She's best known simply as Björk, rather than her full name of Björk Guðmundsdóttir, which is why we have an alias that's the same as her real name. I'm not sure about whether it should be hidden - Bastien or sebcat could answer that better.
My interest in this one is both aesthetic (it looks "robotic" to have the same name as real and an alias) and functional (the most important consideration).
After thinking about this one over night, I realized that SHS would need to have both a real name and a separate/identical alias so that subsequent revisions can made to either one without having to remember to make additional changes elsewhere. For instance what would happen if an editor added a middle name, say Björk Swandress Guðmundsdóttir? In that case, the releases under the earlier real name/alias would break. So hiding the alias for aesthetics is the only real solution.
This begs the next question, should similar cases be treated as an error (i.e. hiding real name aliases is a guidline) or is this just editor/personal preference?
Related question that has got me thinking about alias issues:
No they wouldn't. You'd simply have a real name different from the artist alias.
Not sure that is correct if the real name auto-serves as an alias, as originally queried. I'm sure Mat had this long figured out, but our Björk example could be setup one of two basic ways: a) where the primary and real names are automatically treated as aliases or b) the primary and real names are informational fields and that there are separate fields for these same names as aliases. To visualize:
Björk (primary name and auto-alias)
Björk Guðmundsdóttir (real name and auto-alias)
Björk (primary name)
Björk Guðmundsdóttir (real name)
Björk Guðmundsdóttir (alias)
To continue our example, this artist has released as Björk and as Björk Guðmundsdóttir. What would happen if we revised either primary or real name, say the real to Björk Swandress Guðmundsdóttir, under the auto-alias setup? Seems to me that those released as Björk Guðmundsdóttir would either a) "break" so that those releases would un-attach from the artist or b) the site would then visualize those releases as credited to Björk Swandress Guðmundsdóttir. Either outcome would generate an error.
Since these errors don't seem to be occurring after such revisions, I am assuming that the site is actually setup under the non-auto-alias structure.
Assuming all of this is correct, this discussion boils down to an aesthetic, best practice, editor preference question. Should an artist's page visualize to show an alias that is also shown as the primary and/or real name? If not, would this no double visualization be a rule (i.e. error report worthy) or more editor preference (i.e. comment worthy if posting a submission, other error)?
I agree per my lengthy analysis above. That still leaves my final question unanswered: Should an artist's page visualize to show an alias that is also shown as the primary and/or real name? If not, would this no double visualization be a rule (i.e. error report worthy) or more editor preference (i.e. comment worthy if posting a submission, other error)?
Yes, to hide or not to hide, that is the first question. The artist page for Elvis Presley looks right to me. Let's say that he released under Elvis, Elvis Aaron Presley (also his real name), and as Elvis Presley (the current primary). A cleaner visualization is as is, since we just see the primary, real and one alias. The unclean possibility would be the primary, the real, and three aliases (two of which would be duplicates with the real and primary).
If we should hide, the second question.., if the artist page is in an unclean state, does that merit an error report is it just a best practice violation subject to editor preference/override.
Updated the guideline while we wait for the enhancement to be implemented:
Does not merit an error report.
Check that. I will only mention an unclean state if I am posting for something else related to that artist (e.g. a cover submission or a different error)….