[x] Rule 6 Again

I think I went a little insane last week when I re-wrote Rule 6a but after the gaping holes in my logic were pointed out to me, and after further discussion, I've re-written it once again and I believe for the last time. It currently handles every situation that I can think of in the appropriate fashion.

There is still a technical issue as to how the collaborations are represented in the database, but that's up to me to work out. As of now, any collaboration that is considered to be sharing members:

Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
Neil Young & Crazy Horse
Frank Zappa & The Mothers Of Invention
etc.

are to be represented as a singular band: "Neil Young & Crazy Horse" although both Neil Young and Crazy Horse may be in the system independently of one another. Once I can figure out a good way to join the bands "Neil Young" and "Crazy Horse" on their particular collaborative albums I'll do it but for now we'll stick with the system we have in place.


Kevin

I like the new wording. For clarity, I think the text in the base of rule 6 should have one word added:

"Bands collaborating together do not normally count as sharing members."

This is so that Rule 6c does not seem to contradict Rule 6.

Of course, given Rule 6c, "collaboration" and "sharing members" are now pretty much disconnected from each other. I'm not 100% sure I know what defining bands sharing members as a "collaboration" buys us exactly, but if you really think it's valuable to mark Frank Zappa & The Mothers Of Invention a collaboration instead of a normal band, then more power to you.

I think I'm going to stick with the current wording of Rule 6 and let the 6(a)-6(c) be caveats to it. I'd rather have the reading of the base Rules be fairly definitive and afterwards state "oh yeah, here's an exception..."


Kevin

In that case I would explicitly say "as an exception to rule 6" or similar in 6c.

I still think adding a word to the base rule is clearer and more accurately expresses the overall rule. It's not like you're hiding Rule 6c and people won't actually see it; all the "definitive" stance does is cause confusion when someone reads 6c and tries to make it line up with 6. At least that's what it did for me.

All right, I see you just added Rule 6d to deal with Hartford & Hartford as a collaboration. But it's still in the DB as a band. Have John Hartford and Jamie Hartford each released material as a solo artist? If not why would this be a collaboration? And if so, then whether they "share membership" or not depends on when those releases were -- but in either case the rest of the band wouldn't show up on the album... right?

Exactly. Both of those guys have released solo albums (John before and Jamie after). I removed the other three band members (and two bands that were only connected to those members).