Handling of stage names

Because the search / link functionality resolves a stage name to its real name, this can lead to some odd-looking (or at least unexplained) results; e.g. do a 'Create Map' from 'Kathy Brown' to 'UFO' - you inevitably get a '1 step' result featuring Michael Schenker but with no explanation as to where Kathy Brown went. Should it say (only when a map including a stage name is requested) something like:
"Kathy Brown is a stage name for Michael Schenker. The link between Michael Schenker and UFO is 1 step....."

Seems like it'd be sufficient to put 'featured: Michael Schenker : "Kathy Brown"' next to the album at the start in this case. In other words, we just need to expand the logic of when to show this choice to cover any time the requested link is a stage name that wouldn't otherwise be shown on the link between albums.

The problem is that the album which starts the map does not necessarily feature the stage name. The logic goes straight to the real name and creates a map from there. So you get the link between Kathy Brown and anywhere else starting from an album that doesn't contain that stage name. For what it's worth - I agree with that - I see no point in creating a false map by insisting that the stage name be recognised as a separate entity - it's just confusing.

Obviously it has to start with an album the stage name appears on, not just an album the real name appears on. If it doesn't do that right now I'd say that's a bug that needs fixing, or we're not actually mapping from Kathy Brown at all. Yes, it's not a separate real entity, but there are electronic artists I can think of where I'd be very irritated if I typed in one stage name and got a map from one of the guy's other bands instead, because I was looking for that explicit "persona".

I disagree. I don't think there's an extra step in the chain just because you worked under a pseudonym on a particular release. In this instance that would require Kathy Brown (who is Michael Schenker) to link to Michael Schenker on a Michael Schenker solo album, to then link to UFO featuring Michael Schenker. There are not two steps; just one and while you may rightly feel that certain stage names are alter egos rather than just names; in their generality I don't think it makes sense to link by stage name; it should resolve to real name immediately. All I'm looking for is explanation; not a change in the logic.

Um... there's no need for an extra link in the chain. You're right that Kathy Brown _is_ Michael Schenker, so if you start on an album containing Kathy Brown, you get to UFO in one step, through Michael Schenker.

There's nothing in the current logic that requires the first link to be done through the member you start with, just that the first _endpoint_ (album) ought to contain that member.

If the album does NOT contain that member it is simply wrong to link starting there.

Sorry - my error in terminology. 'Kathy Brown' to 'UFO' is currently a single album. Your logic would make it a one step link. I agree with the current logic.

There seemed to have been a few issues with stage names that arose when I dug in on this one. I've done two things here, one I've fixed the Kathy Brown -> UFO problem so that it properly loads the album the alias appeared on and then follows the Michael link to UFO. That should be working just fine now.

I've also turned on aliased names as links so that you can click on it and see how many albums that alias appeared on and who used them.

I've also had to change my earlier stance on listing Michael Schenker as an alias for himself on:
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=10068
because the alias would then be clickable when it really isn't an alias at all.

As usual I'm sure there will be a kink or two with the new code surrounding this stuff so if you spot any problems, let me know.


Kevin

So this is the result of this discussion?
[bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/index.php?Page=Search&AlbumId=10659

Tell me again why we don't list it like this?
Artist||Alias 1||Alias 2

It would seem to make a lot more sense. Looks kinda silly as it is now.

Probably [bandtoband.com] http://bandtoband.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1069 is the discussion you want to revive if necessary. I'll go post a reaction on it.