• magnix over 5 years ago

    Am I correct, or better, have I been correctly corrected that 'none' as a catalog number on labels is only allowed when there is no catalog number at all on the release? I submitted a disc released by Edsel together with Rhino, so both are entered as labels. It only has an Edsel number, but I added it to both labels. In the past I would've entered Rhino with 'none' as catalog number, but was corrected on that in a similar case. Supposedly Nik has ruled on this ... but I cannot find that or another forum topic about this ...

    On said release I entered, another user questions this, and on another, similar release that same user already entered 'none' for the second label.
    Although I explained that I agree that the Edsel catalog number is not the Rhino number, but that the 'rule' is as I entered the catalog number, I sort of get 'accused' of being confused about how to properly add labels and catalog numbers, so I want this clarified.

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=4082766
    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=3885072

    Thanks in advance.
  • MusicNutter over 5 years ago

    If EDSK 7014 appears; that is the cat number. It may/not be a cat number for Rhino, but you only use none if no cat number appears at all.

    RSG §4.7.2
  • DonHergeFan over 5 years ago

    magnix
    have I been correctly corrected that 'none' as a catalog number on labels is only allowed when there is no catalog number at all on the release?

    Yes.
  • timetogo over 5 years ago

    magnix and MusicNutter are right. The catalog number be used for all labels in a case like this. It's been discussed in the forums time and time again. I've commented on the first release and given an EI vote to revert on the second one.

    The problem with 4.7.2, which MusicNutter correctly cites, is that it really isn't very clear. It could definitely be improved.

    Anyway, some relevant past forum topics:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/356604
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/336378

    nik made clear in that second thread that catalog numbers are tied to individual releases and NOT to labels. He agreed there are flaws in the present system but for now this is how we do it: the one catalog number that exists goes to both labels.
  • HM-2 over 5 years ago

    absolutely ridiculous, especially when you can clearly tell that the cat-no. does not belong to the second label. you could even question whether the associated label should even be considered as real label for the release.
  • timetogo over 5 years ago

    Ridiculous or not, both the Guidelines and nik have made it clear that's the way it's done. It's been discussed over and over and over again and the result is always the same. If you disagree you need to persuade management to change it.
  • syke over 5 years ago


    MusicNutter
    If EDSK 7014 appears; that is the cat number. It may/not be a cat number for Rhino, but you only use none if no cat number appears at all.


    this in a nutshell. "none" can only ever be used if there is no cat# present on the release at all. Even if one cat# clearly only applies to one label. SPV cat#s where they only distribute but also add their cat# scheme with it being a prime example
  • Opdiner over 5 years ago

    HM-2
    absolutely ridiculous


    It's not ridiculous at all. The catalogue number is the number the release was issued under. There are countless thousands of releases in the DB with cat #s derived from different label systems.

    Start with the Beatles releases on the Apple label if you wish - they have Parlophone and Capitol numbers.

    It's been discussed over and over but this is the first thread where this was confirmed: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/233124#2863759
  • magnix over 5 years ago

    Thanks all for your input.
  • timetogo over 5 years ago

    Thanks, Opdiner. That statement from nik is crystal clear.

Log In You must be logged in to post.