I've been adding new names using the suffix "(2)" when there is someone else with the same name already in the database.

This follows the guidelines:

Different entities with the same name (for example, two artists named John B) should be entered as John B and John B (2). The (2) is not part of the name but is used to distinguish the two names. If you need to create a third, use (3) and so on.

Recently someone removed one of the (2)'s saying the suffix was not needed.
The example is:

So... should the (2) be added or not?

First, the guidelines here were originally just copied from Discogs, and have not been updated to include all the decisions in the forum and/or general database practices. They should be read with a grain of salt.

When it comes to the numerical suffixes, in general the community and the staff here are not very fond of them. We have been trying to get rid of them, but it's a work in progress.

On Works they are no longer really needed as the system displays the author everywhere, and we have also agreed on using other, more informative suffixes on several other occasions.

Currently, the credits are the only place where the numerical suffixes are still somewhat useful, especially if there's not much other info. I wouldn't personally go around removing them on credits yet, but also, it shouldn't be a huge problem especially if the profiles are updated in the process.

Recent discussions:

Classic example:

I updated CERN (2) and added 2 actual BOOKS (!):

Not sure what reknugget was thinking.... Can someone please correct this. Thanks :)

Thanks Mirva - I'm used to discogs and had seen the bit in the bookogs guidelines so was confused.

I don't really have an issue either way so will not use the suffux goigng forward. It would of course be best if the guidelines were updated so they are correct!

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.