What about this wrong credit?

On this release Tina Turner.
In fact, it's of course written by Ben Tucker as "Coming Home Baby".
Si I fixed it on Le Steel-Band De La Trinidad* - Magie Caraïbe.
Was it in the right way?
Is this possible to fix it on all other releases?
Thanks.

The problem is it is credited on the release and labels to Tina Turner.

"Is this possible to fix it on all other releases?"
Each release will have to be edited separately.

One way of doing it is by use of [Miscredited] + an unlinked Written-By credit, plus another linked Written-By with [Uncredited].

Coming Home
Written By [Miscredited] T. Turner
Written-By [Uncredited] Ben Tucker

Make sure to provide some sort of proof that the track in question is indeed the Ben Tucker song/composition.

My favorite part is a number of them have T. Turner as an ANV of Ben Tucker which is the single most incorrect way to do any of this.

I would follow duchamp163's suggestion:
Written By [Miscredited] T. Turner
Written-By [Uncredited] Ben Tucker

cellularsmoke
My favorite part is a number of them have T. Turner as an ANV of Ben Tucker which is the single most incorrect way to do any of this.

I would follow duchamp163's suggestion:
Written By [Miscredited] T. Turner
Written-By [Uncredited] Ben Tucker

Thanks for your replies. I think you're right.
Just to compare music:
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKDd5wDluX4&t=1s

with some titles signed by Ben Tucker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frOkJBw2zr0&t=46s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Af6CF4g58&t=54s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDiRsT7_1-U&t=37s
and a lot more.

I'll add when I search "Tina Turner Coming Home" I get
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/search?limit=250&q=tina+turner+coming+home&type=all&page=1
I see nowhere this title signed by Tina Turner except this record. Curious!

And "Ben Tucker Coming Home"
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/search?q=Ben+Tucker+Coming+Home&type=all
There are different records signed by him.

Duchamp163
One way of doing it is by use of [Miscredited] + an unlinked Written-By credit, plus another linked Written-By with [Uncredited].

A completely incorrect way that should not be used.. RSG §1.7.2 is crystal clear how this is handled.

Duchamp163
Written By [Miscredited] T. Turner
Written-By [Uncredited] Ben Tucker

cheebacheebakid
A completely incorrect way that should not be used.. RSG §1.7.2 is crystal clear how this is handled.

So why would Duchamp163's suggestion be "completely incorrect"? Seems like an elegant solution, IMO, and one that is not inconsistent with RSG §1.7.2

Written By [Miscredited] T. Turner —> lists what is actually credited on the the release without actually crediting Tina Turner, since it's unlinked; therefore, it will not appear on her profile.

Written-By [Uncredited] Ben Tucker —> fulfills RSG §1.7.2 with the actual correction, which is actually uncredited, and it needs to be identified as such as required by RSG §10.7.1.

So, all that's needed are:
The source in the sub notes (and further explanation if necessary), which, seems to me, would be needed for the correction anyway;
And a succinct remark about the error in the release notes.

Should then be all good.

[edit: punctuation]

Duchamp163
Written By [Miscredited] T. Turner
Written-By [Uncredited] Ben Tucker

This works well and IMO is not contradictory to aforementioned rule

Yes, for me also, it works well. Totally logical.

Duchamp163
Coming Home
Written By [Miscredited] T. Turner
Written-By [Uncredited] Ben Tucker

This suggestion looks reasonable to me.
ed. *

* edited. Please see https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/1117293?page=1&message_id=11654860#11654860

excellent pragmatic solution. well thought out. thanks to all for your input on this. my contributions are quite minimal. i am more of a hands-on person than a screen-based communicator but i like to follow all developments

Your opinion is à participation. Thanks.

Great job resolving this dastardly conundrum.

This topic again has been discussed in detail recently, please see https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/1124071 .

The mostly agreed proposal how to add miscredited songwriters at best was:

Written By –
Written-By [Uncredited] –

Besides the votes of some much more experienced s than me, this form of entry is also ed by the guidelines; please compare RSG §1.7.2 and RSG §10.4.2.

Since the forum conclusion in this thread here:

Written By [Miscredited] –
Written-By [Uncredited] –

is not ed by the guidelines, and although attaching the description [Miscredited] to the unlinked 'Written By' role seems reasonable at first glance, I therefore refrain from my previous assessment in https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/1117293#11585736.

Calling Le Steel-Band De La Trinidad* - Magie Caraïbe:
Would you consider changing all entries in this MR again to the proposal as above being more correct, as it is in accordance with the guidelines?
No worries, I would do the work; I'd just like to have a 'go', since you are the OP for the initial corrections.

Thanks

In fact, the only difference is in this case (we propose on this page) we added [Miscredited] to be more precise for reader.
With Written By only, the reader don't know quickly why.
So, give less precision if you want, no problem.
PS: I didn't see in the guidelines where it's forbidden to add a precision.

othall
I didn't see in the guidelines where it's forbidden to add a precision.

Compare RSG §10.2.3. Thereafter the description in square brackets only should be used for musical instruments not yet existing in the Credit Roles list. [Credited To], which in this context can be equated to [Miscredited], is explicitly forbitten. The only exception per the guidelines is [Uncredited], per RSG §10.7.1.

Furthermore, in the thread I linked to above, . https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/1124071?page=1&message_id=11654863#11651776

othall
So, give less precision if you want, no problem.

Thank you.

In RSG §10.2.3 it's written " Square brackets [ ] should be used to give more detail to existing instrument families" if course.
But it's not written " Square brackets [ ] should ONLY be used to give more detail to existing instrument families"
And RSG §10.7.1. concern the credit missing, not the wrong credit.
I see nowhere an information about wrong credit.
And I don't see how what we wrote here contradicted the
RSG §1.7.2. : Artist names, if the credited artist is totally incorrect, should be changed to the correct artist, and the correction explained in the Release Notes.
And RSG §10.4.2

As I see there is no consensus on this - which is ok for me, so I will refrain from editing the above mentioned.
Thanks anyway. :o)

No problem
I hope you also understand my point of vue.
Thanks

I'm surprised at the vehement opposition in the other thread to what seemed to me (and some others above) as an elegant solution.

As the full text of RSG §10.2.3 is:

10.2.3. Square brackets [ ] should be used to give more detail to existing instrument families, for example, Synthesizer [Bass], Electric Piano [Rhodes], etc. Any reasonable description of the instrument or credit role is allowed in the box brackets. [Credited To] was sometimes used in the past, but is forbidden now, and can be removed if other updates are happening on the release.

[both emphases mine]

In light of the emboldened part above: Is [Miscredited] unreasonable? Would [Erroneously] be more descriptive/reasonable?

Just asking?

(Though i doubt my question will sway anyone).

IMO an incorrect credit should be mentioned only in notes, not as an unlinked Written By credit.

For me, a forum is made for discussion. So every observation is welcome.

EzraZebra
IMO an incorrect credit should be mentioned only in notes, not as an unlinked Written By credit.

This was also my first thought and it's correct in any case (RSG §1.7.2), but the higher level is the additional Written By credit (RSG §10.4.2).

pfue
but the higher level is the additional Written By credit (RSG §10.4.2).

I don't see how this guideline allows for incorrect credits?

The unlinked role can be used per 10.4.2. (2), "to replicate the complete writer credit as it is formatted on the release". The credit on the release is given as Chesley McCaull and thus the miscredited role can be entered in order to make sure the data is as close as possible in relation to the physical release (1.1.2.). Notes should be used to explain the erroneous credit.

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/1124071?page=1&message_id=11655685#11651776

"Incorrect credits"? Yeah, whatever.

Anyway. The point is to clearly inform the reader of the data of what is on the release. Next, it is advisable to show the errors at a glance. Mentioning it in an addition to the credit meets those conditions.