• punxtr over 7 years ago

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2524977#latest

    I don't feel this is correct. Maybe if it was label, brand but it isn't. It's two different labels. It's the wrong cat# for Seasons of Mist period. I can add it if anyone wants, and declare it in the Notes.
  • uzumaki over 7 years ago

    I don't see a problem but there's no pictures or notes explaining its role. Can you explain more, was it a distributor or acted as a shop, is there another number?

    Is it referred to as delux or limited edition?
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    This seems to be correct to me. We only use none when the release has no number at all - that's what it says: this release has no number. When it does have a number, we list it regardless of where it comes from.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    punxtr edited over 7 years ago
    Wait, why did you vote it Correct before any consensus was made?

    It's just not correct. There's nothing in the guidelines okaying it. The entire rationale behind his edit was a thread with literally no discussion on the matter besides two people that instantly agreed with it.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    punxtr
    It's just not correct. There's nothing in the guidelines okaying it.


    There is actually and this has been discussed several times before. Nik has agreed that we only use none when no number at all is on the release.

    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).

    In this case the release does have a number (it's the number assigned to release by one of the entities - thus it's incorrect to say it has no number) so we repeat it. This seems to be a fairly universal way of interpreting this rule too.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    RSG
    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).


    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


    The confusion here is, what determines if all labels use the same cat#? Does each label have to have the repeated cat#, or does the cat# only be right next to one label while the remaining labels don't have a cat# near them?

    By the method suggested by others, secondary labels would have a discontinuity in the cat# format. It would be:

    PISS1
    PISS2
    PISS3
    KITTENs672-90
    PISS5

    It doesn't look right.

    RSG
    4.8.2. If a release has both sublabel and parent label catalog numbers, they should all be listed, in order to complete the relevant discographies.


    This would suggest that the secondary label use it's proper cat# format to complete it's own discography. This is by no means a literal interpretation, but the same intentions that went into that guideline undoubtedly characterize this instance as well.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago


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


    In this case both are using the same number. That line underlines the intent that we do not use none. none says 'this release has no number'.

    Do we remove all numbers from post 1973 Apple Records issues because they are given to the release by EMI and just list none? No, we list the number and label as they appear on the release no matter where it is derived from.

    If it had a number SAPCOR23, which we know to be an Apple number and another number 50998787776 for example which we know is an EMI number we can list those as per labels - however if only 50998787776 appears then none is wrong and we use that number for both.

  • asylum27 over 7 years ago


    punxtr
    The confusion here is, what determines if all labels use the same cat#?


    I think it's fairly straight forward - if only one number is listed then all labels are using it.

    There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of releases in the database that derive their catalogue numbers from a third party system. We don't list none because of that.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    punxtr edited over 7 years ago
    In this case both are using the same number. That line underlines the intent that we do not use none. none says 'this release has no number'.


    Do you own the release? No. Therefore, how would you know both are using the same cat#.

    That guideline is unclear anyway. I've already explained where confusion can set in.

    There is a long-ingrained method of using a cat# for multiple labels or entities, but it isn't appropriate in this case. It also invalidates othe guidelines as well. Such as:

    RSG
    1.1.2. Sources of information external to the release itself may be added, but the physical release must always be the main source. External sources of the information (for example websites, word of mouth, books etc) must be declared in the submission notes, explained in the release notes, and be verifiable as far as possible. Unsubstantiated information may be removed or rejected. External information should only be entered where it adds to the release information (for example, track names where none are given on the release). This is to ensure that only verified real releases are entered, and the data is as close as possible in relation to the physical release. Please see the credit section for how to enter credits that are sourced externally.


    The old method would take away from the completeness of the release. I've declared in the Notes where the info came from. The Season of Mist discography is more complete now, as well. Much is lost from the old method, of which is not even clearly explained in the RSG.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago


    asylum27
    I think it's fairly straight forward - if only one number is listed then all labels are using it.


    I'm afraid not.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    asylum27 edited over 7 years ago
    punxtr
    Do you own the release? No.


    I'm not sure what that has to do with it. Nothing at all really.

    The question was whether none was to be used. Where a release has only one number then we do not use none.
    ,
    That label site seems to offer a solution but:

    punxtr
    I've already explained where confusion can set in.


    not on this page or the notes that I can see. That paragraph seems to do the very opposite of invalidating the cat number guidelines. Indeed, it says that the release is paramount, and if a release only has one number that should be paramount too. Labels often revisit their catalogues and add or adjust numbers. The release is the primary reference point.

    We also don't add none or numbers to pages to satisfy appearance or completeness whims, which seems to be the only argument given, we simply record the numbers on the release as accurately as possible.

    The question remains as to what is actually on the release - which numbers?

    It seems that some of these carry the the SOM number, some don't

    http://www.discogs.com/Kylesa-Spiral-Shadow/master/285588

    Thus it would likely appear on the site. If it doesn't have the number on the release it should not be listed as a catalogue number IMO.

    That external web site also only refers to the CD issue with that number. You should not transfer that to another format.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    To rebut your last statement first, you clearly are wrong about the catalog number. That catalog number was under general information; not under CD version information. It is valid for any format.

    The question isn't whether 'none' is to be used. The question is using a cat# clearly reserved for one label, to be used for an entirely different label. We can add cat#s external to a release if it adds to the release. That is exactly what I did, and I got a NMiC vote because of it. What is actually on release is important, but there isn't a cat# for that label so in these special instances external info can be used. It's very simple, and I've had the approval of nik to use it before.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    asylum27 edited over 7 years ago
    punxtr
    That catalog number was under general information; not under CD version information. It is valid for any format.


    Not true at all - there is no listing of the vinyl in the formats listed on that site as related to that number. You transferred a cat number from one format to another and this is not allowed.

    punxtr
    We can add cat#s external to a release if it adds to the release. That is exactly what I did, and I got a NMiC vote because of it.


    Because of the above. You didn't take a catalogue from an external source, you took it from another format at an external source.

    It's very simple as you say.

    A third party - http://www.discogs.com/label/Relapse%20Records - have released the vinyl but used their catalogue system to number it. They have branded it with both labels.

    Your edit on the page really needs an EI vote but I'd rather let you correct the incorrect data.

  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago

    If there was a definite statement from Season Of Mist that the cat# applied to that joint / licensed (?) version of the release, I think it would be ok to have it as that catalog number for the label.

    At the moment, it seems uncertain, so I'd rather see it reverted to http://www.discogs.com/history?release=2524977&rev=12

    Tidiness on the label page is an understandable desire, but we should be quite sure that what we are doing is factual, and not rewriting history to make it neater.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago

    Can the guidelines be updated to clarify the usage/non-usage of 'none' when at least one cat# exists? I hardly come across releases such as this probably due to my music interests, so I would appreciate it being clarified.

    Also, I'd like to see where it definitively allows one cat# to be used for two different labels. This won't suffice:

    asylum27
    In this case the release does have a number (it's the number assigned to release by one of the entities - thus it's incorrect to say it has no number) so we repeat it. This seems to be a fairly universal way of interpreting this rule too.


    It's not in the guidelines.

    asylum27
    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).


    This isn't it, by the way. It doesn't explain this instance. How do you expect me to simply believe you when the RSG doesn't back you up? That's the reason I opened a support request. This is not clear, and it needs to be.
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    asylum27 edited over 7 years ago
    punxtr
    This isn't it, by the way. It doesn't explain this instance. How do you expect me to simply believe you when the RSG doesn't back you up?


    Yes it does.

    'Where no catalog number exists' is the key.

    A catalogue number does exist - on the release. It may come from the branded label, or, as in the case of many, many releases in the database, it comes from a third party or distributor.

    It seems fairly clear to me and this guideline backs that. When the release has a cat number, we enter it. I think that's the way most people interpret that if you look through label pages. Mostly the only things that use none are promos, white labels and digital files.

  • fisonic over 7 years ago

    punxtr
    ... guidelines... I'd like to see where it definitively allows one cat# to be used for two different labels.

    As I had already pointed out in my comment in the release history:
    RSG 4.8.3. "... If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields".
  • jweijde over 7 years ago

    jweijde edited over 7 years ago
    fisonic
    RSG 4.8.3. "... If all labels used the same catalog number this should be added to all catalog number fields".

    The thing is, they don't. That RR catalog# clearly isn't a catalog# from SOM.
    We only assume it is because there's only one catalog# on the release.

    Now I think of it... Why do we have this guideline anyway?

    Adding SOM022 is a bit of a problem, because the website listing that Catalog# seems to only do that for CD releases - and this is the Vinyl release.
    In this case, considering that RR catalog# is clearly not of SOM and the fact that it's basically only a Discogs 'rule' to add it for both labels, I see no problem with using 'none' for the SOM label. (Yes I know the guidelines state that 'none' should be used when there's no catalog# at all, but they're guidelines, right?)
  • asylum27 over 7 years ago

    asylum27 edited over 7 years ago
    jweijde

    The thing is, they don't. That RR catalog# clearly isn't a catalog# from SOM.
    We only assume it is because there's only one catalog# on the release.


    No it's a catalogue number of the release. Used to catalogue it by retailers and such.

    That is the primary purpose of the thing we call the catalogue number. We tend to lose sight of this fact in our rush to make up tidy discographies.

    In this case whoever is selling it allocated a number to it. They may have taken it from one label but it is still primarily a functional item applied for a purpose to the release as a whole.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago

    jweijde
    That RR catalog# clearly isn't a catalog# from SOM.


    asylum27
    No it's a catalogue number of the release.


    I agree with asylum27. 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.
  • punxtr over 7 years ago


    nik
    this type of direct linking could be improved, and I am working on that right now


    I'd love that...

Log In You must be logged in to post.