• G.I.S.M. over 3 years ago

    Hi, sorry if it's a silly question.

    I edited Tapasya - Unrelenting Terror 1997-2002 but I don't know if the release is ok. I've seen other releases in the database with multiple labels and a catalog number reused for multiple labels. From what I've read one only uses "none" when the whole release has no catalog number, but how to enter releases that have multiple labels with a catalog number for each one of them whereas some labels do not have it? Do I pick a random catalog number from any other label and use it for those numberless labels too?

    Cheers, AB.
  • Yukabacera over 3 years ago

    G.I.S.M.
    Do I pick a random catalog number from any other label and use it for those numberless labels too?


    Exactly. Makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it?
  • G.I.S.M. over 3 years ago

    Thanks Yukabacera for the quick response. I've done it that way in another release I edited, I'll check what releases I have that need that fix.
  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato edited over 3 years ago
    Yukabacera
    Exactly. Makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it?


    what? no, absolutely not.

    say a release has three labels on it and two catalog numbers:

    Record Label
    Music Label
    Audio Label

    and cat#s are

    RL123
    AL-456

    you could then surmise (via the help of other releases on the labels and their numbering schemes) that RL1234 relates to Record Label, and AL-456 relates to Audio Label. you should not force one of those catalog numbers as a cat# for Music Label if they have not applied a cat# to the release themselves. it is incorrect. you would leave "none" in the catalog number field next to Music Label.
    makes sense?
  • Yukabacera over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato
    you could then surmise (via the help of other releases on the labels and their numbering schemes) that RL1234 relates to Record Label, and AL-456 relates to Audio Label. you should not force one of those catalog numbers as a cat# for Music Label if they have not applied a cat# to the release themselves. it is incorrect. you would leave "none" in the catalog number field next to Record Label.
    makes sense?


    I personally agree with you, PabloPlato. But the rules and the Discogs Stasi don't.

    (Also, I assume you meant to write "Music Label" there at the end and not "Record Label")
  • G.I.S.M. over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato
    you would leave "none" in the catalog number field next to Record Label.
    makes sense?


    Yes, that's what I thought at first. In case of multiple labels and only one catalog number - the catalog number in Siecrist - What's Going On Your Mind? denotes Cogumelo Records - I understand how using a catalog number universally to the release makes sense. But when there are two or more catalog numbers and one or more labels do not have any specific catalog numbers, I assumed the correct way was to use "none".
  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago

    Yukabacera
    (Also, I assume you meant to write "Music Label" there at the end and not "Record Label")


    yes, have corrected my post.

    Yukabacera
    But the rules and the Discogs Stasi don't.


    rules? link please.

    G.I.S.M.
    Yes, that's what I thought at first. In case of multiple labels and only one catalog number - the catalog number in Siecrist - What's Going On Your Mind? denotes Cogumelo Records - I understand how using a catalog number universally to the release makes sense. But when there are two or more catalog numbers and one or more labels do not have any specific catalog numbers, I assumed the correct way was to use "none".


    MFN should have none entered as the CG-0059/CG0059 cat#s do not relate to MFN, but are you sure that MFN Brazil is a label on that release? you also have it entered as a distributor, are you sure they appear on the release as a label as well? can you remove the inlay from the cd case and scan the back cover?
  • G.I.S.M. over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato
    MFN should have none entered as the CG-0059/CG0059 cat#s do not relate to MFN, but are you sure that MFN Brazil is a label on that release? you also have it entered as a distributor, are you sure they appear on the release as a label as well? can you remove the inlay from the cd case and scan the back cover?

    MFN Brazil appears as a logo in the back cover. The full company name also appears in the back cover, but in a different position.

    I will add more scans tomorrow.

    Edited: here's someone's photo of the back cover http://mlb-s2-p.mlstatic.com/cd-siecrist-whats-going-on-your-mind-cogumelo-records-9736-MLB20021056298_122013-F.jpg
  • Yukabacera over 3 years ago

    PabloPlato
    rules? link please.


    4.7.2.
  • Mr-Love over 3 years ago

    RSG §4.7.2 is one of those guidelines that may be read in 2 different ways - I used to think it meant that if there was 2 labels, but only one catalog number, that obviously belonged to one of the labels, the other label would have "none" as catalog number. But apparenty it means, that in such case, the catalog number should be assigned to both labels.
  • PabloPlato over 3 years ago

    Mr-Love
    But apparenty it means, that in such case, the catalog number should be assigned to both labels.


    not sure how you could get that from the guideline. nowhere does it imply to play musical chairs with the cat#.
  • Opdiner over 3 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/233124#2863759

    It's less clear on multiple numbers but elsewhere Nik has said you take the first number alphabetically and use that. Not quite sure how that works.

  • serjio_from_tyumen over 3 years ago

    there is nothing in the guidelines that force you to use some random catalog number for the multi-label releases.
    I prefer use 'none'
  • Mr.Mystery over 3 years ago

    serjio_from_tyumen
    I prefer use 'none'

    Preference does not override the guidelines.
  • serjio_from_tyumen over 3 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    Preference does not override the guidelines.

    which guidelines?
  • trance-of-the-ages over 3 years ago

    From what I've read one only uses "none" when the whole release has no catalog number

    Yes I also do this based on the same decision from nik posted by Opdiner, it's not in guidelines.

    Very good question, didn't know about alphabetical preference.
  • serjio_from_tyumen over 3 years ago

    trance-of-the-ages
    Yes I also do this based on the same decision from nik posted by Opdiner, it's not in guidelines.

    yes, some old forum mention...
    I think now is the time to revise this once again, using of random (even alphabetical) catalog numbers for the labels which intentionally have no cat.numbers is contradicting the simple logic.
  • perlator over 3 years ago

    Mr-Love
    RSG §4.7.2 is one of those guidelines that may be read in 2 different ways - I used to think it meant that if there was 2 labels, but only one catalog number, that obviously belonged to one of the labels, the other label would have "none" as catalog number. But apparenty it means, that in such case, the catalog number should be assigned to both labels.

    The guideline always has been ambiguous. But it was never changed to clarify the use of 'none' either, even though there were numerous discussions about this.
    Opdiner
    t's less clear on multiple numbers but elsewhere Nik has said you take the first number alphabetically and use that. Not quite sure how that works.

    I do not think this was about users taking "the first number alphabetically". The system does this in order to find a number for the release that is then used for all available companies. This selection is based on the alphabetical sequence of the labels on the release. Contrary to the common misconception that the catalog number used for all company pages is the first one entered for the labels.
    serjio_from_tyumen
    there is nothing in the guidelines that force you to use some random catalog number for the multi-label releases.

    RSG §4.8.3: For each label field that is added a catalog number field will also be added. These must be completed. The sequence of catalog numbers should match the sequence of label fields, for example if three labels are listed the catalog number assigned by the label in the third label field should be added to the third catalog number field. If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields
  • trance-of-the-ages over 3 years ago

    nik's decisions stand if they are not updated.

    I do agree with serjio and Pablo's idea, but there is also problems there - if you have catalog numbers and labels but cannot verify which number belongs to which label.

    I stand by the decision as it currently is. Catalog number is primarily a number for the release - thus cannot be "none" if there is any cat# on the release.
  • serjio_from_tyumen over 3 years ago

    perlator
    If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields

    exactly, the label A does not uses the label B's catalog number on release, it is we who trying to do so on release page
  • trance-of-the-ages over 3 years ago

    trance-of-the-ages edited over 3 years ago
    I don't see any catalog numbers on scans actually, a few sources have been provided by OS but not all are explained.
    One of them was suggested by a label owner (so not publicly available info) so I wonder if that is even correct to add at all.

    Complicates this even further - I suggest we try to stick to this release for now in answering?

    BTW:
    Yukabacera
    But the rules and the Discogs Stasi don't.

    Do we really have to crap on eachother? Just act normal, please.
  • Yukabacera over 3 years ago

    trance-of-the-ages
    Do we really have to crap on eachother? Just act normal, please.


    Oh? I didn't name names. If you found yourself in my statement, I'm afraid that's your own problem to worry about.
  • Mr.Mystery over 3 years ago

    serjio_from_tyumen
    which guidelines?


    The one about when to use "none".
    Yukabacera
    Oh? I didn't name names. If you found yourself in my statement, I'm afraid that's your own problem to worry about.


    No, it was a completely unnecessary and pretty tasteless comment from you.

  • loukash over 3 years ago

    sanberg101 is very experienced with this kind of releases. Hopefully he has forum notifications turned on and chimes in.
  • sanberg101 over 3 years ago

    loukash
    Hopefully he has forum notifications turned on and chimes in.

    I do, thanks for inviting me here.

    Well, we had really tough discussion regarding this topic like 3 years ago. The conclusion was that you can not use "none" as a catalog number when there is a catalog number for the release in cases of multiple labels cooperating on releasing a record. Alphabetically first catalog number should be assigned to remaining labels with "none" cat. no.

    I got the above confirmed directly by nik via a support request but for some reason all my past SRs are gone.

    Hope this helps.

Log In You must be logged in to post.