• prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    I came across this release:
    https://www.discogs.com/Syphilitic-Abortion-Mithrubick-Triturador-Mass-Of-Shit-Hierarchical-Punishment-Rancid-Flesh-Zombifie/release/4128389
    which has a multi-range of labels, and some cat. no.s against some labels but "none" put against others.

    I am aware this issue goes round the houses every so often, but my latest understanding [sic, carefully chosen words due to the ebb and flow of the tides of discogs] was that "none" should only be used when there is no cat. no. whatsoever. Otherwise you put the cat. no. found against the labels that are found, even if you are using a cat. no. that is not directly pertinent to that label.

    This (still active) thread left the issue open:
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/695833#6944644

    Trying to find nik's own position, the best I could do was this older thread:
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/265126#2939827
    That seemed to endorse using cat. no.s against labels not directly pertinent (but I have to say some of that thread is like wading trough treacle...)

    So we do have any sort of clarity on this issue...?
    Do users think
    https://www.discogs.com/Syphilitic-Abortion-Mithrubick-Triturador-Mass-Of-Shit-Hierarchical-Punishment-Rancid-Flesh-Zombifie/release/4128389
    is correct or not with how it is applying cat. no.s (?)
  • Mr.Mystery over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    "none" should only be used when there is no cat. no. whatsoever.


    That is correct.
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    "none" should only be used when there is no cat. no. whatsoever.


    That's not my understanding. If there are 2 labels, and 1 cat# clearly belongs to one label - for example the format of the cat# includes an abbreviation of the label name, is it then correct to assume that the same cat# applies to the other label? In the example you give, I would say that is correct. If not 'none', then what are the cat#s for the labels where 'none' has been entered?
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    That is correct.


    Well, if we are right (I believe we are) then this clearly needs re-inforcing and removing any potential uncertainty so we don't have things like the release listed above and the comments on
    https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/695833#6944644
    which include some quite experienced and valuable contributors users who don't see it the same.

    We need:
    "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n). For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a sequential identifying number that relates directly to the company."

    to be augmented to (?):
    ""4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n). "none" should only be used when there are no catalog numbers at all to be found. For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a sequential identifying number that relates directly to the company."
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    prometheusrussell"none" should only be used when there is no cat. no. whatsoever.

    That is correct.


    He's right but which cat# to use when there are a dozen labels but only 10 catalogue numbers? Maybe we need a new way of indicating the absence of cat# for specific multi-label releases.

    'unassigned'?
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    LolH
    That's not my understanding.

    Well, here we are. This is why this issue needs putting to bed.
    I've been contributing to Discogs for 3 and a half years and we keep going round and round.

    Can nik or Diognes_The_Fox confirm if there is a definitive position and what it is - or if there is still ambiguity or uncertainty here - please can the Guidelines Cttee actually take a position on this?

    hafler3o
    Maybe we need a new way of indicating the absence of cat# for specific multi-label releases.

    That indeed might (ought to?) form part of the rubric of the solution.
    As given the complex example above, how would you assign those cat. no.s that are found to labels that would ever satisfy everyone (?)
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    'unassigned'?


    But isn't that the same as 'none'? No cat # has been assigned, so 'none'.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    LolH
    But isn't that the same as 'none'? No cat # has been assigned, so 'none'.


    "none" tells [should tell? that's the point of the thread] us that there are NO cat. no.s at all on the release
    "unassigned" would tell us there ARE cat. no.s on the release, but that they can't be assigned meaningfully to some labels.

    The difference is that if I go to the label page for LolH Records and see
    LOLH1
    LOLH2
    LOLH33-P
    none
    unassigned
    I know that issues 1 to 3 have your label and your cat no;
    that issue 4 has your label and no cat. no.s at all;
    issue 5 has your label but not your cat. no. and there ARE other label cat. no.s.
    There are times when that can be very helpful seeing it from a label page (it often exposes when labels have been added and are actually unsubstantiated.)
  • Mr.Mystery over 2 years ago

    LolH
    If there are 2 labels, and 1 cat# clearly belongs to one label


    Catalog numbers belong to the releases, not the labels.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 2 years ago

    The guidelines state that if there's only one cat# on the release, it should be applied to all labels involved.

    Personally, though, I'm not totally the biggest fan of forcing cat#'s on labels where the cat# is clearly formatted for a different label on the release.
  • SeRKeT over 2 years ago

    SeRKeT edited over 2 years ago
    prometheusrussell
    https://www.discogs.com/Syphilitic-Abortion-Mithrubick-Triturador-Mass-Of-Shit-Hierarchical-Punishment-Rancid-Flesh-Zombifie/release/4128389


    from the images i just see lots of label logo's but cannot see any of them cat# listed
    so where did they come from? if they are not on the release itself but a website
    mentions the cat# not listed on release surely the way to go is using notes to explain it
    or maybe some of those logos' are for distributors/licensees etc..
    and can be credited using the right fields
    to suggest the release came out on 14 labels at the same time is nonsense IMO
    usually but not all the time when multiple cat# exist it is for reasons i mention

    one more point about multiple cat#
    sometimes there are country related cat# and in these cases when a company
    is visible on the release acting as distributor for that 2nd region i think the cat#
    should be added to the company field in the extra box there rather than the label field
    i am mentioning this as i have been told not to do it that way by others :)
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    "none" tells [should tell? that's the point of the thread] us that there are NO cat. no.s at all on the release

    I don't agree - I interpret it that 'none' tells us that there is no cat# for that label. The guideline states "A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field" That suggests to me that the cat# entry is label specific, not release-wide. The guideline does not say 'Where no catalog number exists on the release, you must enter 'none' into the catalog number field'
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    Catalog numbers belong to the releases, not the labels.


    So you are saying, that in the example given, ABF002 is a cat # for Zuada Rec. as well as Amazon Black Forest Distro?
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    The guidelines state that if there's only one cat# on the release, it should be applied to all labels involved.

    Ah, but my dear Brent, the problem is that the Guidelines are worded in such a loose way they allow this controversy.
    We have "A catalog number is required for every label entered." and then follows "Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field" - because that immediately follows the words "for every label entered", many users then default to the position that some cat. no's are not pertinent to every label.
    That was why I suggest (as above) some sort of addition to make that explicit and not implicit - eg
    " "none" should only be used when there are no catalog numbers at all to be found. "
    Guidelines are never best when they are being too implicit and not explicit enough.

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I'm not totally the biggest fan of forcing cat#'s on labels where the cat# is clearly formatted for a different label on the release.

    Ideas like hafler3o's "unassigned" have the potential to split the difference here.

    And just as I write this and preview... I find
    LolH
    I don't agree - I interpret it that 'none' tells us that there is no cat# for that label. The guideline states "A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field" That suggests to me that the cat# entry is label specific, not release-wide. The guideline does not say 'Where no catalog number exists on the release, you must enter 'none' into the catalog number field'


    *proving* my point that the Guideline is open to [intelligent] different interpretation at present.

    Please can we add something to close the ambiguity down.
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    Ideas like hafler3o's "unassigned" have the potential to split the difference here.

    Indeed this would help clear any ambiguity.
  • Mr.Mystery over 2 years ago

    LolH
    So you are saying, that in the example given, ABF002 is a cat # for Zuada Rec. as well as Amazon Black Forest Distro?


    Basically yes, although I know those multi-label joint releases have always been a problem in the Discogs system.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    nik's fairly clear ruling.


    Diognes_The_Fox
    Personally, though, I'm not totally the biggest fan of forcing cat#'s on labels where the cat# is clearly formatted for a different label on the release.


    Seems to to be contradicted by another member of management there.

    ABF002 is clearly a cat# for Amazon Black Forest Distro. To then also apply it to Zuada Rec. just seems absolute madness to me. Using that logic, all cat#s should be applied to each and every label on the release. And what a mess that would make.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    nik's fairly clear ruling.


    Hmmm, it's 4 years past and doesn't really address which cat# should be assigned in this case. There are loads of releases where there are lot's of brands but not quite enough cat#s 'on release'. prometheusrussell's example may or may not be entered correctly but that's not really the point here. Let's not forget it is Discogs that insists on the usage of 'none' and also insists a cat# line up with a brand. If the cat# belongs to the release (not the label) then the system should disassociate them. Enter all labels, enter all cat#s, move on...
  • zin over 2 years ago

    One of the most ridiculous guidelines here. I was always opposing the idea of forcing catalog numbers on labels they don't belong to.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    LolH
    Seems to to be contradicted by another member of management there.


    Not quite sure that saying "not the biggest fan" in any way contradicts a pretty firm ruling from the senior staff member. Nor does four years make a difference surely.

    As to whether loads of brands make if difference, there was a subsequent ruling, which someone may care to search for, where Nik said we apply the.first cat number to any that seem to be missing one. This has all been dealt more than once.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    zin
    most ridiculous guidelines here. I was always opposing the idea of forcing catalog numbers on labels they don't belong to.


    The problem with this of course is that vast numbers of releases in the database derive catalogue numbers from labels they 'don't belong to'. Try many of the Apple Records with EMI or Toshiba or Capitol or Parlophone numbers as a start. Or Mute with EMI numbers ... And on and on ..
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    zin
    One of the most ridiculous guidelines here. I was always opposing the idea of forcing catalog numbers on labels they don't belong to.

    +1, though to be fair the guideline doesn't actually tell us to do that. The guideline is not very explicit in what we should do in situations like this.

    Opdiner
    Nik said we apply the.first cat number to any that seem to be missing one.

    If that has been given by Nik, then it needs to be added to the guidelines, but I would still argue against it. AF002 clearly does not belong with Zuada Rec..
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    LolH
    If that has been given by Nik, then it needs to be added to the guidelines, but I would still argue against it. AF002 clearly does not belong with Zuada Rec..


    I agree, it probably should but there are a ton of rulings made by Nik over the years that are not in the the guidelines but have similar force. This is problematic but they're still rulings that have been sought and given.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 2 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    The guidelines state that if there's only one cat# on the release, it should be applied to all labels involved.

    Personally, though, I'm not totally the biggest fan of forcing cat#'s on labels where the cat# is clearly formatted for a different label on the release.


    Hear, hear!

    Opdiner
    nik's fairly clear ruling.


    This makes sense (well, kind of) for releases with one catalog number and several labels.

    Opdiner
    As to whether loads of brands make if difference, there was a subsequent ruling, which someone may care to search for, where Nik said we apply the.first cat number to any that seem to be missing one.


    What's the "first" catalog number?
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    If you want to argue with the boss, the ruling is here https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/336378#3165511

    This was returned to several times after this but the result was the same.

    "I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically, and copy that to all labels that didn't have a cat# for the release."
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    and doesn't really address which cat# should be assigned in this case.

    I agree. It tells us we should be trying to add cat. no.s to all labels.
    But how exactly we would go about this, and how we would deal with the convoluted and utterly artificial mess we would make, it tells us not.
    That's the problem,: users are baulking when they create and know they are creating cat. no. gibberish.
    In nik's examples from that early thread, either all the cat. no.s had direct label equivalents or there was one case where a label without a specific cat. no. type was given the most prominent cat. no. from the main label. That's a world away from something so complicated as the example above.

    Opdiner
    a pretty firm ruling from the senior staff member

    If you see it as such, please now apply it to this release
    https://www.discogs.com/Syphilitic-Abortion-Mithrubick-Triturador-Mass-Of-Shit-Hierarchical-Punishment-Rancid-Flesh-Zombifie/release/4128389
    and explain for us here what the finished full labels/cat.no.s system would look like. That would be very instructive.
    { SeRKeT made the point that some of the logos/label choices might be or there for other reasons than label brandings - I don't know - I know nothing about that release - but let us work first on the assumption that all the labels are supposed to be there - so what would the finished result look like?}

    Opdiner
    This has all been dealt more than once.

    Patently without putting the issue to bed.
    Because
    LolH
    If that has been given by Nik, then it needs to be added to the guidelines,

    and furthermore
    Opdiner
    I agree, it probably should but there are a ton of rulings made by Nik over the years that are not in the the guidelines but have similar force. This is problematic but they're still rulings that have been sought and given.

    Without trying to sound an "off" note here, Management do need to step up and add to Guidelines if these things are genuinely agreed.
    I do have to day that when you are commenting on a submission by a less experienced user who is not reading Forum threads and you pointing them in a direction, and they say 'but it doesn't say that specifically in the Guidelines' and you have to say 'well, no, it doesn't - but it was talked about a lot in these Forum threads..." and you link to lots of other users arguing about things - it does feel utterly, utterly pathetic.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    If you see it as such, please now apply it to this release
    https://www.discogs.com/Syphilitic-Abortion-Mithrubick-Triturador-Mass-Of-Shit-Hierarchical-Punishment-Rancid-Flesh-Zombifie/release/4128389


    As above, management have done exactly that. Please see the link provided.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    If you want to argue with the boss


    The thread you quote actually has nik writing the words
    "impossible to resolve in a satisfactory way right now"
    ...
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    As above, management have done exactly that. Please see the link provided.

    No, I don't want you to talk about it - or say, oh there's a link.
    I want you to write out what you think the finished result would be so I can understand.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    Without trying to sound an "off" note here, Management do need to step up and add to Guidelines if these things are genuinely agreed.
    I do have to day that when you are commenting on a submission by a less experienced user who is not reading Forum threads and you pointing them in a direction, and they say 'but it doesn't say that specifically in the Guidelines' and you have to say 'well, no, it doesn't - but it was talked about a lot in these Forum threads..." and you link to lots of other users arguing about things - it does feel utterly, utterly pathetic.


    In a way I agree, and yet that's the way it's worked for years and to be reasonable about this, these sorts of rulings would make the guidelines a mire if each and every one was entered. It's not dissimilar to the ways court rulings are used and referred to in law. Clarifications and rulings often don't appear in law books but rely on experienced voices to use them as a guiding reference. They have the force of law.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    No, I don't want you to talk about it - or say, oh there's a link.
    I want you to write out what you think the finished result would be so I can understand.


    That's your problem, I provided the link.

    And "impossible to resolve right now" refers to the intention to remove all catalogue numbers from labels.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    yet that's the way it's worked for years and to be reasonable about this, these sorts of rulings would make the guidelines a mire if each and every one was entered.

    I can't disagree with that very fair and true statement.

    But this particular issue of cat. no.s and labels is an example of a recurrent problem of misunderstanding and uncertainty and people seeing the wording of the Guidelines as not explicit enough
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    If you want to argue with the boss, the ruling is here


    Hardly a "ruling" — more like a suggestion to temporarily fix ("impossible to resolve in a satisfactory way right now. In fact, I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically, and copy that to all labels that didn't have a cat# for the release. It does seem needlessly complicated though") an admitted problem ("Having cat#s tied to labels all the time on a 1:1 relationship is a problem") while a better solution was designed by the site's programmers.

    Since that solution hasn't come in the last four years, I honestly don't see how picking a catalog number (that doesn't actually appear to be printed on the release anywhere) essentially at random to replace "none" is preferable here. We all seem to acknowledge that "ABF002" refers to the Amazon Black Forest Distro catalog. I think "none" is a more accurate representation of what catalog number other entities assigned to this release.
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    nik's fairly clear ruling.

    The trouble with Nik's ruling is that it was only dealing with a release that had 1 cat# and 2 Labels, not a release with 8 cat#s and 13 labels. The 8 cat#s can all clearly be linked to the Labels they have been associated with.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    No, the second link I provided covered that.

    I'm not arguing that any of this is satisfactory, just that we have a directive here. Should it be changed? That's another question that needs to go before Nik.

    There was an extended - very extended - thread a while back on adjusting this and we had agreement (although from memory Nik's ruling on none on multi label releases was unchanged) but for some reason it was never entered into the RSG.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    That's your problem

    It's fine to keep talking about things in theory - but if you actually have to go through it in practice and try to work out what went with what etc etc - and ultimately produce a gibberish result - then it doesn't feel so clear-cut at all...

    LolH
    The trouble with Nik's ruling is that it was only dealing with a release that had 1 cat# and 2 Labels, not a release with 8 cat#s and 13 labels. The 8 cat#s can all clearly be linked to the Labels they have been associated with.

    Exactly.
    Opdiner
    the second link I provided covered that

    No. Not in any way that - to meet Nik's own words - wouldn't be "impossible to resolve in a satisfactory way right now".
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    I think "none" is a more accurate representation of what catalog number other entities assigned to this release.

    +1, though I would also be happy with the 'unassigned' suggestion from above, as that would differentiate between no actual cat# at all, and just none for this particular label.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    to keep talking about things in theory - but if you actually have to go through it in practice and try to work out what went with what etc etc - and ultimately produce a gibberish result - then it doesn't feel so clear-cut at all...


    It's not theory, it's his interim instruction, and as stated, the satisfactory bit relates quite clearly to the hefty discussions over the years about removing all catalogue numbers from labels. You are taking a few words out of context.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    I think hafler3o's idea for "unassigned" or something like that is the only intelligent way to break this conundrum.

    Opdiner
    You are taking a few words out of context.

    No, I'm not. Both 7_Sea_Cods and I have explained what we see. Nik's words continue: "It does seem needlessly complicated though" - indubitably correct!
    Nik gave us a temporary plaster only for this sore, and he was absolutely upfront that it was a temporary plaster,.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    7_Sea_Cods
    Hardly a "ruling" — more like a suggestion to temporarily fix ("impossible to resolve in a satisfactory way right now. In fact, I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically, and copy that to all labels that didn't have a cat# for the release. It does seem needlessly complicated though") an admitted problem ("Having cat#s tied to labels all the time on a 1:1 relationship is a problem") while a better solution was designed by the site's programmers.


    As you say, it was an interim ruling.

    And anyone who has been around this site for a while will tell you that 4 years is somewhat less than it took the LCCN, BAOI and unique releases to arrive. Each took years of programming. Only a few months back Nik said this was taking longer than anticipated.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    prometheusrussell
    No, I'm not. Both 7_Sea_Cods and I have explained what we see. Nik's words continue: "It does seem needlessly complicated though" - indubitably correct!
    Nik gave us a temporary plaster only for this sore, and he was absolutely upfront that it was a temporary plaster,.


    Fine, then post the link to the removal of such. It was temporary until catalogue numbers were removed from labels which is still planned but has not happened.
  • Diognes_The_Fox over 2 years ago

    LolH
    Seems to to be contradicted by another member of management there.


    I stated I wasn't the biggest fan, but, I should reiterate that the guidelines as they stand are clear that the same cat# should be used for all labels.
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I should reiterate that the guidelines as they stand are clear that the same cat# should be used for all labels.

    Thanks for the clarification DTF. Please advise how this particular release should be entered. 13 Labels, 8 cat#s. The 8 cat #s present can be linked directly to the 8 labels they have been associated with. That leaves 5 Labels with no directly associated cat #s
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    LolH
    Thanks for the clarification DTF. Please advise how this particular release should be entered. 13 Labels, 8 cat#s. The 8 cat #s present can be linked directly to the 8 labels they have been associated with. That leaves 5 Labels with no direct


    Hasn't Nik stated that? I'm not saying I agree but there's a fairly clear instruction.

    "I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically, and copy that to all labels that didn't have a cat# for the release."
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    Hasn't Nik stated that? I'm not saying I agree but there's a fairly clear instruction.

    I am asking for re-clarification, seeing as it is quite clear here that not many people (if any) agree with that approach.
    As far as I am concerned, until something goes into the guidelines, it is still up for discussion.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    LolH
    Please advise how this particular release should be entered.

    Yes, please.

    Opdiner
    there's a fairly clear instruction "I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically..."

    I honestly don't even know what that means - so we must disagree about something being "fairly clear".
    "lowest cat# alphabetically" = ???
    Does that mean the cat. no. alphabetically first?
    In the release in question - is that ABF 002..?
    Or does it mean another cat. no. (?)

    So in that release
    Amazon Black Forest Distro – ABF 002
    Anaites Records – ABF 002
    Blasphemic Art Productions – BAD 006
    Cianeto Discos – CI007
    Disturbed Mind Records (2) – DM002
    Insalubrity Distro – ABF 002
    Noise Discos – ABF 002
    Old Grindered Days Recs – ABF 002
    Terceiro Mundo Chaos Discos – TMCD003
    The Hole Productions – Hole05
    Violent Records (3) – VRS016
    Virus Productions (2) – Virus 01
    Zuada Rec. – ABF 002

    Is that what's wanted..?
    which obviously introduces to 5 label pages a cat. no. relationship otherwise unassociated with them before.
  • 7_Sea_Cods over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    which obviously introduces to 5 label pages a cat. no. relationship otherwise unassociated with them before.


    Not to mention the fact that it doesn't even appear printed on the release itself — it's from a Facebook post by one of the labels. Suppose Anaites Records decided to post a discography and assigned the catalog number A-123 to this release, then we'd be backtracking to figure out which labels we'd assigned number to based on another label's scheme in order to switch them out.

    Assigning the single catalog number printed on a release to both labels that released a record is one thing — I don't agree with it but think there's at least a halfway reasonable rationale behind it. Simply choosing to assign a catalog number because it's highest in the alphabet makes absolutely no sense to me. What are we gaining by implementing advice admitted to be "unsatisfactory" and "needlessly complicated"?

    Perhaps staff could revisit this issue again — it's been four years.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    Not to mention the fact that it doesn't even appear printed on the release itself

    As said above, it may be that the 13 labels and 8 cat. no.s on that particular release are not all legitimate and qualified - but let's just take that as an example of a complex release where we are trying to implement the supposed clarity
    Diognes_The_Fox
    the guidelines as they stand are clear that the same cat# should be used for all labels.
    and that's the messy result we get.
    It's not very convincing, is it?
    It's completely artificial.
    If I made those edits now - I would know I was creating gibberish so would be reluctant to do it - and we'd immediately get lots of users crying "But how can ABF 002 have anything to so with Old Grindered Days Recs???" etc etc etc.
    We create a rod for our own backs.
  • zin over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    "I'd take the lowest cat# alphabetically, and copy that to all labels that didn't have a cat# for the release."


    once again, this is ridiculous. sorry, cannot find a better word to describe this.
  • perlator over 2 years ago

    7_Sea_Cods
    What are we gaining by implementing advice admitted to be "unsatisfactory" and "needlessly complicated"?

    Nothing.

    I think "none" is ok for this release. Because the release actually has no catalog number. At least I cannot see any in the images and it was submitted without a single catalog number. It's a split release and some of the labels seems to keep their own catalog number for their contribution. Whether those even existed at the time of the release is not clear. It is a case where the often repeated mantra
    Mr.Mystery
    Catalog numbers belong to the releases, not the labels.

    fails miserably. Those catalog numbers belong to their labels, but not to the release.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    Whether it is ridiculous or it is not, it is the ruling. The primary argument I can see from any of the above posts seems to be "I don't like it" restated over and over??

    There are lots of things I don't like in Nik's rulings over the years - the absurd split of Smokey Robinson from The Miracles for a start (and that one was in direct contradiction to a clear guideline) - but they do have the force of his word which has long been accepted as having substance. They are clarifications rather than guidelines, hence they are not in the guidelines, but they have the same standing. And like guidelines they can be discussed, but, also like guidelines, they stand until they are reversed or altered. I still think this, regardless of semantics, is still very clear.

    Perhaps somebody should request he comes to this thread to revise this? Otherwise, like it or not, surely it stands.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    prometheusrussell
    Is that what's wanted..?
    which obviously introduces to 5 label pages a cat. no. relationship otherwise unassociated with them before.


    That happens all the time in the database though doesn't it? Countless label pages are filled with numbers that do not belong to them.

    I'm guessing that the logic is to try and work out what number would be applied to the release when, for example, it was ordered by a shop. Now, no store would order 30 copies of 'none' or 'unassigned', they would order from a number, thus that release has a number. None is wrong, it was not given a catalogue number of none and any label that did not assign a number was relying on one of the other numbers to identify it in catalogues or to retailers etc. Nik's interim solution, which still stands, was to try and work out a process that covers that reality.
  • phallancz over 2 years ago

    phallancz edited over 2 years ago
    prometheusrussell
    I came across this release:
    https://www.discogs.com/Syphilitic-Abortion-Mithrubick-Triturador-Mass-Of-Shit-Hierarchical-Punishment-Rancid-Flesh-Zombifie/release/4128389
    which has a multi-range of labels, and some cat. no.s against some labels but "none" put against others.


    That release actually does not have any catalogue number printed on it, they have been taken from several label websites, did anyone actually looked at the images and the release history comments?
  • perlator over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    Whether it is ridiculous or it is not, it is the ruling. The only argument I can see from any of the above posts seems to be "I don't like it" restated over and over.

    Makes me wonder if you read what other people are saying here.
    perlator
    the release actually has no catalog number.

    phallancz
    That release actually does not have any catalogue number printed on it,
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    The primary argument I can see from any of the above posts seems to be "I don't like it" restated over and over


    Actually, I think you are being unfair there. It's not I (We) don't like, it's quite clearly "it makes no sense"
  • LolH over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    Perhaps somebody should request he comes to this thread to revise this?

    I did:-

    LolH
    I am asking for re-clarification, seeing as it is quite clear here that not many people (if any) agree with that approach.
    As far as I am concerned, until something goes into the guidelines, it is still up for discussion.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    LolH
    Actually, I think you are being unfair there. It's not I (We) don't like, it's quite clearly "it makes no sense"


    I think I explained why management thinks it makes sense.

    LolH
    As far as I am concerned, until something goes into the guidelines, it is still up for discussion.


    Everything is up for discussion, even the guidelines, but it's long been accepted that management rulings in the forums have force. Given that this was heavily discussed before, with far more than the handful of users here, and a ruling was made, it's valid until reversed, whether we like it or not.

    The guideline actually exists - it says not to use none if a catalogue number exists. Nik's words are clarification how it's applied in a situation like this.

    Question is: Does this release have a catalogue number? Answer: yes it does. Therefore 'none' is incorrect. The real question is where the number that we substitute for the incorrect 'none' comes from? That is what Nik was trying to resolve (and did in an interim way until cat #s are upgraded as intended).
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    Whether it is ridiculous or it is not, it is the ruling.

    This is a fascinating interpretation of management's opinions in the forums. I know several others here also use management's spur-of-the-moment decisions as word of god.

    Where in the guidelines does it state that forum statements from management overrules or takes precedence over the guidelines or meaningful consensus-based discussions in the forums?

    Management's statements should not be interpreted as the word of god, but as input in how to interpret guidelines. Otherwise, if there is an actual general ruling, as was stated earlier in the thread, guidelines should be updated to reflect the "judgement", especially with regards to repeating discussions.

    Also, the way this issue is frequently brought up implies that the guidelines should change into something less ludicrous.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    olekasper
    Management's statements should not be interpreted as the word of god, but as input in how to interpret guidelines.


    Please read what I said. Thanks.

    We have a guideline. This is precisely about interpretation.

    olekasper
    Also, the way this issue is frequently brought up implies that the guidelines should change into something less ludicrous.


    It's not brought up frequently, it's been brought up and discussed and management have ruled as they often do.

    It's ludicrous to you, to others it makes sense and, as above, it is as per guidelines, which you seem happy to ignore.

    olekasper
    Where in the guidelines does it state that forum statements from management overrules or takes precedence over the guidelines or meaningful consensus-based discussions in the forums?


    Do you understand the concept of "Support Request"? Why do you think management are repeatedly asked to make rulings and have been for many, many years? Are these all invalid? Can I start adding Smokey Robinson back to The Miracles - because there was overwhelming dissension with the ruling by management and it's not in the guidelines.
    olekasper
    This is a fascinating interpretation of management's opinions in the forums. I know several others here also use management's spur-of-the-moment decisions as word of god.


    It may be fascinating to you but it's been the way this community has worked for many years. "Several others" is the broad community. There are literally hundreds of threads that provide management rulings that we adhere to, that are not in the guidelines. Is that tricky at times? Yes it is, but it's also a reality.
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    Do you understand the concept of "Support Request"?


    What's up with the insults? I'm just trying to make the point that management are as fallible as the rest of us.

    Opdiner
    rulings that we adhere to, that are not in the guidelines.


    This is a problem, because new users will have a tremendous amount of rules they have to apply to, that are not in the guidelines. This community is though enough as it is to start contributing to. We don't need a ton of laws people who don't wander into the forums know about.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    olekasper
    What's up with the insults? I'm just trying to make the point that management are as fallible as the rest of us.


    It wasn't me that opened with things like 'ludicous' and "This is a fascinating interpretation". I'm sorry if I took those the wrong way. And it's not just a few people who treat these forum rulings this way, the community as a whole is obliged to.

    olekasper
    This is a problem, because new users will have a tremendous amount of rules they have to apply to, that are not in the guidelines. This community is though enough as it is to start contributing to. We don't need a ton of laws people who don't wander into the forums know about


    They are mostly not laws, they're interpretations and rulings on guidelines. In this case we have a guideline that says that none is only used when a release has no cat#

    So:

    Question is: Does this release have a catalogue number? Answer: yes it does. Therefore 'none' is incorrect. The real question is where the number that we substitute for the incorrect 'none' comes from? That is what Nik was trying to resolve (and did in an interim way until cat #s are upgraded as intended).
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    Question is: Does this release have a catalogue number? Answer: yes it does. Therefore 'none' is incorrect.

    Why is it not an accepted stance that the outcome of this thread be a proposal to change the guidelines, if there is support for it?
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    olekasper
    Why is it not an accepted stance that the outcome of this thread be a proposal to change the guidelines, if there is support for it?


    That is a fundamental change in the guideline that would affect countless thousands of releases. The cat # number now is regarded as the number of the release. It's been that way for years now, and to be honest, if it was reversed most of a decade, it would cause some chaos. As an example, most Beatles releases since 1968 would have 'none' as the cat #.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    Opdiner Please stop treating users who don't agree with you or find this issue "pretty clear" as you do as though they are some kind of imbeciles. This says far more about you than them.

    Opdiner
    It's not brought up frequently

    Opdiner
    to others it makes sense

    These are two highly disingenuous statements.
    a) It's brought up *constantly*. It's an ongoing cause of argument and uncertainty in many submissions outside of Forum discussions.
    b) Even those who above claim to understand the ruling make it clear it is highly unsatisfactory - indeed with your own words:
    Opdiner
    Whether it is ridiculous or it is not, it is the ruling.


    I'm actually starting to wonder if you are trolling us all.

    olekasper
    Why is it not an accepted stance that the outcome of this thread be a proposal to change the guidelines, if there is support for it?

    I had presumed that was the point of these Forum threads - after all this is where it instructs us "Talk about the Discogs Database, guidelines, and submissions". Have you, Opdiner, decreed on our behalf that this is no longer necessary?
    Whilst you are on your high tower dismissing us all, this particular thread has brought up a very interesting suggestion by hafler3o that might bring great relief to this vexed issue and I have asked Management to take it to the Guidelines Cttee.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    prometheusrussell
    I'm actually starting to wonder if you are trolling us all.


    No, of course I'm not. I'm sorry if it reads that way. I'm not sure calling those who disagree with you trolls is helpful though.

    prometheusrussell
    I had presumed that was the point of these Forum threads - after all this is where it instructs us "Talk about the Discogs Database, guidelines, and submissions". Have you, Opdiner, decreed on our behalf that this is no longer necessary?


    Yes, and that is exactly what is happening. Please point out where I have said it's not worth discussing. If you can't, please stop making baseless accusations.

    However, I was pointing out that this a very, very fundamental change. That seems to be being ignored and now I'm being slapped down by you for pointing this out? So it seems.

    prometheusrussell
    These are two highly disingenuous statements.
    a) It's brought up *constantly*. It's an ongoing cause of argument and uncertainty in many submissions outside of Forum discussions.
    b) Even those who above claim to understand the ruling make it clear it is highly unsatisfactory - indeed with your own words:


    Please don't take words out of context to prove a point.

    The overall guideline that this relies on makes sense. Pursuant to that guideline, the ruling also makes sense to many. Please see the thread where it was made. It remains highly unsatisfactory because it is only a partial solution which awaits the intended change in structure.

    Maybe Nik will make a decision and strip catalogue numbers away from releases and return them to labels, we wait and see.
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    That is a fundamental change in the guideline that would affect countless thousands of releases.


    Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about clarifying RSG §4.7.2 to something like "A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists for a label, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n) for that label."
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    olekasper
    Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about clarifying RSG §4.7.2 to something like "A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists for a label, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n) for that label."


    Yes we are. Because currently the catalogue number is the number of the release.

    Please see https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/233124#2863759

    nik
    The catalog number belongs primarily to the release itself. Whatever entities (labels) the catalog number appears to fit is of secondary importance. We can draw conclusions, especially in this case where the catalog number fits the cat# scheme of one label and not the other one, bit I feel what we end up doing is trying to tidy up a mess left because the artwork / layout of the release is left to be ambiguous and / or the label/s have made an error by not stating a catalog number on the release itself.

    If there is confirmation from the label that there is an additional catalog number that 'belongs' to one of the labels involved, that was left off the release by accident, this can be added when confirmed because it is adding information.

    As it stands, however, the catalog number for SOM is not 'none', because a catalog number does exist on the release. I agree that this type of direct linking could be improved, and I am working on that right now, but for the moment, the cat# should be repeated.


    ---

    Look at The Beatles Abbey Rd, Uk issue. The cat # is PCS 7088. It is on Apple Records. There was no mention of any other label yet it has a Parlophone cat#. So, under your change it has Apple Records - none

    Who knows where PCS 7088 goes and yet that is the release number. This same situation is repeated countless times in the database.
  • prometheusrussell over 2 years ago

    I can't be bothered to go through all that - it's all so self-righteous. No-one here (apart from you it seems) is trying to prove any points. I started off this thread after all to get input from other users such as yourself. What points would I be making by so doing (?)
    I'm not going to engage further as I am not interested in arguing or discussing with you as its utterly circular. 7 other users above who have engaged with you have all had the same brick-wall treatment. You've made a 3rd of all postings in this thread so have ended up dominating the discussion.

    Opdiner
    Please don't take words out of context to prove a point.

    You are the one who wrote that "It's not brought up frequently",
    Perhaps you need to be more careful what you write since you are always so vehement when others quote your own words back at you.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    prometheusrussell
    I can't be bothered to go through all that - it's all so self-righteous


    I thought you wanted to discuss this but when a contrary ruling comes your way you dismiss and "can't be bothered". How does that work??

    prometheusrussell
    You are the one who wrote that "It's not brought up frequently


    Once again, please don't quote out of context. Have a hunt through the forums, this has not come up that often the past few years. That ruling from Nik was the last major discussion I think, but there is nothing to stop it being discussed again of course, however it's helpful if you accept alternative views. Right now that does not seem to be the case.

    Edit: I note that thread you linked to when you began the thread. Apologies.

    I'm not trying to "make a point", just pointing out where the "none" falls down. It is not as easy just adding it because we have a guiding guideline and a management interpretation at hand.
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    So, under your change it has Apple Records - none

    Well, it seems to be an edge case, with one label and one catalogue number. That's not what we are talking about here, even though the mapping between catalogue number scheme and label certainly is within the realm of the discussion.

    I'm also not saying my proposed guideline change is the only way to do it. What's important that the site is able to handle multi-label releases without constant bickering in the edit history of releases.

    RSG §4.7.2 definitely has room for improvement, either way.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    olekasper
    Well, it seems to be an edge case, with one label and one catalogue number.


    Not really, it applies to a vast number of releases in the database. Catalogue numbers often come from other label's schema. What we are trying to do is capture the number the record is released under, hence Nik's instruction above.

    olekasper
    RSG §4.7.2 definitely has room for improvement, either way.


    As I said earlier, there was a long thread about this a few (maybe 3) years back, and – for better or worse – Nik declined to change that guideline. No idea where it is though, someone may wish to search it out.

    olekasper
    That's not what we are talking about here


    I'd argue it's somewhat central as it all comes back to whether a number is tied to the release, or to the label. If it's the release then adding none or unassigned has its problems as it clashes with the guideline. If the guideline reverts back to the way it used to be treated in the database (ie. numbers are tied to labels), it's not so much of a problem. Or is there a middle ground?
  • trance-of-the-ages over 2 years ago

    Gotta stand with Opdiner here.
    OP asked a question of what the ruling is on this issue. The ruling has been made clear and linked to.

    If you wanna change that ruling you'll have to make a clear statement on why including addressing the problems that are already mentioned on why this ruling was made.

    olekasper
    I'm also not saying my proposed guideline change is the only way to do it. What's important that the site is able to handle multi-label releases without constant bickering in the edit history of releases.

    It's able to, the management ruling can be quoted and someone ignoring it can be voted EI.
  • hafler3o over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    ... Or is there a middle ground?


    I think so. Either we
    A) adapt the submission form to dissociate cat# and label (we just enter all brands acting as labels, and all unique identifiers acting as cat#s) and let the system apply them to all label pages

    Or

    B) We allow releases with multiple labels (5 or more say) and cat#s (1 or more less than the labels, but not just a single cat#!) to use a new way to show a specifically non-assigned cat#.

    I like B) because it frees us from arbitrarily assigning cat#s (false associations) in order to keep our 'you must use a number' rule sacrosanct. Think of that scene in Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' where the waiter insists Jonathan Pryce 'say the number' for his dinner order, because rules are rules!
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    hafler3o
    A) adapt the submission form to dissociate cat# and label (we just enter all brands acting as labels, and all unique identifiers acting as cat#s) and let the system apply them to all label pages


    I'd actually like this but I suspect programming is proving problematic, especially label page display issues.

    For reasons I've stated (and have been somewhat beaten up for having expressed) I'm not thinking the second option is quite right as it's just replacing a less than satisfactory (to quote Nik) solution with another. Discogs has always found these sorts of tiny indie releases an issue. But do we add exceptions that run contrary to the broad cat number handling of the site to deal with these? I'm not sure we should.
  • SeRKeT over 2 years ago

    SeRKeT
    from the images i just see lots of label logo's but cannot see any of them cat# listed
    so where did they come from? if they are not on the release itself but a website
    mentions the cat# not listed on release surely the way to go is using notes to explain it


    perlator
    I think "none" is ok for this release. Because the release actually has no catalog number.


    phallancz
    That release actually does not have any catalogue number printed on it, they have been taken from several label websites, did anyone actually looked at the images and the release history comments?


    Opdiner
    Question is: Does this release have a catalogue number? Answer: yes it does.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    SeRKeT
    Question is: Does this release have a catalogue number? Answer: yes it does.


    Either it does or it doesn't. Numbers have been applied to this from, one hopes, acceptable external sources. Hence it has such and the guideline kicks into action one assumes???
  • phallancz over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    Either it does or it doesn't. Numbers have been applied to this from, one hopes, acceptable external sources. Hence it has such and the guideline kicks into action one assumes???

    No it's doesn't, that guideline & nik's comments were to the Cat# printed on release not for catalogue numbers taken from labels website, you simply cannot attribute any of those to another label.
  • perlator over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    It is not as easy just adding it because we have a guiding guideline and a management interpretation at hand.

    We have a guideline that is ambiguous. Has been this way for a decade or more and management has been asked numerous times to change it. They didn't, so it remains ambiguous.

    And catalog numbers that appear on label websites or facebook pages needn't apply to this particular release at all. Using them for other labels from the release actually contradicts RSG §4.8.3: "... If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields.". There is zero evidence that any label mentioned on the release used any other label's catalog number for it. They wouldn't know about the other labels' catalog numbers, as they do not appear on the release.

    I can fully understand the reasoning why to avoid 'none'. If some company or distributor assigns a catalog number to a release, there is no need to use 'none', because there is a catalog number and we might as well use it for the label(s). But this is not the case here.

    trance-of-the-ages
    It's able to, the management ruling can be quoted and someone ignoring it can be voted EI.
    A management "ruling" is pointless as long as it does not make its way into the guidelines. And the guidelines are quite clear on what should be used as the basis for voting (RSG §20.2.2). The guidelines and nothing else.
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    trance-of-the-ages
    It's able to, the management ruling can be quoted and someone ignoring it can be voted EI.

    This is exactly what I meant by
    olekasper
    This community is though enough as it is to start contributing to.


    Discogs can be an extremely hostile place to new folks. They use the guidelines, aided by their common sense and good judgement, and is hit over the head with EI votes from some keyboard warrior, armed with the opinion of some obscure guy in a forum with a staff badge.

    perlator
    A management "ruling" is pointless as long as it does not make its way into the guidelines. And the guidelines are quite clear on what should be used as the basis for voting (RSG §20.2.2). The guidelines and nothing else.


    +1 gazillion. With a caveat: management "rulings" may have merit if they are for specific corner cases (i.e., not general interpretations of the guidelines).
  • A-day over 2 years ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    I stated I wasn't the biggest fan, but, I should reiterate that the guidelines as they stand are clear that the same cat# should be used for all labels.


    It's very clear
    My opinion is just now that the guidelines needs to be revised, i'm not personally a big fan too.
    Guidelines CAN change if there are good reasons:)
  • trance-of-the-ages over 2 years ago

    olekasper
    hit over the head with EI votes from some keyboard warrior, armed with the opinion of some obscure guy in a forum with a staff badge.

    That's not at all what you said. I replied to your sigh about "constant bickering in the submission notes" being an issue because something is not directly clear from the guidelines by itself.

    If there is precedent for an issue with a staff statement on it this should be mentioned in the sub history and there should be no reason for bickering nor votes. If bickering continues and advice is not followed then it can be voted appropriately. Depending on the severity of the ignorance/unwillingness this should be reported too.

    olekasper
    Management's statements should not be interpreted as the word of god, but as input in how to interpret guidelines. Otherwise, if there is an actual general ruling, as was stated earlier in the thread, guidelines should be updated to reflect the "judgement", especially with regards to repeating discussions.

    I also think guidelines are slacking behind a lot. However this isn't the case and forum decisions are unfortunately essential for several more in-depth issues. They're not the way of god but actual statements should still be followed up.

    phallancz
    No it's doesn't, that guideline & nik's comments were to the Cat# printed on release not for catalogue numbers taken from labels website

    RSG §4.7.2 doesn't say that, it says "Where no catalog number exists" - catalog numbers exist in this case.
  • phallancz over 2 years ago

    trance-of-the-ages
    RSG §4.7.2 doesn't say that, it says "Where no catalog number exists" - catalog numbers exist in this case.

    The Catalogue Number guidelines start with "4.7.1. The catalog number is usually the most prominent number printed on the release"

    Then it goes to "4.7.2. A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n)."

    And nik's comment/ruling were also referring to printed catalogue numbers.

    So attributing a label another label catalogue number that is nowhere to be found on the release, makes no sense, because the release has no cat# and that particular label did not also attribute that release a cat#.

    Also where in the guidelines is the allowance to add catalogue numbers not present on releases?
  • trance-of-the-ages over 2 years ago

    OK fair enough, but then you're saying that that decision cannot logically be extended to this case. I don't see any reasoning for this though.
    Even if a release is clear and has printed:
    Label A - cat# A
    Label B
    Label C - cat# C
    Label D - cat# D
    One of the cat#s must be applied to label B as well, why should it be different when they're not on release but only externally sourced?

    phallancz
    Also where in the guidelines is the allowance to add catalogue numbers not present on releases?

    I'm not sure what you mean.
    Information that's not on release in general is RSG §1.1.2, you think cat#s should never be externally sourced?
  • phallancz over 2 years ago

    trance-of-the-ages
    Information that's not on release in general is RSG §1.1.2, you think cat#s should never be externally sourced?

    Do i think that the guidelines allow it? No, i don't see any evidence of them being allowed as everything must be added "as on release" and the exception mentioned on that guidelines do not refer to catalogue numbers.
  • phallancz over 2 years ago

    trance-of-the-ages
    One of the cat#s must be applied to label B as well, why should it be different when they're not on release but only externally sourced?

    Because the source which is the release is still none, the main source for the information must come from the release, if another label decides to give that release a cat# and that catalog nr is allowed, it should only be allowed for that label, as the number has nothing to do with the other label, there is no relation, why force something that does exist? it does not add information, it simply forces something that does not belong there and that does not exist.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    phallancz
    Also where in the guidelines is the allowance to add catalogue numbers not present on releases?


    External numbers have long been allowed (the word 'usually' is in that guideline) but assuming you are right, the clear and probably only solution to this release unless guidelines are changed, is to strip all cat #s off and put these in notes. Thus all are 'none'.

    The only way the "use 'none'" argument works at the moment, given the wording in 4.7.2 "Where no catalog number exists" (they do but you are saying they are not allowed to be added if I understand you?) is if it is deemed that no cat # exists.

    And on releases where there is a printed number, both the guideline we have and Nik's ruling kick into place.

    However, Nik quite clearly says that catalogue numbers taken from websites can be used, (he calls them cat numbers so we know what they are), so we are back with 4.7.2 and an existing catalogue number that does not allow the use of 'none'.

    nik
    Cat#s from website etc is ok as long as it is official and it is not replacing information already on the release.


    Really, the only way I can see to use 'none' here is to get the guideline changed. People repeatedly calling it it ridiculous or ludicrous or attacking the database manager as some guy with a staff badge isn't going to change this AFAICS.

    As I said upthread, these tiny labels are problematic in many ways, but I'm not sure that changing the whole way we enter catalogue numbers database wide is the solution. A middle path needs to be found and management brought around.
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Opdiner edited over 2 years ago
    olekasper
    A management "ruling" is pointless as long as it does not make its way into the guidelines. And the guidelines are quite clear on what should be used as the basis for voting (RSG §20.2.2). The guidelines and nothing else.


    It is in the the guidelines. In both those linked rulings, Nik was just stepping in because people were not applying the relevant guideline. In 99% of the cases where Nik makes a ruling, it's clarification of an existing guideline and, thus 20.2.2 is being followed.
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    You are misquoting. That's not my text, although I agree with it.

    Why do you not agree that improving the guidelines is a good thing to contribute to?
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    olekasper
    You are misquoting. That's not my text, although I agree with it.

    Why do you not agree that improving the guidelines is a good thing to contribute to?


    I didn't say the guideline couldn't be changed but as it stands it's in dispute whether the changes you propose are an improvement. I think they'll cause chaos.
  • olekasper over 2 years ago

    So why not be a part of coming up with a better wording then, rather than arguing in circles?
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    Because I think the guideline is fine. It really isn't up to me to change it as I think it's both clear and largely working well. And until it is changed, it's the guiding rule.
  • perlator over 2 years ago

    Opdiner
    It is in the the guidelines.

    The so called ruling that you quoted upthread, about using the alphabetically first catalog number for all labels, is not in the guidelines.
    And RSG §4.7.2 is still ambiguous, because it is not clear what "Where" in its second sentence refers to. Is it the label of the first sentence, in which case each label without a catalog number would receive 'none', or is "Where" refering to the release as a whole? Because "the most prominent number printed on the release" (and the only number I can see) is the company registration number of the manufacturer, there is no catalog number of the release. Hence the default catalog number would be 'none'. I can't see anything in the guidelines, nor in nik's rulings, that contradicts this.
    Imo there simply is no precedence for applying label catalog numbers from outside sources to other labels for a split release.

Log In You must be logged in to post.