• SickMF over 6 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=199937#latest

    User claims the catalog# for one certain label on above multi-label/entity-release must be "none", although other cat#s on release are available, as is secondary information about another cat# used by said certain label.

    What is the current official stance on "none" by now in such cases?
  • Opdiner over 6 years ago

    corrected that hopefully. The correct stance is that none is only used when then is no cat # at all on the release.

    Nik was working on a guideline edit to try and resolve this repeated confusion over the misreading of the rule.
  • SickMF over 6 years ago

    Or, in other words, I guess this is still applying?
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/233124#2863759
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Yes.

    There was a further discussion in a newer thread, but that's basically how far that later thread got as well.
  • SickMF over 6 years ago

    SickMF edited over 6 years ago
    Alright, thanks @ both. (Thread-searching can be a pain...)

    I think the label/company entries and cat# situation still needs a revision at that release though.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    The catalogue numbers will soon be split from labels and companies and be part of the BAOI anyway. This will solve the issue as the catalogue number will purely and properly just belong to the release in hand. This will also allow distribution company's catalogue numbers to be entered properly as this is still a bit of a nightmare as we consistently refer to them as Distribution codes when distribution codes are a different animal altogether and are never release specific.
  • SickMF over 6 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    The catalogue numbers will soon be split from labels and companies and be part of the BAOI anyway. This will solve the issue as the catalogue number will purely and properly just belong to the release in hand.

    This has been planned for a while - and hopefully be realized soon.

    Eviltoastman
    This will also allow distribution company's catalogue numbers to be entered properly as this is still a bit of a nightmare as we consistently refer to them as Distribution codes when distribution codes are a different animal altogether and are never release specific.

    That can be done already though. It's just that many users apparantly don't know the difference between a distribution code and the catalog# of a distributor, despite being clarified and explicitly differentiated in the RSG.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago


    SickMF
    That can be done already though. It's just that many users apparantly don't know the difference between a distribution code and the catalog# of a distributor, despite being clarified and explicitly differentiated in the RSG.

    Until very recently I was confused by the terms applied to what I called "release specific distribution code" which in actual fact is a catalogue number.

    What I was referring to above was disassociating the catalogue number for example an EFA # from the distribution company in the LCCNs. I still very uncomfortable entering a catalogue number in a field next to anything other than a label. Personally when catalogue numbers are moved and disassociated from the LCCNs then it will be much less of an issue.
  • XFairplayX over 6 years ago

    XFairplayX edited over 6 years ago
    oh, the catalog# thing again... nik said

    nik
    Whichever way we do it at the moment, it is not 100% correct. This is one reason I want to change the system.

    I wouldn't start picking through stuff and making loads of updates. I was asked my opinion, and gave it, on this matter, but really it ends up us churning the data for little benefit. Whatever way we do it, once we get a 'better' system, these releases will need worked on again in any case.

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/336378?page=2#3179919

    As for the release in question - the label is Alternation (2) and Alternation (2) only. DHR simply is the copyright holder, nothing more, this is clearly stated on the release. The catalog# in this case is "IRS 993.521" because Alternation is a label of the Intercord group.
    The barcode should not be added as a second catalog# and adding DHR as a second label with the Intercord# as Catalog# is just another example of twisting the guidelines against all logic and common sense...

    Edit
    I stand corrected: DHR indeed is a second label in this case, however, the IRS catalog# for them as second label is still nonsense.
  • timetogo over 6 years ago

    XFairplayX
    I stand corrected: DHR indeed is a second label in this case, however, the IRS catalog# for them as second label is still nonsense.

    I know you consider it nonsense but it's the way it's been done on Discogs for years and the Guidelines call for it to be there. nik has never wavered on that when it's been questioned in the forums, either. So... nonsense or not (and I honestly say not) it has to be entered.

Log In You must be logged in to post.