 26,2006 at 06:59

    [quote=BenHancer]Ah okay, but that’s only for Written-By credits in conjunction with other linked credits. Stand-alone Written By credits will still have to be updated manually I guess?[/quote]

    Yes, because they should not always be linked if only a part of the name is given etc and we don’t know who the artist is.

  • Oct 26,2006 at 05:43

    Ah okay, but that’s only for Written-By credits in conjunction with other linked credits. Stand-alone Written By credits will still have to be updated manually I guess?
    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2257073?highlight=1

  • nik
    Oct 26,2006 at 05:37

    Teo did that yesterday http://help.discogs.com/ticket/2051

  • Oct 26,2006 at 05:01

    I was just wondering when this batch conversion of “Written By” credits will be done? :)

  • Oct 25,2006 at 07:36

    :)

  • Oct 25,2006 at 02:32

    Hmmphff! There goes common sense out the window…

  • Oct 25,2006 at 02:18

    [quote=ziggysmurfdust]hum: this can’t be right? [/quote]

    Well… if they are actually listed with their full names on the release, I don’t see any sense in this.

  • Oct 24,2006 at 01:16

    hum: [url=http://www.discogs.com/release/723800]this[/url] can’t be right?

  • jdr
    Oct 22,2006 at 15:30

    [quote=dj_purity_control]That’s correct, use the band name if that’s what’s given. Linked credits can link to any artist in the database, it doesn’t have to be an individual.[/quote]

    That’s what I thought..Thanks!

  • Oct 22,2006 at 05:19

    Whenever an artist is known it is best to use the linked one, when it’s not certain who the artist really is (like D. Smith or something)use the unlinked one.
    It’s as easy as that.

  • Oct 22,2006 at 04:45

    [quote=jdr]jdr wrote: quote selection

    When Written By (no specific members) is credited to a band do you use the linked or unlinked credit.

    I’ve seen some release linked State Of Euphoria and some told by a non mod not to link Live Aus Berlin. Which is correct?[/quote]

    I’m not a mod,but in my opinion it is correct to use the linked credit role in that case.

  • jdr
    Oct 21,2006 at 16:00

    When Written By (no specific members) is credited to a band do you use the linked or unlinked credit.

    I’ve seen some release linked [r=736956] and some told by a non mod not to link [r=753657]. Which is correct?

  • Oct 21,2006 at 15:44

    any chance you’re going to make this a linked credit soon ??

    also, any chance of making artwork-by and photography-by, with a rule that only musicians already in the database can be credited this way?

  • md
    Oct 12,2006 at 00:21

    I assume that the purpose of adding a comma and a space is to give the system a way of recognising each credit individually while still allowing them to be displayed on one line, so I imagine the indexing will not be effected by grouping of credits. Hence the ticket to batch-covert all Written By credits that are grouped with a linked credit to Written-By being something that should be relatively simple.

  • Oct 11,2006 at 23:27

    [quote=nik]Yes, all roles that are currently not indexed but listed in the credit list will be indexed at some point and then the artists page can be broken up into MUCH better divisions. [/quote]

    OK so this will happen for all roles that are entered in a separate field (this happens now for only certain roles).

    What about for roles that are currently grouped (e.g. Producer, Engineer, Mixed By). Will they all appear indexed separately too on the artist page? This would mean that entering a linked Written-By in a grouped credit (e.g. Producer, Written-By) is valid. Though whilst some mods are accepting edits like this, others are rejecting them!

    There is a discussion here about this in the Electronic: Moderators forum: [t=113189]

  • Oct 10,2006 at 00:30

    [quote=spoon_ukhh]How does written-by appear on the link from the artist’s page? ‘appears on’?[/quote]
    That how it appears right now, yes. The seperation and indexing of the other credits is in the works (has been in the works for a while, actually). So for now, under ‘Appears On’, later under it’s own ‘Written By’ section, hopefully.

  • Oct 9,2006 at 15:32

    hi there, just finally getting into discogs. got a full submission limit so am editing other releases while the queue goes down and have come across a ‘written by’ credit where it’s actually a cover version

    How does written-by appear on the link from the artist’s page? ‘appears on’? that doesn’t seem correct, seems like it’s inferring the artist themself is on that release. should be ‘song appears on’ maybe?

    just had a search through the forums and found a few threads about cover versions and written by and got pretty confused with no conclusive answer so i think i’ll leave it for now.

    It would be nice to know exactly how many versions of ‘Love Will Tear Us Apart’ there are though!

  • nik
    Oct 5,2006 at 10:08

    [quote=helix]The only time you would need to use both Written By and Written-By with full names is to show the name ordering and symbol usage in the Written by credit as this might have some unknown significance, that might be worked out at a later date.[/quote]

    This is a great summary!

  • nik
    Oct 5,2006 at 10:07

    [quote=Iron_Fist]will the Written-By credit be indexed on the artist page in a near future ??[/quote]

    Yes, all roles that are currently not indexed but listed in the credit list will be indexed at some point and then the artists page can be broken up into MUCH better divisions.

    Looking forward to that change, the only reason it hasn’t happened yet is there are more important things pushing in the way of it!

  • Oct 5,2006 at 09:04

    [u=nik], will the [b]Written-By[/b] credit be indexed on the artist page in a near future ??

  • Oct 3,2006 at 04:21

    Looks ok to me.

    The only time you would need to use both [b]Written By[/b] and [b]Written-By[/b] with full names is to show the name ordering and symbol usage in the [b]Written by[/b] credit as this might have some unknown significance, that might be worked out at a later date.

  • Oct 3,2006 at 03:01

    http://www.discogs.com/subs/view/2204735

    am i doing this right? i didn’t bother with “Written By” on the tracks where they were credited with their full name, but everything else has both a “Written By” and a “Written-By” cred.

  • Oct 2,2006 at 08:03

    [quote=Gecks]Written By [Sleeve][/quote]
    For vinyl it’s not always on the sleeve, sometimes just in brackets under the track titles on the label. CDs usually come in cases. etc, etc.

    [b]Written by (Literal)[/b] would be more precise.

  • Oct 2,2006 at 07:44

    [quote=nik]Gecks
    “with all the current “Written By”s being converted to “Written By [Sleeve]””

    Why is this happening? [/quote]

    well it’s not, because we’re not using my system :) it makes sense in the context i posted it, right? if i made “Written By” linked, we’d have to make another role to have all the current unlinked creds (I suggested “Written By [Sleeve]”) converted to.

    i accept that “Written By [Sleeve]” is maybe a miss-use of squared brackets, but there’s gotta be a better way than “Written By”/”Written-by”, though i can’t think of a concise one :)

  • Oct 2,2006 at 07:40

    [quote=tosmcgee]Written by [Sleeve]

    should that not have been adjusted to
    Other [Sleeve Notes Written By][/quote]

    no i meant i’d rename “Written By” to “Written By [Sleeve]” – as in the written by credit [i]as it appears on the sleeve[/i]. i think that makes it more intuitive, rather than Written-By/Written By.

  • Oct 2,2006 at 07:12

    I agree, on compilations it would bulk out the display too much IMO. The only exception being (and there always going to be exceptions) when whatever has been released on that compilation has [i]only[/i] been released on there and nowhere else.

  • nik
    Oct 2,2006 at 06:13

    [quote=Gecks]with all the current “Written By”s being converted to “Written By [Sleeve]”[/quote]

    Why is this happening?

    [quote=Gecks]i think there needs to be a certain amount of intuition in the role names, if possible.[/quote]

    We did look into other methods including using the box brackets, but the box brackets have a specific function and shouldn’t be used to switch things.

    [quote=lazlo_nibble]I’m working on a compilation where all 31 tracks are individually credited as “Written by: [first initial] [last name]” for up to six people, all of whose full names are known (the members of the band) — so should this be entered as “Written By” the initial versions and “Written-By” the full names? Or can I just enter “Written-By” credits and mention in the notes that the printed credits abbreviate the names?[/quote]

    I don’t think that Written By credits are that necessary on compilations, the original release should have all the Written By credits. In any case, you are free to enter both, only one, or none of the Written By credits as you see fit. This shouldn’t be a cue to start forcing submitters to spend half a day researching written by credits on compilations!

  • Oct 2,2006 at 05:50

    Written by [Sleeve]

    should that not have been adjusted to
    Other [Sleeve Notes Written By]

  • Oct 2,2006 at 04:08

    [quote=PhilippN]Another issue: Let’s say I have a LP with 10 tracks on it. The sleeve says: “Songwriter – Jim Jimmerson”. Problem is that tracks 2 and 9 are instrumentals.[/quote]

    why on earth would it matter that they weren’t “songs”? the credit is there, it is clear who wrote the piece of music (whatever form it is), so just stick with the terminology written on the cover. besides, i know of instrumental bands who refer to their works as “songs”, because of the structure (verse/chorus/verse), so the old definition of it being “vocal-led” isn’t so clear cut.

    [quote=Manys]why not just link “written by” and be done with it? i can see this slowing down submissions with arguments about linked vs. unlinked and people complaining in the forums about dickmods and so on and so forth.

    apparently this is the result of some discussion somewhere, where people what…wanted both? [/quote]

    there are certain legal implications with the presentation of ‘written by’ credits. ie, the ordering, for one, is important. i was of your opinion to for a long time but i can see why we need ‘unchanged’ data, as well as links set up for the DB.

    PS – i like this change, though i think it would be best to have the roles as something like:
    “Written By” (the linked role)
    “Written By [Sleeve]” (the unlinked role)
    with all the current “Written By”s being converted to “Written By [Sleeve]”. i think there needs to be a certain amount of intuition in the role names, if possible.

  • Oct 2,2006 at 01:22

    [quote=tosmcgee]Maybe best if i contributed to that particular forum re ANV
    Would you mind providing a link.[/quote]
    http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=108854
    any input to improve the ANV proposal is appreciated.

    [quote=tosmcgee](1) If the first example given above and nik’s guidline is not acceptable to you. Why should anyone be allowed to accept a link of Doe to John Doe later. The ANV is only difference is that DOE will be listed in the release and not John Doe. Bringing your first statement as logic into discogs means that each Doe must be numbered and not linked. Ergo Catch 22 you cannot allow the link.[/quote]
    there’s a difference between the first example and the example you’ve provided: [quote=tosmcgee]i know this is Gerry Roslie.[/quote] if nik made the assumption for his proposal that all artist names are known, i.e. it is known that the “Doe” from the songwriting credit is exactly the Vocalist “John Doe” who’s credited on the very same release, then his proposal is fine as it is, although i think i pointed out a more elegant way with the ANVs, e.g. for your Roslie example.

    as for all kinds of linked credits, if you don’t know whether the artist from a credit on your release belongs to an artist in the DB with the same name, then you’d create a new (numbered) artist. if someone is familiar with this new artist, then he might update his profile at some point (e.g. add In Groups, Alias links) or requests a merge or an AKA/ANV etc.

    aside that you can add songwriting/writer credits from the release as non-linked Written By credit to reflect the credit formatting on the release. i could understand if a user just wants to add a non-linked Written By to his submission, e.g. if the formatting is too obscure (e.g. like the example which i posted earlier in this thread) and he doesn’t know anything about the artists mentioned there.

    i hope i made myself clear about this as i don’t see a catch22 here. it would be nice if you can come up with an example to elaborate this.

    [quote=tosmcgee](2) The item that worrys me is the fact that only one name will appear on the release page. Discogs is (or should try) to be give as much information (factual) as it can provide, in a brief and concise manner. Having a name like Gerry or second name like Roslie where you need to link to the real name is not brief. I think tedious.
    But as i said that is for the other forum.[/quote]
    as for this, it’s already mentioned in the technical/database section that [i]This could be tweaked later down the line.[/i]

  • Oct 1,2006 at 23:55

    Kreuztot

    Maybe best if i contributed to that particular forum re ANV
    Would you mind providing a link.

    however
    – The diagram is difficult to understand
    – The differences between the various names not so easy
    – As you saw above i got that wrong way around
    – The last two sections just don’t come across.

    Two other points:
    (1) If the first example given above and nik’s guidline is not acceptable to you. Why should anyone be allowed to accept a link of Doe to John Doe later. The ANV is only difference is that DOE will be listed in the release and not John Doe. Bringing your first statement as logic into discogs means that each Doe must be numbered and not linked. Ergo Catch 22 you cannot allow the link.
    (2) The item that worrys me is the fact that only one name will appear on the release page. Discogs is (or should try) to be give as much information (factual) as it can provide, in a brief and concise manner. Having a name like Gerry or second name like Roslie where you need to link to the real name is not brief. I think tedious.
    But as i said that is for the other forum.

    I know you will understand this only as a constructive opinion.

  • Oct 1,2006 at 20:16

    [quote=tosmcgee]what can one do[/quote]
    Point them to this thread, say the Written-by function is new and doesn’t work right yet. Or just explain that you type it in correctly, but it automatically reverts to lower case. If that doesn’t work, I dunno what will.

  • Oct 1,2006 at 14:30

    Got by first rejection
    for
    Written-by

    reason Caps apparently
    what can one do

  • Oct 1,2006 at 10:33

    well, it would be one credit less would look neater, isn’t it

  • Oct 1,2006 at 10:23

    this way or that way, it looks like a big mess at the moment

    it is time to bring that damn ANV thing finally online, I think it will solve a lot of that issues

  • Oct 1,2006 at 10:13

    ^^ in that case i’d use Written-By for P. Hernandez and request an AKA.

  • Oct 1,2006 at 10:10

    Redundancy is growing… I would have clarify the [b]Written By/Composed By/Songwriter/Music By[/b] list before adding a new one to it. [r=795986] is perfectly added, but looks everything but succesfully completed (nothing personal Frank ;).

  • Oct 1,2006 at 09:26

    [quote=tosmcgee]At the moment there is wording that could lead to problems of misinterpretation and as you know will lead to lots of (heated) discussion.

    Is it possible to simplify these ANV rules so there can be no misunderstanding prior to implementation.[/quote]
    could you please elaborate on this [i]wording[/i]? what exactly is open to misinterpretation?

    [quote=tosmcgee]As that proposal stands
    I would draft a release with Roslie as (Written-By) Roslie and ANV as Gerry Roslie – is that correct? (i don’t know which way around yet)[/quote]
    according to the ANV proposal it would be vice versa. you’d add the linked Written-By for Gerry Roslie and add Roslie to the ANV field, i.e.

    Role: Written-By
    Name: Gerry Roslie
    ANV: Roslie
    and (possibly) tracks:

    the display on the submission will be Roslie.

    [quote=tosmcgee]Whereas some multitude of others may at the same time propose Written-By Roslie without the ANV and because they can’t be sure. They would create new numbered Roslie(s) because the song might not be the same.[/quote]
    i hope i got you right here, but actually it’s fine like that, if the submitter doesn’t know anything about the artist, then he shouldn’t guess. if you’re not sure if the Roslie on your release has anything to do with Roslie, Roslie (2) or Roslie (3) in the DB, then create a new artist, i.e. in this case Roslie (4). if another user is familiar with them, then he can always request a merge or an ANV to sort it out at some point.

  • Oct 1,2006 at 04:34

    Kreuztot

    Well spotted on the Thiele naming
    in my database i have one Thiel – Robert – but i know Bob Thiele is the same person

    I have read the ANV Proposal a number of times, and also your note.

    At the moment there is wording that could lead to problems of misinterpretation and as you know will lead to lots of (heated) discussion.

    Is it possible to simplify these ANV rules so there can be no misunderstanding prior to implementation.

    As that proposal stands
    I would draft a release with Roslie as (Written-By) Roslie and ANV as Gerry Roslie – is that correct? (i don’t know which way around yet)

    Whereas some multitude of others may at the same time propose Written-By Roslie without the ANV and because they can’t be sure. They would create new numbered Roslie(s) because the song might not be the same.

  • Oct 1,2006 at 01:45

    [quote=tosmcgee]However, I would propose that a linked credit be given for full name, if known, rather than linking to second names with a (number). Written By (as per original unlinked) can be used where first name of the artist is unknown.

    This would circumvent the constant requests, that i forsee, for updates to link a numbered second name to a full name.
    It would also help modders, in that they can deduce quickly the correct credit rather than trying to work out which number that credit belongs to.
    Also submitters would not be creating new (numbered) second names for those that exist already.[/quote]
    the ANV feature doesn’t create new artist pages unlike the current implementation of the AKA feature. therefore it’s not necessary to use number suffixes for the ANVs. example: if Gerry Roslie is credited on the release as Gerry, then you’d add the credit for Gerry Roslie, but with the ANV Gerry. that means the display on the submission will be Gerry, whilst the link is going to Gerry Roslie. for further information read the [i]TECHNICAL / DATABASE[/i] section of http://help.discogs.com/wiki/NewFeatureANV
    basically i’d think of ANV as AKA v2.0 as it comes with new features and will be embedded within the implementation of the new artist structure (see the diagram at the bottom of the ANV page).

    BTW the dangers of completing names by guessing can be seen at your Thiele example. in most cases the songwriting will list him as Thiele. the few examples where i’ve seen his full name credited list him as Bob Thiele, not Robert Thiele. so, while ANV-linking Thiele to either Bob Thiele or Robert Thiele will be correct and accurate, the replacement of Thiele with Robert Thiele might be not in the intention of the songwriting credit.

    as for the unlinked Written By credit i’d definitely use it if the songwriting credit on the release is given like:
    [quote](Brel / Brel – Schroeder – Arr: Schneider / J. Brel)[/quote]

    [quote=PhilippN]
    [i][..][/i] getting ridiculous. [i][..][/i] misconceive [i][..][/i] on purpose.[/quote]
    and that is exactly your plot for any kind of discussion

    [quote=PhilippN]I’ll asked a question, nik posted an answer and you objected this answer. What exactly is not to understand? [/quote]
    you raised a problem, nik posted his proposal, i had a remark on that, doktor_trance replied to my remark to which i replied to. the same problem has been touched by tosmcgee.

    [quote=PhilippN]And let’s ask md what he things about using Songwriter as credit for an Instrumental.
    Adding wrong information because it’s printed on the release? Hooray![/quote]
    yet another appliance of your plot: [i]getting ridiculous. misconceive on purpose.[/i]

    md pointed out a situation where someone tried to add a [i]Songwriter[/i] credit which is not listed on the release and where a [i]Written By[/i] credit should have been used as it is listed on the release.

  • Oct 1,2006 at 01:05

    Great, just to make things more complex :-S

  • Sep 30,2006 at 15:27

    Thanks Kreuztot

    Very helpful
    The ANV (also known as AKA) will help when it gets into operation

    However, I would propose that a linked credit be given for full name, if known, rather than linking to second names with a (number). Written By (as per original unlinked) can be used where first name of the artist is unknown.

    This would circumvent the constant requests, that i forsee, for updates to link a numbered second name to a full name.
    It would also help modders, in that they can deduce quickly the correct credit rather than trying to work out which number that credit belongs to.
    Also submitters would not be creating new (numbered) second names for those that exist already.

    I can probably put in other reasons, but i think nik has hit the nail on the head and go with that.

  • Sep 30,2006 at 14:53

    [quote=doctor_trance]If it’s just a last name, with never a first name mentioned elsewhere on a release, then your point is valid and it should be unlinked. Otherwise, there’s nothing wrong with inferring that only a last name on a release is referring to a person who was just credited with both names.[/quote]
    [u=e-mot-ion] came up with an example but i couldn’t find the release in db nor the thread where he posted it.

    [quote=tosmcgee]the easiest way to accomodate modders where i may attempt to credit in full where there may only be part credit[/quote]
    if the ANV feature is live you’d list it as Roslie on the submission as ANV for Gerry Roslie

    [quote=PhilippN]I like that nik said “Yes, in this way:” and kreuztot “No, you can’t.” Problem stands.[/quote]
    neither nik nor me said anything like that.

    [quote=PhilippN]Another issue: Let’s say I have a LP with 10 tracks on it. The sleeve says: “Songwriter – Jim Jimmerson”. Problem is that tracks 2 and 9 are instrumentals. Therefore I guess the following would be pedantic, but correct:

    Songwriter – Jim Jimmerson (1, 3 to 8, 10)
    Written-By – Jim Jimmerson (2, 9)[/quote]
    obviously you have to use “Songwriter” for all tracks as it is the role which is given on the release. it would really help you if you’d try to understand the things which you’ve had explained already so many times. BTW standard trackpositions for LPs are A1, A2, .., B1, B2, ..

  • Sep 30,2006 at 11:29

    It doesn’t stay capitalized for me either. See: [r=795985]

  • Sep 30,2006 at 11:06

    [quote=doctor_trance]the B capatilized fine in a draft I just had [/quote]

    Link please? I have used it just several times and it doesn’t capitalize properly.

  • Sep 30,2006 at 11:00

    [quote=DJ-Merlin]”Written-By” shows as “Written-by” in the pending, with the B not capitalized.[/quote]

    the B capatilized fine in a draft I just had

  • Sep 30,2006 at 10:32

    [quote=cul]so release wide credits are linked. and track credits are unlinked?? [/quote]
    why not just link “written by” and be done with it? i can see this slowing down submissions with arguments about linked vs. unlinked and people complaining in the forums about dickmods and so on and so forth.

    apparently this is the result of some discussion somewhere, where people what…wanted both?

  • Sep 30,2006 at 10:22

    “Written-By” shows as “Written-by” in the pending, with the B not capitalized.

  • Sep 30,2006 at 09:55

    [quote=delysid]Best at all would be that even if entered with the “-“, both credits would be displayed the same way as “Written By”. The handle with the link should be hidden.[/quote]

    Great idea, I support it.

  • cul
    Sep 30,2006 at 09:47

    lol…absolute fucking carnage.

    [quote=nik]Credits:

    Vocals, Guitar : John Doe
    Drums : Jack Duff
    Written-By : John Doe : Tracks 1, 2
    Written-By : Jack Duff : Track 2

    Tracklist:

    1. Trees (4:40)
    Written By : Doe/Duff
    2. Flowers (3:44)
    Written By : Duff[/quote]

    so release wide credits are linked. and track credits are unlinked??

    inspired!

  • Sep 30,2006 at 09:42

    If you use the new credit it gets displayed “Written-by” instead of “Written-By”. Intentional? Looks bad in my opinion.

    Best at all would be that even if entered with the “-“, both credits would be displayed the same way as “Written By”. The handle with the link should be hidden.

  • Sep 30,2006 at 08:42

    Well done nik

    well thought out and explained

    congratulations on solving what was looking a bit of a problem and also on
    also explaining with an example
    a release with credits for second names only

    most releases i have, have only have second name credited
    and if the same surname appears for another person the first name is also given to clarify.

    Can i ask about say (an example)
    What a Wonderful World
    made famous by Louis Armstrong
    written by George Weiss & Robert Thiele
    where it is written Weiss / Thiele
    (or perhaps)not credited at all
    can this be credited as
    Written-By – George Weiss
    Written-By – Robert Thiele

    I would also like to give an example of more obscure credits
    let’s see
    Strychnine
    (Roslie)
    i know this is Gerry Roslie and is probably not a good example for all that
    i would indicate in noted
    all credits as printed
    Roslie
    and later indicate
    Roslie >> Gerry Roslie

    please if you can explain
    the easiest way to accomodate modders where i may attempt to credit in full where there may only be part credit

    (i would normally indicate the way credit is printed of course in mod notes)
    (though sometimes i would forget to give a link to source of full name)

  • Sep 30,2006 at 08:40

    What is going to happen with the Songwriter credit? That had more or less the same use as Written-By has now.

  • Sep 30,2006 at 08:09

    [quote=kreuztot]i wouldn’t rely on it. track 1 could have been written by John’s mother and Duff’s brother. in any case i’d add the unlinked Written By credits.[/quote]

    Whenever just a last name is used, on something that a full name has already been used, it refers to the same thing, or else a different first name would have been used. If you don’t think that’s the case, link me an item where a John Jacobs was credited as doing something on an album, and then just (Jacobs) was listed later on in the release, and it DIDN’T mean the first Jacobs they were talking about.

    If it’s just a last name, with never a first name mentioned elsewhere on a release, then your point is valid and it should be unlinked. Otherwise, there’s nothing wrong with inferring that only a last name on a release is referring to a person who was just credited with both names.

  • Sep 30,2006 at 08:03

    [quote=nik]To be completist, you could enter the credits like this:[/quote]
    i wouldn’t rely on it. track 1 could have been written by John’s mother and Duff’s brother. in any case i’d add the unlinked Written By credits.

  • Sep 30,2006 at 08:01

    [quote=nik]Effective immediately, there is a new role to allow a linked Written By credit as well as the unlinked version. The linked version is entered using a dash like this ‘Written-By’, and the unlinked version is entered the usual way ‘Written By’.
    [/quote]

    Awesome, now things are very clear. Thanks!

  • nik
    Sep 30,2006 at 07:59

    To be completist, you could enter the credits like this:

    Credits:

    Vocals, Guitar : John Doe
    Drums : Jack Duff
    Written-By : John Doe : Tracks 1, 2
    Written-By : Jack Duff : Track 2

    Tracklist:

    1. Trees (4:40)
    Written By : Doe/Duff
    2. Flowers (3:44)
    Written By : Duff

Leave A Reply