el_duro
unless the majority of credits indicate James "Hutch" Hutchinson.
I had considered that, but I was mainly thinking about least disruption. It's hard to count "no anv" now with the new artist pages, but from a quick glance, it's not an overwhelming majority. It does appear to be more than 50%, but not in the realm of 95:5 that we might want to consider for making a brand new PAN.
Hutch is a friend of mine, and my inclination and suspicion is that James “Hutch” Hutchinson may in fact be most appropriate
(Edit: but I’m okay with just James Hutchinson too)
I think that they should be merged with James Hutchinson as that is his real name and an ANV for "Hutch Hutchinson" or just "Hutch" in my opinion, as "Hutch" is just a nickname after all.
+1
(Big asterisk) - We have been hit with the "stuck" credits bug. All the credits under the Bonnie Raitt MR have been moved, but are still displaying on the old Diognes_The_Fox - this has been outstanding for months now. It's one of the nastier bugs I've seen. Is there any ETA on when this will be fixed?
One of the higher profile examples has hundreds of stuck credits: John Osbourne (3)
fishbulb
PAN should be James "Hutch" Hutchinson, according to most of the credits.
Well, this merged finished months ago. I don't think we should re-edit hundreds of credits. What we ended up with is not incorrect, so not worth altering at this point.
baldorr
Well, this merged finished months ago. I don't think we should re-edit hundreds of credits. What we ended up with is not incorrect, so not worth altering at this point.
Any name that exists can be called "not incorrect". That is not the same thing as should be the name as presented on the majority of releases, which is the goal. (Other s here have pointed that out.) Your "least disruption" method didn't accomplish that goal, nor was there any real research effort conducted, AFAICT. Even your tally of voters doesn't quite add up.
I get what you are saying about re-editing hundreds of credits, but I don't agree that doing something wrong is a reason to leave it that way. This PAN is just as 'worthy' of being fixed as any other PAN, IMO.
If you'd like to recount my tallies of the votes, please do. What I showed above is a vast majority favored the outcome. I would have been fine with a new PAN, but that was not the outcome.
If you'd also like to recount and get an accurate count of all versions of his name, please do. My research before did not show "an overwhelming" majority using James "Hutch" Hutchinson. In most of my time here, we rarely would make a completely new PAN unless the ratio of credits was "overwhelming". I said this above too:
baldorr
It's hard to count "no anv" now with the new artist pages, but from a quick glance, it's not an overwhelming majority. It does appear to be more than 50%, but not in the realm of 95:5 that we might want to consider for making a brand new PAN.
I’m happy to hear more thoughts from people if you'd like to reassess this, but I still argue that the current PAN is valid and there is no reason to re-edit all releases again. I realize you're just noticing this, but even if you caught this at the time the outcome would still be consensus in favor of what we have now.
baldorr
If you'd like to recount my rallies of the votes, please do. If you'd also like to recount and get an accurate count of all versions of his name, please do. My research before did not show "an overwhelming" majority using James "Hutch" Hutchinson. In most of my time here, we rarely would make a completely new PAN unless the ratio of credits was "overwhelming".
For starters, you only provide two options: James Hutchinson and Hutch Hutchinson, which combined have fewer releases than James "Hutch" Hutchinson (94:125).
Here's what I see:
James "Hutch" Hutchinson: ~125 MRs Hutch Hutchinson: ~77 MRs (your number ~84) James Hutchinson: ~16 MRs (your number ~134) Jim Hutchinson: ~1 MR Hutch: ~1 MR
Had you provided this more complete info, I'm not sure any of these votes would have gone for James Hutchinson (your pick, even though you say "he regularly goes by James "Hutch" Hutchinson"):
baldorr
even if you caught this at the time the outcome would still be consensus in favor of what we have now.
I don't believe that. If you had invited me to this discussion, I would have provided this same info. I can't imagine a consensus for a PAN that matches 17 releases in place of a PAN that matches 125 releases.
fishbulb, I counted and came up a bit different. But it s "PAN should be James "Hutch" Hutchinson"
James "Hutch" Hutchinson: 125
Hutch Hutchinson: 77
Hutch: 1
Jim Hutchinson: 1
James Hutchinson: 16
Should have counted for myself when this thread came up. If anyone wants to change the PAN, +1
My thoughts in giving the +1 to James Hutchinson back then was based on the question of which existing PAN was better.
TopCats45s
Should have counted for myself when this thread came up.
Me too. I didn't realize at that time that he appears most frequently as James "Hutch" Hutchinson, which now appears to be the better choice for a PAN. I would creating a new PAN and would be happy to assist with the moves if needed.
Cousin_Mosquito
appears most frequently as James "Hutch" Hutchinson, which now appears to be the better choice for a PAN. I would creating a new PAN and would be happy to assist with the moves if needed.
Thanks for the comments. There seems to be plenty of for changing the PAN to the newly-created James "Hutch" Hutchinson. I'll help, too, but I'll wait until tomorrow to see if there are any objections.
First of all, thanks to baldorr for bringing it up and merging it to one profile in the first place.
There was no need for two different profiles.
The question back then would've been, if we create a new PAN for his mostly used name variation.
As both exiting profiles would've work just fine for all the variations, I would've vote for staying with one of the exiting profiles. fishbulb pushed forward and created the new PAN, so it doesn't matter to me, if all credits are merged to this (most complete) new profile.
star_man_20
Don't see a benefit to making another PAN change when the existing isn't incorrect.
Correct that it appears on releases, but incorrect as the PAN, defined in RSG §2.1.3. as "the name as presented on the majority of releases". James Hutchinson is a distant third on that list:
1. James "Hutch" Hutchinson: ~125 MRs
2. Hutch Hutchinson: ~77 MRs
3. James Hutchinson: ~16 MRs
Hutch Hutchinson appears on plenty on releases and under the new guideline can accommodate all versions. That's precisely why we have the new guideline.
We don't change PANs just after a while a new variation gets the majority.
fishbulb
Hutch Hutchinson would still be a PAN swap because it was eliminated 8 months ago in favor of James Hutchinson, which appears on very few releases.
Cousin_Mosquito has already started moving credits to this newly created PAN before discussion has even finished. Please stop this for now – you have to give time for discussion to complete.
fishbulb
I don't think there is anything to discuss here, but if you do, please bring it up.
Of course there is – standard mass-edit procedure. Bring it up in the forum, allow time for discussion and full consensus; and only then, if there is consensus, proceed with edits. I know you frequently act as if you're a law unto yourself, but the procedure for mass edits is clear.
Even if the first few replies are in agreement with a proposal, that does not yet make a consensus, as others might later disagree. And here you already have at least one person disagreeing with your proposal, so of course more discussion is needed.
Generally you should allow at least a week from a proposal before making any edits, and in the case of large mass-edits – this one involving over 100 releases – more time should be allowed. There is nothing to be gained by moving so fast.
I haven't had time to look at this and contribute my thoughts yet, but I will.
Sorry if my edits were premature. I had assumed since this had been moved over to the Help with Mass Edits thread that it was okay to proceed. I will stop editing.
andrenafulva
And here you already have at least one person disagreeing with your proposal, so of course more discussion is needed.
There's always some disagreement, which is why we look for a consensus. Yours, which so far seems to be an objection based on process (instead of reason), does not help to advance the discussion in any particular direction.
andrenafulva
I haven't had time to look at this and contribute my thoughts yet, but I will.
You contributed here 8 months ago, and this is what you said:
"If there is no existing PAN for James "Hutch" Hutchinson, then there would need to be an overwhelming reason to create it."
Not sure what you consider to be overwhelming, or why you think that, but most of the s here believe there is a need for it, and they aren't wrong.
andrenafulva
Of course there is – standard mass-edit procedure. Bring it up in the forum, allow time for discussion and full consensus; and only then, if there is consensus, proceed with edits. I know you frequently act as if you're a law unto yourself, but the procedure for mass edits is clear.
Thanks for chiming in. I've been on the fence on what's happening here, but I've just not replied any more.
Ultimately, I see no issue with the new pan for James "Hutch" Hutchinson, but there truly is nothing wrong with the James Hutchinson as the PAN. Yes, it's the least used version of his credits, but not "wrong". In the past, I've heard a ratio of 95:5 being the tipping point for making a PAN swap, assuming the old PAN is not actually wrong (misspelled name or something).
I also felt this was re-resolved VERY fast. I get you feel strongly about thisfishbulb, but within maybe 24 hours of objecting to the 8 months old thread you DNU'd the profile and started moving credits. In fact, you even created the new PAN a few hours after first chiming in to this thread. All of that should never have happened.
You quoted people above and didn't wait for them to clarify their positions. Also I think that quote you keep using ofandrenafulva is taken out of context.
Again - if we decide to make this PAN swap, so be it. But I have to say that we absolutely should factor in disruption to the database. My counts months ago was simply looking at the number of MR's associated with each PAN (James vs. Hutch), which shows that the majority of people adding credits for him were added to the James profile (regardless of the ANV, which were fully mixed at that time). And choosing between James vs. Hutch, his full name is a way better option. Otherwise if it was an ANV of James on a PAN of Hutch Hutchinson, that's not ideal.
Anyway, I'll just leave it at that. There should be no hurry to quickly "fix" this. We can let this sit for a few days to give proper discussion. In the end it might be the same outcome, but at least we are doing this properly.
baldorr
there truly is nothing wrong with the James Hutchinson as the PAN. Yes, it's the least used version of his credits, but not "wrong".
I'm not getting the reasoning behind 'truly not being wrong'. Yes, it appears on releases, and yes, it is a correct version of his name (not unlike most ANVs), but if it can't satisfy at least one of these two criteria, then it is the wrong PAN:
1. The name as presented on the majority of releases
2. The most complete version of the name
James "Hutch" Hutchison satisfies both, while James Hutchinson satisfies neither.
baldorr
In the past, I've heard a ratio of 95:5 being the tipping point for making a PAN swap, assuming the old PAN is not actually wrong (misspelled name or something).
This is quite extreme, and probably more arbitrary than empirical. Common sense would seem to be a better standard.
baldorr
I get you feel strongly about this fishbulb
It's not that I feel strongly. It's that I don't see anyone coming forward with a viable reason to keep James Hutchinson as the PAN. By any and all measures, even 95:5, that is not the way to go. So I don't think that waiting for that to happen is a productive use of our time. Most of us just want to fix it and move on to the next thing. Right now, there are s working to fix this, including those who didn't realize they got it wrong 8 months ago when they weren't presented with James "Hutch" Hutchinson as a third option. Now that they see it, they prefer it, as they should. Dragging this out for days when there's no reason to expect a different result is just an exercise in futility, IMO.
fishbulb
1. The name as presented on the majority of releases
2. The most complete version of the name
For #1 - The name as presented on the vast majority of releases. The 95:5 ratio is what I've very often heard when making a completely new PAN swap (not when deciding on which existing PANs to merge together, that's different). That ratio also doesn't apply if the existing PAN is incorrect (misspelled, missing diacritic, missing part of the name). His name is James Hutchison, which is what that PAN is (or was), so it's not wrong.
As for #2 - I don't see that specifically worded in the guidelines. To me, both James Hutchison and James "Hutch" Hutchison could be considered a "complete" name, depending on how you define that.
fishbulb
Now that they see it, they prefer it, as they should. Dragging this out for days when there's no reason to expect a different result is just an exercise in futility, IMO.
What is the hurry? Really, there is nothing we need to rush here. It's not futile to wait a few more days to allow people you pinged here to respond.
I'll say it again - I don't have a problem if the PAN is James "Hutch" Hutchison. But 8 months ago that was not an existing PAN and we had a PAN that satisfied a valid PAN. As I mentioned above, making a brand new PAN requires more discussion. We're having that discussion now, so just let it take it's course. Yes, I can predict the future and we probably will make this PAN swap. But we can't operate that way for big changes like this one.
fishbulb
James "Hutch" Hutchinson: ~125 MRs
Hutch Hutchinson: ~77 MRs (your number ~84)
James Hutchinson: ~16 MRs (your number ~134)
Jim Hutchinson: ~1 MR
Hutch: ~1 MR
Just because I wanted to make sure I was doing the math correctly here:
The counts quoted here show 220 total MRs, with 125 of 220 (so ~56%) using James "Hutch" Hutchison.
It's only ~7% that use James Hutchinson, which is super low ittedly.
But again, in order to change the initial discussion from merging two existing PANs to making a new PAN, the ratio for James "Hutch" Hutchison doesn't meet that criteria for a completely new PAN move. We can always make exceptions, and this is a good candidate for that exception.
baldorr
What is the hurry? Really, there is nothing we need to rush here. It's not futile to wait a few more days to allow people you pinged here to respond.
I agree there's no hurry. I just don't see a different outcome no matter how much time goes by. That's the futile part. Some things can be decided quickly, and this is one of those things.
baldorr
It's only ~7% that use James Hutchinson, which is super low ittedly.
Even that's generous. Could end up being only half of that. Many of those James Hutchinson MRs were missing ANVs, and there are at least a couple that are a different James Hutchinson.
fishbulb
I just don't see a different outcome no matter how much time goes by. That's the futile part. Some things can be decided quickly, and this is one of those things.
I’m sorry, but this just sounds so arrogant. We have processes we should follow, especially for big profiles like this. You aren't above the process here, and can't just decide to do something like this on your own. Even for something like this that's pretty obvious, we should still just give people a chance to chime in. It's the courteous thing to do, especially since this was previously resolved, whether you agree with that resolution or not.
baldorr
I’m sorry, but this just sounds so arrogant...You aren't above the process here, and can't just decide to do something like this on your own.
I didn't decide anything on my own. I followed the process. I noticed the problem with James Hutchinson being the PAN, and came here, because this thread was still open. Otherwise I would have started a new thread.
1. I made the comment that James "Hutch" Hutchison should be the PAN. You knee-jerk balked at that, without giving it any thought. I made my case to you, and you doubled-down on the flawed process you undertook to make the PAN James Hutchinson, then stepped away.
2. I pinged all of those who had previously expressed an opinion here. Three of them responded and offered to help with changing the PAN. At this point it was already clear to me that there was far more for changing the PAN than for keeping it.
3. I added a link to this thread at James Hutchinson.
4. I created the new PAN James "Hutch" Hutchinson.
5. I announced the new PAN here. No one objected.
6. The next day, I added a link to this thread at the new PAN.
7. I created a profile for the new PAN, then moved a few releases there.
8. I announced that here. The response was that more s came forward to the new PAN, and some started moving releases.
This is the process. If it went faster than what you might be used to, it's not because it was rushed, but rather, because it's a no-brainer. There are only 3 possible outcomes:
1. Keep James Hutchinson as PAN
2. Change the PAN to James "Hutch" Hutchinson
3. Change the PAN to something else (e.g. Hutch Hutchinson)
That isn't arrogance - it's knowledge of the database and how it works. If anyone is arrogant, it's those who can't it getting something wrong, and then don't help to fix those things they got wrong.
On the first 5, he is credited as James "Hutch" Hutchinson; while only on the last he is credited as
"Hutch" Hutchinson. 5 out of 6, that's a pretty strong majority.
Besides, the original discussion in the beginning of this thread was started on 19AUG24 and already wrapped up the day after. When I discovered it on 24AUG24, the merge into James Hutchinson had already been done. I believe that if the discussion has run a bit longer and people given more time to look at the data, we might already then have ended up with a decision to create a new PAN James "Hutch" Hutchinson.
In conclusion, I am all withJames "Hutch" Hutchinson is the most appropriate PAN for this top notch bass player.
When this merge was initially proposed months ago, we did not have a James "Hutch" Hutchinson PAN. Rules for making a new PAN requires a high threshold for usage of the proposed new PAN. As we've established, ~56% of releases use James "Hutch" Hutchinson, which is a majority, but not an overwhelming majority.
So rather than make a new PAN at that time, which was not explicitly required, we decided to retain one of the existing PANs since neither are incorrect. The choice of James over Hutch was useful to accommodate all the ANV's for versions with James, as "Hutch Hutchinson" has no mention of James in the PAN. So between these two, that was preferable despite James Hutchinson being the least used credit.
Sincefishbulb reopened this thread, 8 people have given for a PAN swap, and 5 have said it's not necessary.
At this point, we have a half finished merge. Rather than drag this out, I'm willing to just let this finish, despite the fact that the process has absolutely not been followed. We can't make a new PAN within hours of suggesting we make a PAN swap for 200+ master releases.
If we happened to have all 3 PANs in existence 8 months ago, I think it would have been a no-brainer to use James "Hutch" Hutchinson. But that was not the case which is why we resolved it the way we did. It was not "wrong" to resolve it the way we did, and I'd appreciate you stop insisting it was wrongfishbulb.
dunforthemoment
I see what you're saying, but couldn't anyone have made the PAN when submitting a release, for the simple reason that it was printed on the release?
Sure, any PAN can be made at any time.
Mistakes can happen too: Say the existing pan is for Margaret Smith, and your release has it printed as Meg Smyth. You might search for it, and (correctly) not find it and make that new PAN. Then later it will need to be merged and cleaned up once it's found. We obviously had this situation with James Hutchinson where it was split for years.
But if you do see the existing PAN, and you think it's wrong, rather than make a new one, we should use the existing PAN and make a forum thread to discuss if a new PAN should be made. But it's especially important to not do so if you see a "resolved" previous merge. Here it was made within hours of suggesting a PAN swap.
I'm not suggesting that this is the case here, but there have been s in the past who have done this so they can now claim the discussion is not about a new PAN, but just a PAN merge. That's a sneaky tactic and definitely not a proper way to handle it. (There is totally a difference between PAN merging versus making a new PAN.)
holycowrecords
If this is resolved, the Hutch Hutchinson profile needs editing.
Eventually yes. I appreciate thatandrenafulva suggested we wait. Unfortunately I think a lot of others are continuing to edit this since it was posted in the "help with mass edit" thread. This discussion has gone quiet too.
As I've said, at this point it seems like a foregone conclusion that we'll be merging. My primary issue was with how this was handled. But it seems too late to fix that.
I'm just checking in to see what the status is here. The post says "RESOLVED" and no one has brought forth any new arguments in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, we still have two active PANs. Can we proceed with the mass edit?
Cousin_Mosquito
I'm just checking in to see what the status is here. The post says "RESOLVED" and no one has brought forth any new arguments in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, we still have two active PANs. Can we proceed with the mass edit?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’ve tried to explain my position but it seems thatfishbulb has bowed out of this thread. If they want to finish the merge that seems like the forgone outcome here, regardless of how this PAN swap was conducted.
At this point we definitely need to re-merge, but we've stalled on deciding which way to resolve it. I know of a few people who are avoiding this thread for obvious reasons. Frustrating for sure.
baldorr
I've heard a ratio of 95:5 being the tipping point for making a PAN swap
I been here a few years and involved in a few PAN swaps (as well as the guidelines) - that's the first time I've ever read that. RSG §2.15.3 specifically states "Considerations when determining PAN: The accuracy of the name (external sources may be referenced), how the majority of releases indicate the name, which primary name would accommodate the most variations."
Any how, we have 3 active PANs that need to be finished off and need merged. Currently (regardless or right or wrong) the PAN Cousin_Mosquito and anyone else wants to help that would be great.
Speak now or forever hold your peace if you disagree 😉
Unfortunately there are actually only the two. The Hutch Hutchinson profile is just a "stuck" profile with the credits not being removed. So not really active per se (and I’m on my phone now so I forget if it's set to DNU).
But I’ll help to finish the merge since it seems to have stalled out.
As far as I can tell, this PAN swap is now completed. Unfortunately both the James and Hutch PANs have stuck credits, but officially everything appears to be merged. Let's call this (re)resolved.
j_lit
Or redirect (and get error 500) if completely emptied.
Not empty anymore. Two of the Hutch Hutchinsons that baldorr moved to James Hutchinson appear to be a different Hutch Hutchinson. They have been reverted.
fishbulb
j_litOr redirect (and get error 500) if completely emptied.
Not empty anymore. Two of the Hutch Hutchinsons that baldorr moved to James Hutchinson appear to be a different Hutch Hutchinson. They have been reverted.
Oh, good catch. Do you know if those two are the same Hutch Hutchinson? One is an executive producer from a 1982 release and that other is a vocalist from a 1998 release. Should those be split?
