• SickMF over 3 years ago

    SickMF edited over 3 years ago
    "6.1.6. Unless any release that has the same title and format on the artist or label pages is also released using different packaging (for example a slimline jewel case and a Digipak), package description should not be added to the free text field, but remain in the Release Notes."

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=354235#latest

    At the submission above nik obviously made an exception to the "has the same [...] format"-condition for denoting the jewel case size in the FTF.
    So what is the actual guideline on this? Does the format wording only refer to differences at "basic formats" (CD, Vinyl, File, etc.)? Can the RSG be updated accordingly then?
  • schtel over 3 years ago

    Adding packaging to FTF is to distinguish a difference on the same format, eg, 2 CD submissions: Jewel Case & Digipak.

    In the example above, both the 2xCD abd 3xCD are regarded as the 'same' release, as they're in the MR, so technically, two versions, with a format amount difference, and a packaging difference.
  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    schtel
    In the example above, both the 2xCD abd 3xCD are regarded as the 'same' release, as they're in the MR, so technically, two versions, with a format amount difference, and a packaging difference.

    An MR doesn't require format consistency enough to be of relevance here. Certainly there is no FTF necessary to distinguish between 12" and Maxi-CD.

    schtel
    so technically, two versions, with a format amount difference, and a packaging difference.

    Indeed, there's a 2xCD and a 3xCD. Hence the need to elaborate the guideline why the FTF still applies.
  • andycrick2000 over 3 years ago

  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    andycrick2000
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/328574

    Hope this helps.

    That case is about two releases actually having the same format.
  • schtel over 3 years ago

    SickMF
    An MR doesn't require format consistency enough to be of relevance here.

    I meant they are the same release, as the MR dictates. :)
    SickMF
    Hence the need to elaborate the guideline why the FTF still applies.

    6.1.6. Unless any release that has the same title and format on the artist or label pages is also released using different packaging (for example a slimline jewel case and a Digipak), package description should not be added to the free text field, but remain in the Release Notes."

    It's already there: "different packaging". As another example, you could have a Digipak, and a Tri-fold Digipak. Basically if the packaging is different for same format releases, then the FTF can be used.
  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    schtel
    6.1.6. Unless any release that has the same title and format on the artist or label pages is also released using different packaging (for example a slimline jewel case and a Digipak), package description should not be added to the free text field, but remain in the Release Notes."

    It's already there: "different packaging". As another example, you could have a Digipak, and a Tri-fold Digipak. Basically if the packaging is different for same format releases, then the FTF can be used.

    You are ignoring the fact the releases do not have the same format in common.

    The reasoning, as applied at the submission before, is also false: If different packaging would be a sufficient, not only a necessary condition, there wouldn't be any disqualifiers for FTF packaging descriptions based on format.
  • schtel over 3 years ago

    SickMF

    You are ignoring the fact the releases do not have the same format in common.

    They're both on CD format, so they do have the same format in common. Or are you trying to say that because one has a CD-ROM then they are not the same format?
  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    schtel
    They're both on CD format, so they do have the same format in common. Or are you trying to say that because one has a CD-ROM then they are not the same format?

    Maybe you don't care if you're getting the 2xCD- or 3xCD-edition of a release. Evidently these are not the same format releases though.
  • schtel over 3 years ago

    SickMF
    Maybe you don't care if you're getting the 2xCD- or 3xCD

    No body cares. They are the same format: CD.

    Or are you saying that the amount difference is now causing you a problem?

    I don't mean to sound argumentative but why don't you just say exactly what the problem is here? Cheers.
  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    This is non-sense going in circles.

    Take a closer look again: "6.1.6. Unless any release that has the same title and format on the artist or label pages". It even explicitly mentions the appearance of the format as displayed on artist and label pages.

    So let's see what we got here in the case at hand:
    "(2xCD, Comp)" and
    "(2xCD, Comp + CD-ROM)"

    Like twins, aren't they? So "same". No way to tell them apart other than by adding a finally substantial "+ , Tri" to it.

    Anyway, if you're claiming an amount of whatever basic medium is irrelevant and not actually part of the format (so that further description would be necessary to be able to differentiate), there is no point in further debate with you.
  • schtel over 3 years ago

    Lets be fair, if you can't say specifically what your problem is then nobody will understand you. I've tried to help you explain yourself, but you seem to refuse?
  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    SickMF edited over 3 years ago
    Don't get pathetic. I don't need your "help" / obvious attempt to stir argument.

    Everyone actually interested can read in the first posting in relation to the linked sub about the divergence between current formulation and application of said guideline.
  • anssisal over 3 years ago

    schtel
    if you can't say specifically what your problem is then nobody will understand you. I've tried to help you explain yourself, but you seem to refuse?


    Let me try. If you have two versions of one release:
    (2xCD, Comp)
    (3xCD, Comp)

    you can already tell them apart, no matter what the packaging may be. So there's no reason to add packaging info to format.

  • 0frg over 3 years ago

    I also interpreted these rules as you SickMF. Rules clearly should be reworded if they really should be applied that way - using "media type" instead of "format" would be less ambiguous.
  • Myriad over 3 years ago

    I understood that guideline to mean that the format has to be indentical for the packaging to be allowed to be entered in the FTF, ie. 2xCD is not the "same" format as 3xCD, and therefore packaging is not necessary in the format to differentiate them. I believe that is what SickMF is saying?

    Why not just settle this pointless argument with a dedicated packaging field like countless other people have requested?
  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    SickMF edited over 3 years ago
    Myriad
    Why not just settle this pointless argument with a dedicated packaging field like countless other people have requested?

    That'd be a way too quick solution, I apprehend.

    Apart from this particular instance, clear guidelines are generally beneficial for voting and checking information, I guess everyone would agree as far as they are now able to understand this highly complex matter I am writing about?
  • Eviltoastman over 3 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 3 years ago
    Edit: No longer feel that a drop down would be the solution following the cd-text issue. I can happily type differences in the ftf.
  • schtel over 3 years ago

    SickMF
    Don't get pathetic. I don't need your "help" / obvious attempt to stir argument.

    Being 'pathetic' simply isn't a part of my personality, and thus my communication would give no idication of that. I asked you several questions to help me identify specifically why you see no difference in the format. You did not answer my questions. As for 'help'; you posted in the help forums, expect responses. And, I have no need to stir arguments, so don't try a twist your inability to commicate efficiently into a problem that exists within me. thx
    anssisal
    Let me try.

    Myriad
    I believe that is what SickMF is saying?

    Well it's kind difficult when he won't say it specifically. :)

    Ok, if we are on a consensus that SickMF means that the difference in the amount of CDs constitutes a difference in the format, then he has a valid opinion. Put I'm presuming that this current guideline is to do with the format 'medium'. It could be argued, however, that because one release contains a CDr then these are different formats. That would be a valid argument.

    Does the format have to match each release in every specifics, before the FTF can be used to differentiate? That's the real question.
    Myriad
    Why not just settle this pointless argument with a dedicated packaging field like countless other people have requested?

    Would be a great improvement. I think it's only management that disagrees, though. :)
    nik
    I think a dropdown packaging field is a complicated solution in search of a problem :-)

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/223845#2763723

  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    schtel
    And, I have no need to stir arguments, so don't try a twist your inability to commicate efficiently into a problem that exists within me.
    schtel
    Ok, if we are on a consensus that SickMF means

    Oxymoronic, to keep it short and civil.
    "Strangely" enough everybody else got it right away. Apparently it's all there...
    schtel
    . As for 'help'; you posted in the help forums, expect responses.

    I have questioned the character of your utterances, and only yours, but haven't said anything about anyone responding. Read more closely or stop twisting my words.
  • Tokeowave over 3 years ago

    SickMF
    You are ignoring the fact the releases do not have the same format in common.

    The formats are the same (the releases in question are in disc form), with different 'quantity' . 'Quantity' is not 'Format' in the eyes of this guideline and since the titles are the same, FTF for packaging is applicable under RSG via 'same title & format' provision.
  • schtel over 3 years ago

    SickMF
    I have questioned the character of your utterances, and only yours, but haven't said anything about anyone responding.

    Sorry, I should have said "expect a response from me". "Responces" can be abmiguous, I agree.
    SickMF
    Read more closely or stop twisting my words.

    Using your words and twisting them are not the same thing. But hey, stop twisting my mellow. I read your words very closely, but it is you who didn't read mine. My questions regarding the specifics of your problem were genuine:
    schtel
    Or are you trying to say that because one has a CD-ROM then they are not the same format?

    SickMF
    Maybe you don't care if you're getting the 2xCD- or 3xCD-edition of a release. Evidently these are not the same format releases though.

    That didn't answer my question to you.
    schtel
    Or are you saying that the amount difference is now causing you a problem?

    SickMF
    So let's see what we got here in the case at hand:
    "(2xCD, Comp)" and
    "(2xCD, Comp + CD-ROM)"

    Like twins, aren't they? So "same". No way to tell them apart other than by adding a finally substantial "+ , Tri" to it.

    Anyway, if you're claiming an amount of whatever basic medium is irrelevant and not actually part of the format (so that further description would be necessary to be able to differentiate),

    Again, that didn't answer my question. It seems to me that you thought my questions were my opinions. Why didn't you just say...

    "No I don't think they are they same format because one is 2 CDs and the other is 3CDs, and also one is a CDRom."

    In fact you could've saved us sometime if you simply said that at the start of this thread. :)

    Anyhooo, word on the street is that Jesus loves you, so there's always that! ;)

    Sorry your thread didn't get the response you hoped for.
  • Staff 2.5k

    nik over 3 years ago

    Hey folks, please don't get into personal arguments, there is really no need...

    Ok, I was probably 'lenient' on the guideline in the above case. Arguably, any difference in the format is a difference. The guideline is there to stop the FTF getting filled with packaging info on every release in the database, and only to allow it where it is important. Arguably, it isn't important on that release. Lets call it an exception for now.
  • SickMF over 3 years ago

    schtel
    In fact you could've saved us sometime if you simply said that at the start of this thread. :)

    Talking in plural and hiding behind a virtual majority when taking a single position, combined with that egocentric ignorance says more about character than any pathetic self-declaration.

    schtel
    Sorry your thread didn't get the response you hoped for.

    Talking of pathetic again. King-size.

    One had to be either dyslexic or Christ-like ignorant to not see most responses in this thread are dead-on (and FYI more than I had expected). What is it you're even trying to prove here?
    The issue is clear, obviously understood and just been solved now - up to the point early on that my intentions for starting this thread actually wouldn't even had mattered nor would had further involvement of mine been necessary, as it's not about me, as you weirdly try to make it, but a case of guideline application in the DB.

    In the future, if you really don't get something written by me in my voluntarily invested time, just feel excluded. I for my part couldn't care less to write a version for presumptuous dummies or cater for pseudo-subtile trolls.

    nik
    Ok, I was probably 'lenient' on the guideline in the above case. Arguably, any difference in the format is a difference. The guideline is there to stop the FTF getting filled with packaging info on every release in the database, and only to allow it where it is important. Arguably, it isn't important on that release. Lets call it an exception for now.

    Alright, thanks.

    That means the guideline is explicitly to be taken as worded and been understood by apparently the majority as well as by me. All solved then.

    Cheers

Log In You must be logged in to post.