[ ] Split decision

Currently arguing in queue about whether this 1979 release is a split or not:
[mainlynorfolk.info] https://mainlynorfolk.info/shirley.collins/records/themarinersfarewell.html

In my view, using the name of the other band is very much a BandToBand convention, and not the intention of the bands. Band #1 might refer to it as "Band #2 split", ie. "the split we did with Band #2", but practically never just "Band #2". But on the other hand, B2B doesn't say "Title:" on the page, so it's not as if we explicitly try to lay down some kind of law on what the title is. It's just a piece of text to put in that spot. If there's no overall title, putting the band name there gives visitors an idea of what they'll be clicking through to when they click 'split'.

So what harm does it do to just adhere to the rules and say if it's got cover artwork but no overall title, it's a split? Put the other band name there, done.

There is no one year where shared releases were dropped and splits with proper artwork were in. It was a gradual change between the two. Artwork seems like a reasonable enough place to draw the line. Here are some examples...

Label sleeve with both song titles on the front, 1960:
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/Erika-Berg-Rainer-Bertram-Rosalie-Mu%C3%9Ft-Nicht-Weinen...

Very basic covers but with the band names on them, 1962:
[www.rootsvinylguide.com] http://www.rootsvinylguide.com/ebay_items/chico-schnelzer-the-tigers-summer-sere...

A bit more colourful this one, 1963:
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/Basi-Erhardt-Maria-Und-Margot-Hellwig-Eisstock-Polka-Mit...

Split album with all song titles on the front, 1964:
[rateyourmusic.com] https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the_paragons_vs__the_harp_tones/the_para...

A split where one band listed their song titles, but the other decided just to go with their name, 1964:
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/release/6211641

An early self-released split with just an overall title on the front, 1967:
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/Maiyeros-The-Instincts-The-Loving-Sandwich/release/51899...

One of the first I could find where neither artist has song titles listed on the cover, although it also has instrumentals so might become a compilation, 1971:
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/Marju-Kuut-Uno-Loop-Marju-Kuut-Ja-Uno-Loop/release/12186...

Splits did not begin with hardcore punk.

I have always resisted the concept of naming a split with the name of the other contributor. The most obvious reason to me is the fact that if two bands contribute to more than one such split, there's then more than one entity with the same name, which is suboptimal.

Be that as it may, the argument is now whether the entry in question is a "split" or a "shared release".

I contend that the release in question is a shared release. Even on the artwork the two entities are rigorously separated. I can't see how it can properly be named as to the other artist.

Some of the musicians play on both sides, suggesting that the two formations worked together to make the record. Saying it's a shared release is at odds with our rules. So the argument has to be about the rules rather than just the release itself.

The best option is probably just to accept that shared releases and splits are overlapping definitions, and allow shared releases with artwork at the wiki user's discretion. Especially given the reverse would be more readily accepted, ie. a split with minimal/no artwork like these ones:
[www.datawaslost.net] http://www.datawaslost.net/disco/029/
[www.discogs.com] https://www.discogs.com/Ressurection-2-Shades-Apart-Anti/release/1919008

Which is basically what you're after. We just need a ruling on it!

We also have plenty of jazz releases from the 30's / 40's etc. where you have e.g. Charlie Parker's Quintet on one side and Charlie Parker's Sextet on the other. (Can't think of a particular instance of this, I know there is one, but hunting for it is taking too much time because the response time is considerable at the moment).

Then you have this sort of situation:

[www.bandtoband.com] http://www.bandtoband.com/band/funky-phaser-and-his-unearthly-merchandise/shine

... where the band releases a disc with a b-side under a jokey name: Strawbs / Ciggy Barlust & the Whales of Venus is another example, and Fleetwood Mac / Earl Vince and the Valiants.

All of these share personnel, but are all "shared releases", thereby "allowing" the name of the record to be the song on the a (or b) respectively.

Except that none of the above have both the A and B in the DB for those particular instances.

Then you have Dusty Springfield, where she had a B side as Dusty and Tom Springfield. Or something. This sort of thing happens quite a lot. We need a way of capturing this without losing the name of the track (particularly in the case of a single) which makes that release identifiable.