• Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    Previously discussed on the "Submitters These Days" thread, the issue got out of hand and I ended up speaking with Nik about this today and he recommended I bring this up again and get some opinions as each time I get involved in his edits he cries foul.

    http://www.discogs.com/history?release=3029783#latest
    pughga is adding CD1 and CD2 to any two CDs that were released at the same time (Uk) which we'd normally only do if it said such on the release artwork or stickering or if it was actively marketed as a set.

    What I expect is if it is added to the ftf that it be substantiated. Either via external evidence that it is a set or preferably that it says so on the release and images provided which demonstrate this.

    Am I asking too much? Am I overstepping the mark? Your feedback will be appreciated.

    For those interested, "toasttwat" would be an ANV. ;)
  • Mr.Mystery over 7 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    Am I asking too much?

    No.
    Eviltoastman
    Am I overstepping the mark?

    No.

    RSG 1.1.2. applies here. There is no evidence whatsoever these should be labeled "CD1" or "CD2". Just because the catalog# has an X or a 2 in it does not justify these edits and most certainly is not "common sense" as he suggests.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Okay. I'll continue on my path then. He's done dozens of these.
  • the_blank_from_hell over 7 years ago

    I remember that those were always named CD1 and CD2 in the UK adverts in the 90ies, even if it wasn't written on the releases themselves. So in my opinion it's an official term for these double cd-single releases.

    There was also a time where CD-Singles were called CD5 (or CD3)
  • Mr.Mystery over 7 years ago


    the_blank_from_hell
    I remember that those were always named CD1 and CD2 in the UK adverts in the 90ies, even if it wasn't written on the releases themselves. So in my opinion it's an official term for these double cd-single releases.

    Unfortunately "I remember" is hardly a trustworthy source for proof.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    the_blank_from_hell
    I remember that those were always named CD1 and CD2 in the UK adverts in the 90ies, even if it wasn't written on the releases themselves. So in my opinion it's an official term for these double cd-single releases.

    Some were. Most weren't. Simultaneous release of a single with different b-sides on two different CDs does not automatically make them a set or CD1 and CD2.
  • silverleaf over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman, and many others have very good reason to be frustrated here. The RSG isn't being followed properly with a lot of this, but should be.
    On that kind of edit, data that can't be seen on the release should only be put in the Notes.
    Don't much care how some retailer wishes to refer to something. I do care if it's the Label or Artist.
    All to often these edits happen without a link being left in the History to support it. I won't spend my time re-doing their supposed research.

    Same thing for changing a release Date from just the year to a specific day.
    Would be nice if it was built into the system that date edits required a link before you could proceed with the submit. Ah, well. :|
  • Opdiner over 7 years ago


    Mr.Mystery
    RSG 1.1.2. applies here. There is no evidence whatsoever these should be labeled "CD1" or "CD2". Just because the catalog# has an X or a 2 in it does not justify these edits and most certainly is not "common sense" as he suggests


    I agree. These were sometimes not issued simultaneously anyway. There is no 'common sense' factor at play here.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Yes, there was normally a delay of a week between the two CD releases. Sometime only one of the parts would indicate they were a set too. I think in these cases a set is implicit - I'd have no issue with these.

  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    I have to admit first that I'm unfamiliar with these CD1, CD2, things, given that my record collecting is oriented elsewhere. I've had it explained to me and I guess I know what they're all about, but not enough to go throwing votes around (yet).

    My concern would be that, or so it seems to me, even if these were marked as CD1, CD2, that wouldn't seem to be part of the Format. Rather, it would be more appropriate for the Notes. If two of these singles wound up in the same MR, an argument could be made for putting CD1 CD2 in the FTF, but then I'd have to wonder whether they should be in the same MR in the first place.

    the_blank_from_hell
    There was also a time where CD-Singles were called CD5 (or CD3)

    I do know enough about the subject to remark that you're comparing apples and oranges there. CD5 actually does refer to a format (it's a type of extended length CD single), while CD1, CD2 etc. refer to individual singles that directly relate to each other in content. The two really have very little to do with one another.
  • electrophonic over 7 years ago

    electrophonic edited over 7 years ago
    ChampionJames

    My concern would be that, or so it seems to me, even if these were marked as CD1, CD2, that wouldn't seem to be part of the Format. Rather, it would be more appropriate for the Notes.

    Would it also be possible to add it as part of the main release title, like sometimes is done with an EP?

    [insert artist] - [insert title] (CD1)
  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    electrophonic
    Would it also be possible to add it as part of the main release title, like sometimes is done with an EP?


    I would think in order to do so it would either have to be printed with the title on the release itself (e.g. Eviltoastman - Ex-Toast-Facto CD1) or commonly refered to in that way by external sources (artist's own webpages, download site, sourced artist discography sites, etc.).

    But again, I'm not sure that I've ever actually seen one of these releases, so my thoughts on this are rather academic.
  • electrophonic over 7 years ago

    electrophonic edited over 7 years ago
    Okay, i see. I saw an ogger posting 2 Kylie Minogue examples which have CD1 and CD2 printed on the front cover:

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/215360?page=17#3149970

    I noticed you already commented on that post though.
  • brunorepublic over 7 years ago

    ChampionJames
    I have to admit first that I'm unfamiliar with these CD1, CD2, things, given that my record collecting is oriented elsewhere. I've had it explained to me and I guess I know what they're all about, but not enough to go throwing votes around (yet).


    It was mainly a UK thing, done for marketing reasons. Each unit sold counted toward the song's chart position. By putting out two different versions of the single, devoted fans would buy both, thus leading to a higher chart position (and thus higher exposure, and in theory, even higher sales).

    ChampionJames

    If two of these singles wound up in the same MR, an argument could be made for putting CD1 CD2 in the FTF, but then I'd have to wonder whether they should be in the same MR in the first place.


    They usually do end up the same MR. Same a-side (or alternate mix thereof), similarly-themed artwork, etc.
  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    ^ Then you'd have more experience than I with these. But just thinking out loud, I still think the CD1 or CD2 part would have to be printed on the release in such a way as to make it clear that it's part of the title in order to go into the title field. A lot of CD5s are marked "compact disc maxi-single" on the front, but that isn't to be construed as part of the title, I don't think.

    (By the way, "Ex-Toast-Facto CD1" is crap and not worth your money. Better to get CD2; the b-side remixes are better, and the promo headshots of Eviltoastman far more fetching.)

    (EDIT: Just to be clear, this was a response to electrophonic's post. But it also applies to brunorepublic's. Both of them know more about these releases than I.)
  • electrophonic over 7 years ago

    Okay cool, thanks again for your feedback Champ.

    ChampionJames

    (By the way, "Ex-Toast-Facto CD1" is crap and not worth your money. Better to get CD2; the b-side remixes are better, and the promo headshots of Eviltoastman far more fetching.)

    Good advise! I'll browse through popsike for the current value :D
  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    electrophonic
    I noticed you already commented on that post though.

    Yeah, I meant I've never actually beheld one IRL or held one in my sweaty little hands. I did look at some images after Toastman explained to me what these things were all about yesterday.
  • brunorepublic over 7 years ago

    brunorepublic edited over 7 years ago
    ChampionJames
    Then you'd have more experience than I with these.


    I'm quite fond of the Pet Shop Boys, and for their many, many singles, this sort of thing is the norm and not the exception. The single-on-multiple-formats thing has been around since the 80s and it actually used to be much worse. For PSB's early singles, you'll find regular 12", 7", remix 12" re-remix 12", 10", large label 12", double 7", etc., all done to get fans to buy the same song more than once. Eventually, the Official Charts Company (seriously, that's what they're called) stepped in and imposed limits on how many formats could be issued, and anything over that disqualified the song for chart eligibility. Over the years, they imposed more limits on number of songs and length to prevent bands from issuing singles with enough bonus material that they were effectively giving an album away with the single, which was considered an unfair advantage. Thus you have the "CD1" and "CD2" (and occasionally even "CD3") thing happening, even though both releases could easily fit on a single disc with plenty of room to spare.

    Of course, this sort of thing would only work in a country that has a strong singles market, and where chart positions actually matter. It would be utterly pointless in North America, where the labels successfully buried the single from the late 80s until iTunes effectively resurrected it.
  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    Very educational, thank you brunorepublic. I don't really collect anything in the pop genre, so I never really considered the politics of singles charting as regards formatting, etc. Makes much more sense to me now.

    brunorepublic
    It would be utterly pointless in North America, where the labels successfully buried the single from the late 80s until iTunes effectively resurrected it.

    As regards the vinyl single, I think that's an apt assessment. But the single itself never died as a concept here; a big part of my childhood in the 80s / early 90s was going to the crappy chain-stores like Sam Goody or The Wall and buying cassette singles ("cassingles") and then, later on, CD singles. There was always a pretty strong market for them, though I agree, not on vinyl formats.
  • electrophonic over 7 years ago

    ChampionJames
    Yeah, I meant I've never actually beheld one IRL or held one in my sweaty little hands. I did look at some images after Toastman explained to me what these things were all about yesterday.

    A whole new wondrous world in the universe of discografia ;)
  • brunorepublic over 7 years ago

    brunorepublic edited over 7 years ago
    ChampionJames
    the single itself never died as a concept here; a big part of my childhood in the 80s / early 90s was going to the crappy chain-stores like Sam Goody or The Wall and buying cassette singles ("cassingles") and then, later on, CD singles. There was always a pretty strong market for them, though I agree, not on vinyl formats.


    It was never what it was before the 90s though. A lot of retail outlets didn't carry singles at all, and many people didn't even know they existed anymore. Radio charts became less and less relevant on this continent, and were based more on airplay than sales. In addition to the labels being very reluctant to issue and market singles, the price difference between the single and album was far less than the UK. Here, the CD single was usually about $8, while the album could often be had for $15, making it a no-brainer as to which was the better value. In the UK, the singles were cheaper, often more like $4, but albums there have always been much more expensive and priced closer to $30. So, people there tended to only buy albums if they knew they would thoroughly enjoy them, certainly not for just one hit song.

    Having said all that, when broadband internet became widely available in the 00s in the UK, the CD single was among the first casualties. From what I've read, it went from being a major marketing tool in the early 00s to becoming all but extinct by the end of the decade.
  • narcisco over 7 years ago

    More or less the same thing as I said in the submitters threas:
    I think there's no problem in adding CD1 and CD2 in the Free text Field when the release is described as such on the release itself. I think it's really helpful to find a release in a master release. As I said earlier I also think the guidlines leave room for that when they mention 'Disc 1' as an example for information that can be put in the FTF.

    Using the same example but now a link to the master relase:
    http://www.discogs.com/Kylie-Minogue-Please-Stay/master/31453
    I think it adds clarity as the different versions are easier to distinguish this way, much easier than if it was added to the notes
    The same situation in another Kylie example:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=249174
    Here it's also on the front cover. Personally I would prefer putting CD1 in the FTF opposed to the notes or even the title.

    When there's no CD1 or CD2 information on a release itself, it shouldn't be made up though.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    ChampionJames
    But again, I'm not sure that I've ever actually seen one of these releases, so my thoughts on this are rather academic.


    Here are some examples:
    http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-540307-1129318702.jpeg - Part 1.
    http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-540307-1129318702.jpeg - Part 2.

    And here's another:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=379681 - Part 1.
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=381159 - Part 2 (No mention of it on the front cover).

    Some are stickered only on one part of the set:
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1035311 - Part One. No indication of there being a set.
    http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1319195 - Sticker on the digipak and a CD shaped card thingy telling you Part One available.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    ChampionJames
    Eviltoastman - Ex-Toast-Facto CD1


    Need Minor Changes:
    You've failed to use the ANV Toasttwat for the artist.
    CD1 belongs in the free text field as it appears in a separate part of the front sleeve and is not associated with the title and should not be considered a subtitle.
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    i like this guy's thinking:

    [quote=the_blank_from_hell][/quote]

  • pughga over 7 years ago


    [quote=the_blank_from_hell][/quote]
  • pughga over 7 years ago


    [quote=ChampionJames][/quote]

    a lot of radiohead's uk releases have cd1 and cd2 on them
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    pughga edited over 7 years ago
    don't know why my quotes have disappeared, but this is very interesting reading. as this topic/debate was created by some of my edits (there are THOUSANDS more on this database) i feel i must introduce myself to some of you guys that don't know me. i'm a keen user of this site (and as previously mentioned by u=Eviltoastman and u=ChampionJames a little too keen in the past) and asides from cataloguing my vast collection so i have a record of it and to stop myself buying duplicates when i'm out and about, as well as correcting mistakes when i have the physical in front of me to aid in this site's quest, like the borg, for perfection (as well as selling some off casts and buying some more ellusives). i've calmed down since october when i was very belligerant with my editing and explaining, but appears that i'm back in that hole again.

    the education here on the whole uk only cd1, cd2 release thing is, to me, non-sensical debate. without proof that the cd wasn't released at the same time of course doesn't make it part of a set and shouldn't be put on the free text field. but, as common sense prevails and most people on here have stated that from the early nineties until the 00's (and beyond with bands like manic street preachers still doing it) that record companies issue multiple formats to rip fans off and push up a chart release and WITH PROOF, this should be allowed to be edited as so, as narcisco says "to aid searching in MRs". it used to be the case that back in the early nineties two parters would be released a week apart, blur's for tomorrow as an example (which is printed inside of the double digipack (NOT digipak as people annoyingly point out on here - another topic for debate...), possibly as this is an american run site the whole multiple cd format rule hasn't been taken on board. (this is also why it's nice to see uk or uk & europe on formats, instead of just europe, as the uk has it's own way of selling music compared to other markets).

    u=Eviltoastman has shown us all an example of Deus' release which DIDN'T have a sticker (potentially missing from the case OR possibly even released without one) but a second CD did. I edited a release by a band that I own (but can't currently scan/photograph) which has a sticker on stating it as "CD2" and their previous releases follow suit with multiple cd format releases and corresponding catalogue numbers (i.e. PUGHCDS1, PUGHCDX1 - both WITH stickers denoting CD1/2 or on the title and with totally different mixes and b-sides to each other and then the next release being PUGHCDS2 - CD1 and PUGHCDX2 - CD2 but WITHOUT a sticker or CD1/2 in the title). My point being that the artist has a history, thanks to their record company, of releasing singles as such. according to other sites CD1 and CD2 are correct (even in official discographies and in record collector and guiness guide books). i personally haven't added/altered anything recently that should be considered vandalism nor am i changing things to suit me.

    i know there are small incidents when a re-release happens with different tracks a matter of time later (be it six months, a year, etc) that contain different b-sides, etc but carry a similar catalogue number. these should NOT be claseed as CD2, etc but a RE-ISSUE.

    also, u=Eviltoastman i do own some releases that were housed in boxes designed to hold ALL formats (i.e. a 7" box set holding the vinyl and both CD releases - none of which individually say they are part of 'a set' and CD boxes that contain CD1, 2 and DVD releases - none of which say anywhere on them, aside from the collectors' box, that they are CD1, 2, etc) . how would you suggest these be listed on here as they currently ARE listed as CD1, CD2, etc and NOT by myself...

    woah, sorry that's so long winded!
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    final point, i personally do not feel that "CD1" or "CD2" constitute 'a set', as you seem to U=Eviltoastman, unless they physically say "CD1 of 2 part set" or similar ilk. to me, record collectors and retailers in the uk it is used to DIFFERENTIATE them from each other.
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    *by thousands more - i do NOT mean by me!!! jeez, how many hours do i actually have?? i mean the whole CD1 free text... :^>

    peace out, see you tomorrow and i'm going to hunt down the scarce limited edition eviltoastman signed numbered promo with unreleased radio edits on at my local 24-hour market in the meantime, that's better than CD1, CD2 or even the withdrawn CD3 format, regardless of free content of headshots, stickers or posters... ;^>
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    pughga
    digipack (NOT digipak

    There is no duch thing as a "digipack". It's a term bastardised from the offical Digipak name, it is often used to describe a Digipak-style case, often an unofficial one. The correct term was first coined by the IMPAC Group. Digipak is the official trademark for the packaging in question and a genuine digipak will have it's trademark on the tray itself.

    We have a packaging wiki which you might want to bookmark, you may or may not find it useful. There are issues with it, as you'll see. It is still in development. http://wiki.discogs.com/index.php/Packaging

    Note that it offers a link to wikipedia which says "digipack" in the url, clicking it redirects to the page referencing the correct term, "digipak".

    pughga
    most people on here have stated that from the early nineties until the 00's (and beyond with bands like manic street preachers still doing it) that record companies issue multiple formats to rip fans off and push up a chart release and WITH PROOF, this should be allowed to be edited as so


    Manic Street Preacher still have this practice of issuing multiple editions of the same single with different B-sides either on the same day or in successive weeks. This should not be a reason to add CD1 and CD2. They are not marked as such, they are not marketed as such. They simply are released around the same time. MSP rarely market their releases as parts or cd1 or cd2 or part of a set anymore. Even if the catalogue numbering is similar with just a suffix difference, it does not determine the above to be true and should never be entered on a format, it has to be explicit.

    The master release argument is not justified as you can see the different catalogue numbers on the master release which should be sufficient for telling the releases apart at first glance. Other difference are apparent upon clicking on the release in question. Adding CD1 and CD2 to releases not explicitly marketed as such is an invention which is forbidden. We have to stick to the facts of the release.
  • the_blank_from_hell over 7 years ago

    Strange discussion. You don't expect to have "12" single" written on a 12" single to call them 12" single, do you?
    In my opinion CD1, CD2 are formats just like 7" and 12".
    Even if the MSPs don't do it that way nowadays (some now call it Single-CD and Maxi-CD), this was the way the single market was working in the UK all through the 90ies up to mid 2000s.
  • the_blank_from_hell over 7 years ago


    pughga
    final point, i personally do not feel that "CD1" or "CD2" constitute 'a set', as you seem to U=Eviltoastman, unless they physically say "CD1 of 2 part set" or similar ilk. to me, record collectors and retailers in the uk it is used to DIFFERENTIATE them from each other.


    correct. It was only "CD1 of 2 part set" when there was actually an empty space in part one to hold part two. As a collector of a lot UK bands of that time I have hundreds of UK CD singles of that time in my collection...
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    the_blank_from_hell
    Strange discussion. You don't expect to have "12" single" written on a 12" single to call them 12" single, do you?

    This is because a 12" describes the physical attributes of the record. CD1 and CD2 for releases not marketed as such is an assumption. If I hold a vinyl record released as a single (easily verifiable) which is 12" in diameter I'm not making an assumption.

    You are advocating the addition of CD1 based on an assumption/personal standards and not through physical or verifiable evidence.

    the_blank_from_hell
    Even if the MSPs don't do it that way nowadays (some now call it Single-CD and Maxi-CD), this was the way the single market was working in the UK all through the 90ies up to mid 2000s.

    ... and how does this affect how we enter factual data? It's certainly not how the whole singles market moved and again you're making assumptions. Adding CD1 and CD2 based on an assumption, because you feel they were released as CD1 or CD2 without evidence or basing the application of these tags on proximity of releases with each other and similarities of their catalogue numbers is again a reach which cannot be permitted. As far as verification or citable evidence goes, the latter is extremely weak and will not be allowed.

    the_blank_from_hell
    It was only "CD1 of 2 part set" when there was actually an empty space in part one to hold part two.

    The majority of releases which said "CD1 of 2 part set" were released in standard J-card cases with no space for the other part, but this is by the by and not really relevant to entering non-existent information onto a sub because of personal standards.
  • narcisco over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    The master release argument is not justified as you can see the different catalogue numbers on the master release which should be sufficient for telling the releases apart at first glance


    Sure, but it does make it easier. Certainly when taking into account that those cat#s often only differ one suffix, as you said above. Also, it's not only helpful when you have the release yourself and you're trying to find the specific release to add to your collection. I can imagine that people just browse stuff that they don't have, and in that case CD1 or CD2 says more than a cat#.
    Here again, this is just a bonus when it's entered because the release itself is described as such.
  • the_blank_from_hell over 7 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    This is because a 12" describes the physical attributes of the record. CD1 and CD2 for releases not marketed as such is an assumption. If I hold a vinyl record released as a single (easily verifiable) which is 12" in diameter I'm not making an assumption.

    You are advocating the addition of CD1 based on an assumption/personal standards and not through physical or verifiable evidence.


    OK, but then it would have to be "Vinyl Single" and not 12", 10" or 7". You can see it from either way, every "standard" starts as an assumption.
  • narcisco over 7 years ago

    Just resuming.
    There is consensus that it can be entered when it's explicitly mentioned a a release itself, right?

    Shouldn't the same rules as for adding 'Album' or 'Maxi Single' to the format apply? CD1 and CD2 are more or less comparable to these format tags.

    Album, Mini-Album, EP, Maxi-Single and Single tags should only be used where it is factual. If there is no reference that the use of the tag is correct, the tag should not be used. References can include; a) mentioned on the release, b) declared by the label or artist, c) charted in a relevant chart that corresponds to the tag, d) generally regarded as such by independent sources (fan sites, music industry publications etc). Do not guess at or attempt to apply personal standards to these tags.


    This would imply that it can be added when there's proof that a comapny declares a single being CD1 or CD2 in an add or something like that.
    Any ideas?
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    the_blank_from_hell
    OK, but then it would have to be "Vinyl Single" and not 12", 10" or 7".
    The size is not an assumption, it's a physical property. Vinyl is the term used for the physical material used. Single can be easily verified and if it can't we do not use it.

    the_blank_from_hell
    You can see it from either way, every "standard" starts as an assumption.
    The mind boggles.

    narcisco
    There is consensus that it can be entered when it's explicitly mentioned a a release itself, right?

    There's no issue adding it when it is factual and verifiable as far as I am aware. It is not specifically ruled upon so this may change. It doesn't even need to be stated on the release as long as there is a strong citation if not written on the release.

    6.1.5 Can apply in these cases but the submitter must be mindful of 1.1.2. (as per Mr.Mystery's earlier advice) especially the part stating: "Unsubstantiated information may be removed or rejected" which covers, but is not as explicit as the "Do not guess at or attempt to apply personal standards" rule for "Album, Mini-Album, EP, Maxi-Single and Single".

    A large part of the issue above is based on the belief that the value (CD1/CD2) is intrinsic to the item in question. The fact is that the term is just a marketing term. We should this of it similarly to how we approach limited edition. For example, numbering on a release without the term limited edition means it shouldn't be added unless there is external evidence of it being a limited edition. It has been stated numerous times that knowing how many were pressed or their actual quantities should not dictate the use of the term.
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    "References can include; a) mentioned on the release,

    *****b) declared by the label or artist****,

    c) charted in a relevant chart that corresponds to the tag,

    *****d) generally regarded as such by independent sources (fan sites, music industry publications etc).******

    Do not guess at or attempt to apply personal standards to these tags." - this i have not done recently.

    two two that i've astericked make interesting points and i have to also agree with narcisco and the _blank_from_hell on this that surely items should only be listed, if ,by YOUR rules ETM, it states so on the release... therefore next time i purchase and add what i know to be a 12" album on this site i'll just list it as vinyl only.

    thanks for the digipack reference too. it'samazing how some of my trays have the CK in them... should they be changed to digipack if this is the case by your "printed on release only" rules??
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    *the two not two two. DEEEESMOND!

  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    pughga
    two two that i've astericked make interesting points and i have to also agree with narcisco and the _blank_from_hell on this that surely items should only be listed, if ,by YOUR rules ETM, it states so on the release... therefore next time i purchase and add what i know to be a 12" album on this site i'll just list it as vinyl only.


    Dear God. The humanity. LMAO.
  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    If I might interject, I think it's worth saying again that some here seem to be forgetting what a "format" is. The format is the medium upon which the audio is recorded and/or in which it is packaged. CD, cassette, 10" shellac, 8-track, reel-to-reel, etc., these are formats. CD5 is a format, because the term refers to both the medium (regular CD) and its length (extended single).

    But CD1 in the context of this discussion is not a format. It just seems to mean 1 of 2, or 1 of 4, etc. So in order for it to go into the FTF, it seems to me, there must be a compelling reason.

    I don't think anyone's saying that it's wrong to put something in the Notes that says, CD 1 of a 2 CD set, etc. The question is whether it is warranted to place in the FTF (or, more radicially, into the title field, as was suggested farther up).
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    I was considering this earlier today, when I made this post. I wrote about it at length in fact, stating that it would be better suited to the notes, but then I thought about "Limited Edition" and changed my mind. I'm now 50/50 on the matter.
  • seppuku over 7 years ago

    seppuku edited over 7 years ago
    The "Format" field has three parts, it isn't just for physical formats:

    6.1.3. Format - This gives us a list of all the main formats that audio is released on ...

    6.1.4. The Format Description field ...

    6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe;
    - Any non-standard color of the audio carrier,
    - Any notable packaging ...
    - Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example 'Disc 1', '30th Anniversary Edition' etc). The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields ...

    I don't know/want to know/care about the specifics of these cases, but CD1/CD2 seems fine in the "format" line if it is supported by evidence and helps distinguish similar releases. Basically this:
    Eviltoastman
    What I expect is if it is added to the ftf that it be substantiated. Either via external evidence that it is a set or preferably that it says so on the release and images provided which demonstrate this.

    And, from current evidence at least, it doesn't look like The Bandits singles mentioned above meet those criteria.

    Although, see the Amazon/EIL entries, particularly the first image:
    http://www.amazon.com/2-Step-Rock-Pt-2-Bandits/dp/B0000C83XG
    http://www.amazon.com/2-Step-Rock-Pt-1-Bandits/dp/B0000C83XF
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Take-Run-Bandits/dp/B00009AQLY
    http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=254799
  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    seppuku
    The "Format" field has three parts, it isn't just for physical formats:

    True enough, and eloquently put. My point, which I rather failed at making well, was really in response to some of the statements above that "CD1 is really just the same as CD5 or 12" " etc.
  • seppuku over 7 years ago

    seppuku edited over 7 years ago
    Right. CD3/CD5 related to format size, 3" mini CDs vs. standard 5"-diameter discs. Nothing to do with the CD1-of-a-2CD-set thing at all.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Seppuku - nice work.
  • arnoldboczek over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    Dear God. The humanity. LMAO.


    Yeah, I hate it too.
  • pughga over 7 years ago


    [quote=arnoldboczek][/quote]

    confused by these last two remarks.
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    seppuku, are you supporting the correct ideology that my edit on the bandits that eviltoastman unfairly voted EI is actually correct?? :^O ...baring in mind the rules that are on (and have now been quoted) here, that we all don't sign as read and understood (a suggestion i've put forward to nik to prevent bad/wrong edits/additions), but agree adhere to? according the rules that i re-quoted (and will now do again for the THIRD time: *****b) declared by the label or artist****, *****d) generally regarded as such by independent sources (fan sites, music industry publications etc).******). like said, i'll SCAN my copy when i can and i'm also off to exhaustively search for a defunct band's discography, but the evidence provided by seepuku actually SUPPORTS my claim for it being CD2 (as listed on MORE THAN ONE site).

    i don't understand why CD5 has come into this discussion. i think the majority of cd's released since the early 1980s have been of the 5" variety that it's ridiculous and off topic, almost a politicianesque answer to double-speak around a solution, unless there's a suggestion that we all go round changing EVERY CD addition on here to differentiate between CD5s and CD3s (or currently listed on here as a MINI-CD)?

    as said previously, this is an american site predominately run for dance music that has expanded beyond initial expectations to incorporate EVERYTHING and from EVERYWHERE. this whole cd1, cd2, cd3 (NOT the 3" variety but a third part of the set - see here as an example: http://www.discogs.com/Orbital-Satan-Live/release/874) obviously needed bringing up by a brit whose been exposed to it his whole life (as have some other people who've submitted to this topic) to avoid future confusion and to incorporate it into this great database. my interpretation of the rules is pretty clear. that i'm right to include the cd2 in the format section under free text people on here seem to agree with me on that.
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    oh the bells, the bells...

    sanctuary...

    sanctuary...
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Very painful to read and utterly pointless to. You've managed to avoid saying anything.
  • seppuku over 7 years ago

    pughga
    seppuku, are you supporting the correct ideology that my edit on the bandits that eviltoastman unfairly voted EI is actually correct??

    No - just that singles 2Step Rock and 2Step Rock look like they have evidence (the Amazon image) showing that they are correctly CD1 and CD2 of a set. I don't know about the other Bandits single or anything else.
    pughga
    i'll SCAN my copy when i can

    That would be great. All anyone asked for was supporting evidence, and not to add the tags without it.
    pughga
    i don't understand why CD5 has come into this discussion.

    That was just a misunderstanding, the term obviously doesn't relate to this discussion.
  • ChampionJames over 7 years ago

    pughga
    i don't understand why CD5 has come into this discussion. i think the majority of cd's released since the early 1980s have been of the 5" variety that it's ridiculous and off topic,

    Um, because one of the people you keep saying you agree with used it as a way of arguing for your position...

    Also, please learn to use the quote feature. It's really distracting and confusing to see quote references to other users but not to the specific post.

    Just highlight the text in someone's post with mouse pointer and click quote selection. Write your response outside of the text field created in the Reply box.
  • narcisco over 7 years ago

    On more time resuming:
    If it's mentioned on the release CD1 or CD2 can be added in the FTF, comparable to Limited Edition, 'Disc One' etc.
    If it's not on the release, one should give extra external proof that states a release can be considered being CD1 or CD2.
    In case of doubt, no mentioning on release, and lack of external proof CD1 and CD2 should be avoided.
    Does this sum it all up?
  • pughga over 7 years ago


    ChampionJames
    i don't understand why CD5 has come into this discussion. i think the majority of cd's released since the early 1980s have been of the 5" variety that it's ridiculous and off topic,

    Um, because one of the people you keep saying you agree with used it as a way of arguing for your position...


    i don't they were defending my position, just stating a fact.

    ChampionJames
    Also, please learn to use the quote feature.


    yipee! that's where i was going wrong. thanks for that! :^D not up on html...

    Eviltoastman
    Very painful to read and utterly pointless to. You've managed to avoid saying anything.


    i suggest you re-read. :^> ChampionJames obviously picked up something... i don't know why i bother acknowledging you sometimes. you really are infantile.

    seppuku
    pughga
    i don't understand why CD5 has come into this discussion.

    That was just a misunderstanding, the term obviously doesn't relate to this discussion.


    fair enough, thanks for the input seppuka, i'm still confused why Eviltoastman congratulated you on your input when by way of ChampionJames' logic saying you were arguing my position...

    narcisco
    [/quote]

    [quote=narcisco]Does this sum it all up?


    If everyone else is also in agreement. I'm happy with that, but CD1/2/3, etc, etc ARE allowed in FTF then?
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    arnoldboczek

    Eviltoastman
    Dear God. The humanity. LMAO.

    Yeah, I hate it too.
    posted about 4 hours ago. ( permalink | ignore user | report )
    pughga wrote:quote selection

    [quote=arnoldboczek]


    confused by these last two remarks.[/quote]

    like i say, INFANTILE.
  • pughga over 7 years ago

    in an ideal world TWO things should happen to the db to prevent topics like this AND the previous one (mentioned in Eviltoastman's initial post) from existing...

    1. a sign/tick box to say rules have been read,

    and

    2. a link/scan to support any updates.

    nik thoughts?

  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    The guidelines are fluid for one and no one on earth reads T & C's and pretending to tick a box is not going to guarantee quality or guarantee that the rules have been understood. Most advanced users here still have to read the guidelines almost on a daily basis. It's not like the Qur'an, you don't have to memorise the whole text. In addition to this, such a feature would not prevent you adding information not on the release but just swimming around the heads of the uninformed.

    With regards to rule changes, you just read the changelog which is public and updated with each rule change.

    The allusion to the database being of dance origins, that was a long time ago and in no way irrelevant. The period of time the database has supported rock music is more then 2/3's of the databases life. In the nine years Rock music has been accepted, I think the site has evolved in a very admirable way. British music and rock music are not new to the database and we are notas wet or green as you'd maybe like to assume.

    narcisco
    On more time resuming:If it's mentioned on the release CD1 or CD2 can be added in the FTF, comparable to Limited Edition, 'Disc One' etc.If it's not on the release, one should give extra external proof that states a release can be considered being CD1 or CD2.In case of doubt, no mentioning on release, and lack of external proof CD1 and CD2 should be avoided.Does this sum it all up?


    This is precisely what I advocate.
  • Mr.Mystery over 7 years ago


    pughga
    If everyone else is also in agreement. I'm happy with that, but CD1/2/3, etc, etc ARE allowed in FTF then?

    Of course, that has never been the issue. However, the mention of CD1/CD2/etc. HAS to be mentioned on either the record or other trustworthy and verifiable source. You cannot make assumptions from catalog numbers or anything else.
  • pughga over 7 years ago


    Mr.Mystery
    Of course, that has never been the issue. However, the mention of CD1/CD2/etc. HAS to be mentioned on either the record or other trustworthy and verifiable source. You cannot make assumptions from catalog numbers or anything else.


    Please check my updates and explanations for this. I will also from now on include more detailed notes.
  • pughga over 7 years ago


    Eviltoastman
    British music and rock music are not new to the database and we are notas wet or green as you'd maybe like to assume.


    I didn't think YOU were, but this whole notion of not understanding and appreciating multiple formats (considering you're a Brit - from what I remember, welsh?) was really frustrating!

    Eviltoastman
    The guidelines are fluid for one and no one on earth reads T & C's and pretending to tick a box is not going to guarantee quality or guarantee that the rules have been understood. Most advanced users here still have to read the guidelines almost on a daily basis. It's not like the Qur'an, you don't have to memorise the whole text. In addition to this, such a feature would not prevent you adding information not on the release but just swimming around the heads of the uninformed.


    I disagree entirely.

    Thanks at least for acknowledging my so-called "saying nothing" paragraph from earlier without any insult.

    Eviltoastman
    narcisco
    On more time resuming:If it's mentioned on the release CD1 or CD2 can be added in the FTF, comparable to Limited Edition, 'Disc One' etc.If it's not on the release, one should give extra external proof that states a release can be considered being CD1 or CD2.In case of doubt, no mentioning on release, and lack of external proof CD1 and CD2 should be avoided.Does this sum it all up?

    This is precisely what I advocate.


    I thought you were proposing CD1/2 go in notes and not in format????!!!
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    pughga
    I didn't think YOU were, but this whole notion of not understanding and appreciating multiple formats (considering you're a Brit - from what I remember, welsh?) was really frustrating!

    That "notion2 was entirely in your head. I understand multiple formats just fine.

    pughga
    I thought you were proposing CD1/2 go in notes and not in format????!!!

    This is because you take from whatever you read only what suits you. My exact quote was:
    Eviltoastman
    I was considering this earlier today, when I made this post. I wrote about it at length in fact, stating that it would be better suited to the notes, but then I thought about "Limited Edition" and changed my mind. I'm now 50/50 on the matter.

    *Bold and underlining for emphasis and this quote is one where I felt there was weight to ChampionJames's statement but was still not convinced. It's hardly tacit approval and if you read the rest of my posts in this thread, where the qualifiers are concerned they are all but this exception stating and advocating exactly what Narciso just wrote.
  • ccj over 7 years ago

    ccj edited over 7 years ago
    This discussion has gone on long enough. Can all parties stop the insults/side-comments.

    This was discussed and decided upon YEARS ago now (I remember —though cannot find unfortunately— another thread from around a year referring to the original discussion).

    Examples:
    1) release has "CD1", "CD2 of 2", (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on one/both of the releases (inc. sleeve/disc/cat#/matrix/other).

    2) catalog numbers like this "LABEL56CD1", "LABEL 56 CD2", (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).

    3) catalog number is like this "LABEL56-1", "LABEL 56-2" (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).

    4) catalog number is like this "LABEL56", "LABEL 56x" (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).

    5) catalog number is like this "LABEL56x", "LABEL 56xx" (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).

    6) covers are in different colours (or similar design) on the same single, released at/near one another, and can be ID'd as parts clearly.

    7) third-party website references to the effect of "parts 1/2/3/etc.".

    ==> in ALL these examples: FTF "CD1", "CD2", etc. **is** allowed.

    For these singles that were released together (it doesn't matter whether they were released on exactly the same day, or a week or two apart!); any identifiers on or surrounding the releases is clearly linking them together as being connected, or related, in some way to one another.

    [On many UK singles, some labels use CD1/CD2 on release cat#'s, whilst a great many others use nothing on the first release and an "x" or similar on the second release; but in both these cases, they are still connected as being released under the same singles project the label intended. Trying to break that connection, is not what the label was actually doing, so we shouldn't be doing so either.]

    Additionally, in the Notes, users can add useful comments like "CD 1 of 2" (preferably with a html link to the other half) or similar, if they want.

    But even if this extra comment is added to the Notes, as per seppuku's great post (here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/336532#3151913 ), "6.1.5" applies for anything the release uses to differentiate itself.
    Third line:
    Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release


    I'm afraid Eviltoastman is not following these examples in his voting here, instead applying his own standards on defining connections between such singles releases. By removing the link between releases intended to be connected to one another, this is thus removing info about the releases themselves, which is to the detriment of connected data on the database.

    Although I will concede, the RSG could help by being a little clearer, to better define this acceptable usage.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    The consensus is as follows and is supported by the guidelines, particularly 1.1.2.

    narcisco
    If it's mentioned on the release CD1 or CD2 can be added in the FTF, comparable to Limited Edition, 'Disc One' etc.If it's not on the release, one should give extra external proof that states a release can be considered being CD1 or CD2.In case of doubt, no mentioning on release, and lack of external proof CD1 and CD2 should be avoided.

    Much of what you propose relies too heavily on interpretation and supposition, particularly relying on catalogue numbers and matrix data. We need to be certain, and using these requires a leap. We should not guess or apply personal standards.

    You post is noted but still does not tip the scale of consensus the other way.
  • ccj over 7 years ago

    The consensus is not as per that, as that is NOT what the RSG defines.

    This was dealt with BEFORE this thread, by older users.

    You say "Much of what you propose relies too heavily on interpretation and supposition, particularly relying on catalogue numbers and matrix data."

    Nothing I said was "proposed", it as per the RSG, and was previously discussed.
    Nothing has to be "interpreted or supposed" here; the releases have info on them that identifies them as connected parts, as the labels concerned used to define the connection between the releases. There is nothing wrong with using matrix and cat#'s to gather such info.

    And nowhere does the RSG define which parts of the releases are "allowed" to be used to define the connection, and which are not, for this very reason.

    To be clear, 1.1.2 states:
    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.

    "Sources of information external to the release itself may be added,..."
    Means: external sources are allowed.

    "...but the physical release must always be the main source."
    Means: any info on the release can be used to source connections between releases. No where does this state we have to narrowly define exactly where on the release we get connecting info from, and we don't.



    These CD1/CD2's were extremely prevalent in the UK, often labels would simply use suffixes to the prefixed cat#'s to connect the release parts. Nothing wrong with us using them do so also, as the label intended.
  • Eviltoastman over 7 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 7 years ago
    No citation to older threads. This thread was created because Nik asked me too because there was no previous discussion.

    The thread you voted EI on, was my correction of an edit made by Pughga which was part of a job lot which saw him temporarily blocked from the database yesterday, so well done swimming against the tide of opinion on your recent action. What you did was re-do the un supported, citation free work which saw him removed.

    Your view on this are in the minority does not tip the scale of consensus the other way. Your interpretation of the rule is squint and using it in that manner would still require the user to guess, assume or invent.
  • Opdiner over 7 years ago

    As far as I can see, a clear consensus was reached here. Why the need to revisit?
  • Mr.Mystery over 7 years ago


    ccj
    and was previously discussed.

    Where are these discussions, exactly?
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 7 years ago

    ccj
    release has "CD1", "CD2 of 2", (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on one/both of the releases (inc. sleeve/disc/cat#/matrix/other).


    That seems fine.

    ccj
    2) catalog numbers like this "LABEL56CD1", "LABEL 56 CD2", (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).


    Not sure why we'd need to transfer that to the format field if it isn't blatant on the release itself, rather than buried in the cat#?

    ccj
    3) catalog number is like this "LABEL56-1", "LABEL 56-2" (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).


    No, because -1, -2 etc are commonly used to denote formats (I believe this is codified in / derived from barcodes, but can be seen out with that).

    ccj
    4) catalog number is like this "LABEL56", "LABEL 56x" (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).

    5) catalog number is like this "LABEL56x", "LABEL 56xx" (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).

    6) covers are in different colours (or similar design) on the same single, released at/near one another, and can be ID'd as parts clearly.


    I am extremely doubtful that any of these are acceptable reasons.

    ccj
    7) third-party website references to the effect of "parts 1/2/3/etc.".


    Really, only when backed up by the release itself.

    ccj
    This was dealt with BEFORE this thread, by older users.


    I can't recollect that. Also, the guidelines are the important thing on the whole.
  • pughga over 6 years ago

    I'm with ccj on how ETM has voted against me recently and it's nice to see how an EI vote for a minor edit feels, harsh eh? BUT I WAS happy with how this was concluded in that CD1/2 should only be included as per the guidelines. I've been referred here again this morning as per some edits I did last night WITH strong citations (http://www.discogs.com/Manic-Street-Preachers-The-Everlasting/release/85289 & http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/336532#3169544 ) and Nik himself said that those type of edits are fine provided I provide evidence, as it is in the rulings set out on the DB. Nik's comment above does not read that way about ONLY if it is on the release, with him concluding that
    nik
    Also, the guidelines are the important thing on the whole.
    , which is what I'm going by!
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    pughga
    which is what I'm going by!

    Not at all.

    The websites you've provided by the way just how they've sorted the release and is retrospectivly sorted for convenience. Very soft citation. The releases themselves show no evidence of being CD1 or CD2. I'm with nik on this:
    nik
    only when backed up by the release itself.


    You recent edits are not. Please revert them.
  • pughga over 6 years ago

    also after re-reading:
    nik
    ccj
    3) catalog number is like this "LABEL56-1", "LABEL 56-2" (or similar) printed ANYWHERE on it (or in the matrix info).

    No, because -1, -2 etc are commonly used to denote formats (I believe this is codified in / derived from barcodes, but can be seen out with that).


    is a contradicting statement. i hate to use the same band as an example but on Manic Street Preachers releases post-1994 where multiple CD singles were released they carried catalogue numbers such as the above. See MR's: http://www.discogs.com/Manic-Street-Preachers-She-Is-Suffering/master/102201 , http://www.discogs.com/Manic-Street-Preachers-A-Design-For-Life/master/102206 and on an MR release WITHOUT the 'cd1' label: http://www.discogs.com/Manic-Street-Preachers-If-You-Tolerate-This-Your-Children-Will-Be-Next/master/102229 therefore EPIC end their releases on 0: 10" single, 1: EU CD single, 2: Standard Primary UK CD single (1), 4: M.C. release, 5: Secondary UK CD Single (2), 6: 12" Single, 7: 7" Single, 9: DVD Single, so following on from everything post 1994 and moving up to the 1997 up to present releases with a code ending 2 or 5, these are following the same pattern (and are now verified by the most reliable source possible, the official band's website).

    There are also examples of this with "LABEL58CDX" and "LABEL58CD" etc. with other bands, but I cannot provided evidence at the moment.

    I can understand why what I've put forward and have edited can come across as sketchy, especially when you have releases with a 2 or 5 or CD or CDX after (some even CDX=CD1! - see Genesis 1992 UK releases) that are released months or years apart (they usually aren't classed as CD2 because of the gap), so I'm in total agreement that citation should be used to support an edit, but I'm not in agreement that CD1's, etc should not not be used in the format field to distinguish between the two or more releases if that is how they're known to have been released as, bringing up an earlier point there are limited edition releases without stating that on them that exist but are known as such or have been marketed as such by the band, record company, etc.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Not at all. take the Evidence / Ricochet example.

    Faith No More releases

    Evidence with a white cover and with a black cover with a space for part two. their catalogue numbers were LASCD 54 (Matrix LASCD54 10363531 01 &) and LACDP 54 (Matrix: LACDP54 10363521 03 &). they were both release either on the same day or concurrent weeks. they had different B-Sides.

    However they were not CD1 or CD 2. The were not related except for their title and artwork. LASCD54 is actually part on of a set with LACDP53.

    LACDP53 is Ricochet, release the same day or on concurrent weeks with LASCD53, Ricochet with the same artwork in a different cover.

    What this highlights is that marrying releases based on these artifices is counter to 1.1.2. we are making a leap of faith, a judgement based on personal beliefs rather than personal preferences. Slightly worse than judging a book by its cover, at least a cover gives a bit of insight.

    As for the URLs, picture this. Six or seven websites use Discogs as their source. This means that if a mistake is made in discogs, six or seven websites including Discogs would carry the mistake. Consider fansites and how they sort or arrange the releases. The will mirror the source, the MSP website. Now consider this, the retrospectively arranged their discography with singles neatly arranged as CD1 and CD2. Neat and precise but ultimately in most cases not as they were really released, this is why unless pre release information demonstrating the release is meant to be represented as parts (as I said from the start - you need a strong citation) then you must go with what is actually printed on the release.

    The MSP website does not necessarily display how the versions were released, just how they choose to display them in their discography.
  • syke over 6 years ago

    +1 to ETM's opinion!
  • gboe over 6 years ago

    gboe edited over 6 years ago
    Appearently the rwo EI votes given to the sub in question was given based on this part of the guidelines:

    20.2.3. The voting system is based on the understanding that the user adding or updating the information is at least trying to make an honest attempt to improve the database. Users that vandalize, remove, obfuscate, and otherwise make malicious and damaging updates should be marked 'Entirely Incorrect' AND an abuse report should be made to the Database Manager.

    Using EI this way gives the wrong impression that it is the submission, that get's the vote when it is in fact the subber, that is given the tag - often emotionally motivated. The guidelines shouldn't back voting EI for a sub that is correct in almost all areas.

    Please let the votes say what they mean. EI should be for just Entirely Incorrect data. If needed - let there be a voting category that in text refers to subber behaviuor. A vote that automatically is reported with an explanation - like when one wants to remove a release.

    And - also useful in this case - an "Unjustified" vote would be the most logic tag to put on this and many other subs.

    The sub in question is not Entire Incorrect
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    gboe
    Please let the votes say what they mean. EI should be for just Entirely Incorrect data.


    You've made the assumption that EI is about all the data, please read 20.2.6.:

    "You believe there is nothing that can be 'rescued' from the edit".

    The guideline is pretty specific and leaves no room for interpretation over whether the vote refers to the whole submission or the last edit.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 6 years ago

    pughga
    i hate to use the same band as an example but on Manic Street Preachers releases post-1994 where multiple CD singles were released they carried catalogue numbers such as the above.


    I am not saying that suffixes can't indicate related releases, only that extrapolating the suffix to 'CD1' etc in the free text field is not good practice, as it can be based on false information. Even in your examples, "CD1" doesn't have a "-1" suffix on the cat#.

    For this whole subject, I am of the opinion that "CD1" etc should not be added to the free text field unless it is clearly noted on the release itself (sticker, artwork etc).
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    Thanks.
  • Mr.Mystery over 6 years ago


    nik
    I am of the opinion that "CD1" etc should not be added to the free text field unless it is clearly noted on the release itself (sticker, artwork etc).

    Quoting for future reference.
  • Eviltoastman over 6 years ago

    That's going further than I intended but it draws a nice neat line under the whole business and as such I'm very happy with the conclusion.

    Mr.Mystery
    Quoting for future reference.

    Ditto.
  • pughga over 6 years ago

    *SEPARATE TOPIC*

    Eviltoastman

    gboe
    Please let the votes say what they mean. EI should be for just Entirely Incorrect data.

    You've made the assumption that EI is about all the data, please read 20.2.6.:

    "You believe there is nothing that can be 'rescued' from the edit".

    The guideline is pretty specific and leaves no room for interpretation over whether the vote refers to the whole submission or the last edit.


    Nothing could be rescued from my edits then?

    gboe
    20.2.3. The voting system is based on the understanding that the user adding or updating the information is at least trying to make an honest attempt to improve the database.


    gboe
    Using EI this way gives the wrong impression that it is the submission, that get's the vote when it is in fact the subber, that is given the tag - often emotionally motivated.


    Here, here. I'm not on this DB to VANDALISE anything! I've protested this many times!! As mentioned, u=EvilToastMan it amused me how you reacted entirely identical to me when someone did it to you for the same thing! Proves that you are human after all...

    Anyway...
  • pughga over 6 years ago

    pughga edited over 6 years ago
    *MAIN TOPIC*

    nik
    I am not saying that suffixes can't indicate related releases, only that extrapolating the suffix to 'CD1' etc in the free text field is not good practice, as it can be based on false information. Even in your examples, "CD1" doesn't have a "-1" suffix on the cat#.


    Correct, but for the example given Manics releases from 1994 onwards have followed the pattern of prefix 2 and 5 for CD1 and CD2 (a universal cataloguing system used by Epic for every band on their label), the "CD NUMBERS" texts just weren't included on the packaging or CD's from 1997 onwards for reasons only known to the designers... The pattern of tracklistings even follows suit!! I.e. CD1=B-sides, CD2=Remixes. Please double check this, especially with 1996 releases from Everything Must Go period when they began releasing both CDs in similar packaging styles for uniformity reasons, up until the "Forever Delayed" ("There By The Grace Of God") era. Interestingly enough, please see the MR here: http://www.discogs.com/Manic-Street-Preachers-There-By-The-Grace-Of-God/master/102249 - TWO albums after the 7 x singles (14 x cds) causing this issue and thread, which INCLUDE the CD1/2 text present!! But anything with a prefix, i.e. -1, is acceptable??

    ccj
    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,


    Please note the above astericked point that I have been previously pulled up on for being classed as "heresay" and someone at the topic has been dismissed on too ("I remember"). Without sounding like lesser submitters on this DB who have shown increasing belligerence, (ignoring the way I was seven months ago when first began and then calmed down) I have spent the past 15 years of my life working in the music and film industries with vast experience in retail, production, exhibition and distribution. When I have previously used examples of "CD1" being known from the fact that I either bought them like that or was supplied and sold them as such, why has this been dismissed as a valid reason?? Also, I have recollections of mailing list postcards being sent to me advertising the single and stating the tracklisting for these releases as CDs1&2 (as listed on the Manics website - which I have SHOCKED everyone is, in my humble opinion, being belligerent about, which I will address shortly), which of course is buried in my attic and I will eventually come across. How am I supposed to upload them as proof to the DB and will they even be accepted as a citation?? leading me to the next point...

    nik
    For this whole subject, I am of the opinion that "CD1" etc should not be added to the free text field unless it is clearly noted on the release itself (sticker, artwork etc).


    Can this be said for limited edition releases that don't have limited edition printed on them (i.e. the recent [21/04/2012] Record Store releases; some of which I have recently edited or contributed to the site with citations), found (and can be referenced from) as such on external websites, fan sites, etc.?

    Or as a bigger point, release dates that are very rarely printed on releases, be included on this DB??? (There are other contradicting rules I now see arising from this decision).

    May I ask, has the rule (s) now been altered/removed that were allowed to reference books, fan sites, record companies, etc "regarding releases as such" to dissuade future users from doing such?

    To which I refer:

    "6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe;
    - Any non-standard color of the audio carrier,
    - Any notable packaging ...
    - Text that isn't part of the title but distinguishes the specific release from others (for example 'Disc 1', '30th Anniversary Edition' etc). The free text field should not be used to describe things that are already in the Format or Description fields ..." (30th anniversary - similar to CD1 maybe??)

    ...and also...

    narcisco
    Album, Mini-Album, EP, Maxi-Single and Single tags should only be used where it is factual. If there is no reference that the use of the tag is correct, the tag should not be used. References can include; a) mentioned on the release, b) declared by the label or artist, c) charted in a relevant chart that corresponds to the tag, c)generally regarded as such by independent sources (fan sites, music industry publications etc).d) Do not guess at or attempt to apply personal standards to these tags.


    ...otherwise users will get confused by strictly following these guidelines, only to then be brought to this thread stating a contradicting decision...

    Eviltoastman
    Faith No More releases

    Evidence with a white cover and with a black cover with a space for part two. their catalogue numbers were LASCD 54 (Matrix LASCD54 10363531 01 &) and LACDP 54 (Matrix: LACDP54 10363521 03 &). they were both release either on the same day or concurrent weeks. they had different B-Sides.

    However they were not CD1 or CD 2. The were not related except for their title and artwork. LASCD54 is actually part on of a set with LACDP53.

    LACDP53 is Ricochet, release the same day or on concurrent weeks with LASCD53, Ricochet with the same artwork in a different cover.

    What this highlights is that marrying releases based on these artifices is counter to 1.1.2. we are making a leap of faith, a judgement based on personal beliefs rather than personal preferences. Slightly worse than judging a book by its cover, at least a cover gives a bit of insight.


    ^ This is a damn good argument and example u=EvilToastMan but please explain what you mean by personal belief over preferences... Plus I'm sure sure these are : " b) declared by the label or artist,c)generally regarded as such by independent sources (fan sites, music industry publications etc). "

    So moving onto the manics web addresses i was asked to provide as citation and previously mentioned...

    Eviltoastman
    As for the URLs, picture this. Six or seven websites use Discogs as their source. This means that if a mistake is made in discogs, six or seven websites including Discogs would carry the mistake. Consider fansites and how they sort or arrange the releases. The will mirror the source, the MSP website. Now consider this, the retrospectively arranged their discography with singles neatly arranged as CD1 and CD2. Neat and precise but ultimately in most cases not as they were really released, this is why unless pre release information demonstrating the release is meant to be represented as parts (as I said from the start - you need a strong citation) then you must go with what is actually printed on the release.


    I would like to see where the Manics fan sites I've referenced from (as well as the book I used in a citation on an edit) use Discogs as a reference. Most Manics fan I know (some of whom created fan sites and fanzines as early as 1992) aren't even aware of discogs! I'd have thought wikipedia (in itself a DB not too disimilar to this one) would have been somewhere they generally look at for referencing (and of course that brings the question where on earth do the contributors there - that i've linked to - get their source from???) As said, true manics fanatics (and other bands) generally know what they're talking about when it comes to a release that is CD1/2... how can i myself upload the pages from the OFFICIAL book or (again) when i find the postcards advertising the releases, I'm pretty sure I may even have a poster in the box in my attic too, as evidence that these releases (and many others) ARE CD1/2/3 even though they are not on the release physically...

    Basically, the fan sites I've listed as citations have been dismissed and I now view them as spin to suit your argument then?

    Eviltoastman
    The MSP website does not necessarily display how the versions were released, just how they choose to display them in their discography.


    The official site of the band is not a strong citation?????????????????????????? Please re-read the above quote and tell me you're taking this seriously... You seem like a manics fan, you clearly own a few of their releases and i'd like to hazard a guess that you've visited their site numerous times in the past. I've been on it regularly since 1998 and there has always been a discography section on every version of the site since then (a new version usually with every new album, I remember the excitement of hearing new tracks from "Know Your Enemy" with a flash animated thunderstorm as an intro on it). Just because this is a newly updated version of the site, does not mean it's because someone has chosen to list them that way for aesthetic reasons, it is the latest version of ongoing data on their site.

    Please someone tell me I'm not going insane and all of the above I've quoted and addressed is sheer contradiction and leading to general bamboozlement, when I feel I've done nothing but correct edits (since learning about referencing policies better) and that the "CD1/2" does belong on a release (regardless of it's physical printing) if they ARE generally known to be as such and are listed as such everywhere else but on this DB, the guidelines even say this acceptable!!!!

Log In You must be logged in to post.