loukash wrote:

Please check out Scandal (4) - Scandal
Discussion: http://www.discogs.com/history?release=564272

It has been voted Correct recently, and the submitter insists on Format "Vinyl, EP, LP" being correct as well.

EP? OK.
LP? I don't think so, with a runtime clearly under 10 minutes per side…

Opinions?

cheers
-- loukash

Jayfive wrote:

This is a "Rule 2*" situation - that is to say "if it doesnt say it, dont add it."

It doesnt state its an EP therefore in terms of discogs it shouldn't be labelled as such. There is no clear definitions as to what an EP is (e.g. number of tracks, duration etc etc) so the only way we can state its an ep with any certainty is when its stated on the release.

It is however an LP because of the microgrooves. Duration is nothing to do with what an LP is as I understand it.

The submission should be edited accordingly. Link to this thread if need be. Yes there are other submissions without EP on them that have it added in the format, they should be edited also.

(*Rule 1 being 'if you dont own it, dont submit it')

rassel wrote:

Emmm, sorry no:

The microgroove thing should be buried ten feets under, I really don't know why nik doesn't delete the last sentence in the RSG about microgrooves.
Microgooves have nothing to do with LP/12"/Single whatsoever, they all use the same grooves.


So a LP should have more than 15 minutes per side.

Jayfive wrote:

It appears I understand it wrong :P




It says 'generally'. That doesnt mean its an essential criteria. Which is a pain when trying to apply it to a problem submission like this one.

It seems in light of this maybe both LP and EP should be removedas the only information that we know for sure is that its a vinyl and its a 12 inch. Anything else is speculation

rassel wrote:

IMHO this is whether an EP or just a 12":



I would accept this to be an EP, if we would have a statement by the label or by the artists, but I don't think that a statement in Wikipedia is proof enough for Discogs.

So, as long as we don't have another source for being an EP, I would go with 12".

djindio wrote:

WARNING: BE CAREFUL WHEN TRYING TO SEARCH FOR INFORMATION ON THE RELEASE BEING DISCUSSED, AS THERE APPEAR TO BE MANY WEB PAGES WHEN SEARCHING FOR THE RELEASE THAT CONTAIN SOME SORT OF MALICIOUS SCRIPT OR TROJAN.

djindio wrote:

^makes me question this whole debate, who started this debate in the first place? anyone?

julesparis wrote:

inexpressible wrote:

the interwebs is full of traps

djindio wrote:

appearently, my browser just crashed 3 times trying to reply to your comment.

Obivously someone wanted my attention so they started a debate in the release history:
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=564272#latest

Hoping to come across the original promotional flat promoting the release as an EP, I googled: promotional flats
^I didn't find what I was looking for.

then I googled:
"Scandal EP" selling EP in Columbia Records history

...and four links into the search my browser gets zapped. After restating my system, I made three tries to comment here with my browser crashing every time. My modem light was continually flashing so I finally unplugged my dsl modem after making it to this post, giving me enough time to type my comment, plugged the modem in again and clicked "Post Now". Funny huh. The last page I visited (the one that crashed the compuer) doesn't even show in the browser history and no longer appears when I repeat the search.

My best guess:
1. Certain users here on discogs somehow still have the ability to view IP addresses through discogs. (an unpublished bug maybe)

2. The search results were probably false or tampered with as the links that originally appeared no longer appear in the search results when I clicked on the same search from the browser history.

...well done ya fukkin' snatches.

djindio wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/189015

loukash wrote:

1) StillCloser commented on http://www.discogs.com/history?release=564272 8 days ago, you replied to him.

2) Coincidentally yesterday I've stumbled upon that in my Saved Submissions because I've posted a comment there about 1 month ago, too.

3) Since this EP vs. LP vs. 12" issue still isn't clear to me (and apparently neither to others), I posted this thread yesterday for more opinions. I remembered http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/189015 but since its topic is "DOUBLE EP = LP or LP, EP in Format field?" I decided to open a new thread.

4) Upon reading my post, Jayfive, Mr.Mystery, Internaut, Kergillian (and then me) commented on http://www.discogs.com/history?release=564272

That's all.
No conspiracy theory.
No alien attack… ;)

cheers

loukash wrote:

This one?
http://www.jimvallance.com/01-...ong-scandal-win.html
No problem there (Safari 4.0.1, Mac)

Here's a funny quote though: http://www.phan.org/psfc/albums.htm

(emphasis mine…)
Hm…

djindio wrote:

No, the infecting site no longer appears in the search. I know there are sites out there with malicious scripts that allow false sites to be inserted into Google search results after they've obtained your IP address. I had open two new browser windows and started both searches at the same time, so the only site visited before google was discogs.



You do understand that Album an LP are two different things don't you? And here's another funny quote:


Right here on discogs for almost a year months:Scandal (4) - Win Some, Lose Some
The record label Columbia referring to the release as an EP. The same quote also appears on EVERY 12" & 7" SINGLE from this release. It also appears on the promotional flats.



I don't just make this 'EP' shit up and randomly add it to releases. ^ See the link above.



I have to agree with that.



So you plan to take it out on me because you failed to convince nik to change the current guidelines!? U are one uptight control-freak jackass. If you ever manage to have your updated definiton of LP implimented in the Guidelines, I will be more than happy to abide by that definiton.

rassel wrote:

No, I didn't fail.




Yes, I am, and I control every entry of your keyboard...
ROFL

djindio wrote:

So your plan is to use me to create a big 'to do' so you can use it as an example to prod nik into hurrying up on those proposed changes?

Keep laughing.



Even with that 'microgrooves' line removed from the bottom of the page it still wouldn't disqualify this release from being tagged 'LP'.
"By listing a record as an LP, we imply it has a 12" diameter and close together grooves."
http://www.discogs.com/help/su...-format.html#LP_v_12

^exactally the case with the release in question. This release is pressed with what I'd call standard Columbia Records LP grooves, both in depth and spacing. The groove area on this release, upon inspection, resembles any of the other Columbia Records releases that are Album + LP's. It also resembles the LP example photo.

rassel wrote:

C'mon djindio, the only plan I have so far is to travel on holidays next week with my family.

djindio wrote:

Really? I ran spellcheck before posting this:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2aj6h74.jpg
http://www.discogs.com/history?release=564272

Then you comment at the same time:
http://i27.tinypic.com/2rftzx3.jpg



Mighty Funny. Keep laughing.

nik wrote:

There is no access to ip addresses.

If you are worried about the security of your browsing, I recommend running the most secure browser you can find, and also extras such as good firewall software, script blocking software / plugins etc.

loukash wrote:

Yes.


In fact I have no objection using the EP attribute for this release. Definitely OK by me.

It's the combination of LP (originally an abbreviation for "Long Play") and EP ("Extended Play") that doesn't make sense to me. Attributing "EP" to "LP" implies like it's an "Extended Long Play" or something. And if it's supposed to be an "LP", then I would want it to play "long". But this 12" record doesn't seem to play long enough for that… :)

For example, in the MR are some format discrepancies as well: U2 - Wide Awake In America

P.S. djindio, rassel, please stay on the topic and move your private dispute to another place. Thank you.

rassel wrote:

Agreed, "L(ong)P(play)" and "E(xtended)P(play)" should be mutually exclusive.

Kergillian wrote:

Should be, but there are always ridiculous exceptions :)

djindio wrote:

^that's the rule you should have been trying to add all these years...