Label And Companies Update - Now Live!

It is with pleasure that we announce an update to the way Discogs catalogs companies. Previously, we had jammed companies into the 'Label' field as an interim solution. We have now developed the 'Label' field into a full 'Label and Company' field, using a drop-down to select the type of company. This includes series, record companies, copyright holders, publishers, studios, manufacturers etc - you can see the full list, with definitions, at http://discogs.versitio.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_And_Company_Definitions

This system has been created after some discussion (ok, lots...) about the way to correctly catalog all the various entities involved in the release. It is intended that this will make submitting easier, as you don't have to worry about whether or not it is permitted to enter a certain entity - you can enter them all. It also means that we can start properly catag things like recordings that were made at Abbey Road Studios - another way to find music you may like.

In of voting, we'd like to request that voters take a 'soft' approach to the use of the tags, especially in problematic or difficult examples. The most important thing is the link goes to the correct page. Only vote "Needs Minor Changes" at the most if an entity should be a series instead of a label, a record company instead of a licensee, etc. Sometimes, these things are not explicitly defined on the release, and we can't expect all submitters to be experts on such matters, or to spend a lot of time researching things.

At the moment, these new tags will still point to pages with the URL http://discogs.versitio.com/label/ , and there will be references to 'Label'. We plan to continue to update things as we start to see data getting entered with the new tags.

Label, Company, Catalog Number etc:
nice one.

Fantastic. Might I suggest when we update our own collections to mention perhaps the ones that were cb4 in your edit update; a useful guide to other vet-checkers as to the veracity of prior edits. Bbut it would need to also be pored over carefully to ensure correctness in the application of the new fields.

One question: is it still required to repeat the catalog number for each entity?

Great to see this! Looking forward to seeing how it develops.

btw nik, I think perhaps you meant to link the word "here" at the end of your first paragraph to the webpage that more fully describes the whole new system, didn't you? (or perhaps it was intended to the Forum Topic in which this was discussed?)

[EDIT}: Cool see v v next reference for this. Thanks.

1skinnylad
btw nik, I think perhaps you meant to link the word "here" at the end of your first paragraph to the webpage that more fully describes the whole new system, didn't you? (or perhaps it was intended to the Forum Topic in which this was discussed?)

Yeh i cut n pasted from here http://blog.discogs.versitio.com/

link is http://discogs.versitio.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_And_Company_Definitions

auboisdormant
is it still required to repeat the catalog number for each entity?

Only for labels, not for other entities.

Ok, thanks for quick reply.

nik
Label And Companies Update - Now Live!

wow

Hang on, nik... I need a brief tutorial... so on this sub for example:
http://discogs.versitio.com/Alabama-State-Troupers-Live-For-A-Moment/release/2528541
I would delete the copyright line entered in the Notes, select a Copyright (c) tag, and make a new "AIM Trading Group Pty Ltd." database entry?

ChampionJames
I would delete the copyright line entered in the Notes, select a Copyright (c) tag, and make a new "AIM Trading Group Pty Ltd." database entry?

You can leave the notes intact as they contain date information. But yes, go ahead and make the new entry for "AIM Trading Group Pty Ltd."

Feels so wrong, it's got to be right :-)

fantastic. Thank you :)

Eureka! It works!

Here is my pet example I just updated:

http://discogs.versitio.com/release/57526

Post yours!

The devs are working on some tweaks. We can expect to be changing and improving things as we go, code, layout, guidelines, our own concepts. This is just the beginning...

Thanks, nik, I'll give it a shot....

nik
Feels so wrong, it's got to be right :-)

Will Discogs be providing therapists to help us through this transition...?

Nice one!

nik, if no data exists, is it required to enter "none", or do we leave the field blank?

nik
Here is my pet example I just updated:

Why did you grant (C) and (P) to both entities? Seems from the notes that only Capitol got the phonographic, CEMA had the copyright...? Or do I miss a subtlety?

yuhann
nik, if no data exists, is it required to enter "none", or do we leave the field blank?

Yeah, this. When you say that you don't need a catalog # for non-labels or series (I think this is correct), then does that mean we don't even have to enter "none".?

Cheers!

Nice work by the way! :D

ChampionJames
Will Discogs be providing therapists to help us through this transition...?

No, this is the big bad world, sink or swim matey!

yuhann
if no data exists, is it required to enter "none", or do we leave the field blank?

In which field?

ChampionJames
Why did you grant (C) and (P) to both entities? Seems from the notes that only Capitol got the phonographic, CEMA had the copyright...? Or do I miss a subtlety?

On the back cover, both entities get (p) and (c).

ibanez_guy
When you say that you don't need a catalog # for non-labels or series (I think this is correct), then does that mean we don't even have to enter "none".?

You don't need to enter anything.

Feels weird, but it is going to work. also, the idea is to change how we enter cat#s anyway, move that to the Barcode And Other Identifiers section (Catalog Numbers, Barcodes, and other Identifiers... CAT#BAOI!)

Can the Labels+cat# be displayed in a column instead of a row?
It might still look okay with one or two labels, but I'm afraid a release with three or more labels is going to look pretty messy.

nik
You don't need to enter anything.

Excellent, thanks!

hmm, also, i noticed that the label on the first 3 I have updated have disappeared on the artist page: Fuck The Facts. I haven't removed the original label though, I only added recording studios. Is that by design?

Devs are working on a quick fix, cat# should be carried across to companies that are entered without a cat#, for example my pet release 2nd top at http://discogs.versitio.com/label/CEMA+Special+Markets should have the cat# attached. Also going to hide the hyphen.

nik
Post yours!

Berliner Händel-Chor, Radio-Symphonie-Orchester, Berlin*, Günther Arndt - Halleluja... Halleluja (Berühmte Chöre)

Another question for you, nik... on this one
http://discogs.versitio.com/Alabama-State-Troupers-The-Alabama-State-Troupers-Road-Show/release/2715684
the label is "Elektra." The copyright holder is "Elektra Records." The database has a big warning on the "Elektra Records" page not to use it.
What do I enter for the (C)? "Elektra", "Elektra Records," or make a new "Elektra Records (2)"?

Btw, updating the releases causes the label disappear in my Collection, and an additional comma is added after the catalog number.

For example Alan Menken, Howard Ashman - The Little Mermaid (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) shows as:
Alan Menken, Howard Ashman - The Little Mermaid ( - 6403N, )

ibanez_guy
i noticed that the label on the first 3 I have updated have disappeared on the artist page: Fuck The Facts. I haven't removed the original label though, I only added recording studios. Is that by design?

Looks like a bug, I have let the devs know.

psychonausea
Can the Labels+cat# be displayed in a column instead of a row?
It might still look okay with one or two labels, but I'm afraid a release with three or more labels is going to look pretty messy.

We played about with that one. releases with a bunch of labels looked a mess in any case, it was horrible figuring out which cat# belonged to which label on Lotus (12) - Version 2.0, for example. Having them on the same line also compacts the display and lets us show different entities up there like series etc and keep the display clean. Of course, we will see how this all pans out and update as needed.

For compilations, if we enter copyright holders and publishers for every single track, would the only way to identify which tracks they belong to be to use the notes?

Also, if, for example, a recording studio has the same name as an existing record label... still use (2) for the recording studio?

This seems like it's worth a try:
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/2174403

Edit:
Looking at the master release of the above edited record, I can see that bthe label has disapeared from the listing:
http://discogs.versitio.com/Rave-Tirolers-Uipy/master/233785

How to enter "Recorded at their reh. studio with 2 trax" as seen here ?
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/1908772

found a bug: Berliner Händel-Chor, Radio-Symphonie-Orchester, Berlin*, Günther Arndt - Halleluja... Halleluja (Berühmte Chöre)

Deutsche Grammophon isn't mentioned as label no more on the release I updated in this MR.

Just to double check - all "self-released" labels are still Labels ?

What of ANVs, especially those that include the country, such as -
Recorded at Abbey Road, London

- are we to stick to "Abbey Road", and kill the London part, or use that as the full name, creating a myriad of weird ANV/PANs?

There are lots of similar situations, especially with location-based entities.

Otherwise, looks intriguing at first glance.

and is it really needed to keep the same info twice in the "Companies etc" and "Notes" like here ?
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/2174403

What about name variations?

sanberg101
How to enter "Recorded at their reh. studio with 2 trax" as seen here ?
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/1908772

Yeah, weird semi-unnamed studios. If we had a ANVish function, maybe Unholy Grave Rehersal Studio LNV "their reh. studio" ?

I got one: What about for Live songs? Recorded At: "Underground, The" (some club in Quebec that probably doesn't exsist anymore. Is that ok? Or maybe it should be The Underground?

ChampionJames
http://discogs.versitio.com/Alabama-State-Troupers-The-Alabama-State-Troupers-Road-Show/release/2715684
the label is "Elektra." The copyright holder is "Elektra Records." The database has a big warning on the "Elektra Records" page not to use it.
What do I enter for the (C)? "Elektra", "Elektra Records," or make a new "Elektra Records (2)"?

The concept is heavily 'as on release' for company names unless there is proof they are the same entity and we should therefore change the name so it appears on the same page (or ultimately use Name Variation).

auboisdormant
updating the releases causes the label disappear in my Collection, and an additional comma is added after the catalog number.

For example Alan Menken, Howard Ashman - The Little Mermaid shows as:
Alan Menken, Howard Ashman - The Little Mermaid ( - 6403N, )

Thanks, both bugs now noted and will be looked into, no ETA right now though.

Unint
For compilations, if we enter copyright holders and publishers for every single track, would the only way to identify which tracks they belong to be to use the notes?

Ah, right. I think we need a clause in the guidelines stopping every entity to be entered for compilations, as it is just going to be very messy. So I'd avoid that right now.

Unint
Also, if, for example, a recording studio has the same name as an existing record label... still use (2) for the recording studio?

Yes, use the same system, unless the rec studio and label are one and the same, in which case use the same entity. Eventually, entities that have multiple roles will be divided up like we divide artist credits.

Interesting result here:

http://discogs.versitio.com/release/75547

The copyright in this owned by the band - the artist - and yet we now have a company or entity called Kraftwerk. These are the same thing. I guess this is something we need to live with and a case where the lines between company and artist are blurred

I love to be able to make profiles for entities like Grieghallen :-)

nik, in your update you have chosen not to add the 'manufactured by' data - please update as per labelscans ;-).
If you would have, which entities would you have added? Capitol Records Inc., Capitol Industries Inc., or both?

Do we maybe need a Remastered At? Apologies if this was discussed in that other thread... I get all ADD when these kind of updates are out. I've got about 30 tabs open right now...

sanberg101
How to enter "Recorded at their reh. studio with 2 trax" as seen here ?
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/1908772

Anything non-specific -> notes.

Dr.SultanAszazin
found a bug: Various - Halleluja... Halleluja (Berühmte Chöre)

Deutsche Grammophon isn't mentioned as label no more on the release I updated in this MR.

Thanks, same bug, is noted.

zin
Just to double check - all "self-released" labels are still Labels ?

Not On Label Self Released can be continued for the moment yes.

hmvh
What of ANVs, especially those that include the country, such as -
Recorded at Abbey Road, London

- are we to stick to "Abbey Road", and kill the London part, or use that as the full name, creating a myriad of weird ANV/PANs?

There are lots of similar situations, especially with location-based entities.

No name variations, this is using the label system !

Stick to the straightforward name, no locations. Locations in profile IMHO. Even with NV, I don't think we'd want locations unless part of the company name, would we?

sanberg101
and is it really needed to keep the same info twice in the "Companies etc" and "Notes" like here ?
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/2174403

Yes, it contains date info.

mawiles
What about name variations?

Not at this time, later medium term hopefully.

ibanez_guy
I got one: What about for Live songs? Recorded At: "Underground, The" (some club in Quebec that probably doesn't exsist anymore. Is that ok? Or maybe it should be The Underground?

Yes, live venues we certainly want to catalog.

asylum27
The copyright in this owned by the band - the artist - and yet we now have a company or entity called Kraftwerk. These are the same thing. I guess this is something we need to live with and a case where the lines between company and artist are blurred

Yes indeed.

Artist / label / company merge anyone? That shouldn't be too complicated :-o

psychonausea
nik, in your update you have chosen not to add the 'manufactured by' data - please update as per labelscans ;-).
If you would have, which entities would you have added? Capitol Records Inc., Capitol Industries Inc., or both?

Don't know, was a quick n dirty update to see things working, too busy answering questions to do a neat job there!

ibanez_guy
Do we maybe need a Remastered At? Apologies if this was discussed in that other thread... I get all ADD when these kind of updates are out. I've got about 30 tabs open right now...

Only 30? Pff :-)

Remastered At - just use Mastered at I think, Remastered is also a format description , better in there.

Just wondering, shouldn't there be some kind of Company Name Variation?
Look here: http://discogs.versitio.com/release/1926974
Media Records Srl and Media Rec. Srl are the same company
Or should we always add the complete company name?

Edit:
Just a thought, but wouldn't this be better?:
Published By - Company 1, Company 2, Company 3

Instead of:
Published By - Company 1
Published By - Company 2
Published By - Company 3

Luigi499
Just wondering, shouldn't there be some kind of Company Name Variation?
Look here: http://discogs.versitio.com/release/1926974
Media Records Srl and Media Rec. Srl are the same company
Or should we always add the complete company name?

If it is the same entity, use the adjusted name to fit it into the site. Name Variation would be cool for these, but that is for another day.

nik
Artist / label / company merge anyone?

why not? using the profile info to determine what is what is much more precise than choosing of a limited set of (2) choices.

nik
Yes, live venues we certainly want to catalog.

Ah, this pleases me. :)

nik
Name Variation would be cool for these, but that is for another day.

keep the variations in the notes, I'd say?

yuhann
if no data exists, is it required to enter "none", or do we leave the field blank?

nik
In which field?

"Marketed By" & "Distributed By"

Btw., I'm not sure whether the same entity should be used as "Label" also, since it is only credited for Marketing & Distribution duties - No other label showing up on release > http://iykeddononline.com/

just in case anyone feels like cleanup,
various of the 700+ profiles collected here needed cleanup of warning sign and profile updates:
http://discogs.versitio.com/lists/recently-inspected-dead-end-artists-or-labels/12645

& such entities as S.I.A.E.
& many more as Decca Records

i'm gone for today, will post an updated list tomorrow,
& kill many of the entries on that list ..

quite some will only be accessible via the dummy at first ..

btw, GEMA will the need to live @ GEMA (6) ..

Update has happened to pull in label cat# onto company pages when nothing is entered into the cat# field for the company. You need to do a blank update on any releases edited in the last hour to see this.

yuhann
yuhann
if no data exists, is it required to enter "none", or do we leave the field blank?

nik
In which field?

"Marketed By" & "Distributed By"

For the catalog number fields belonging to these?

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 you do not need to enter a catalog number unless there is one that relates directly to the company.

http://discogs.versitio.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Catalog_Number

Some quick thoughts:
-> Why is it (c) (p), not the official © ℗ in the field titles?
-> Arranging several companies that have the same role in one line, just like in the credit section, would make a more neat appearance IMO.
-> A company mentioned in a (CD) matrix without any role is to be entered with "Manufactured By" as role?

SickMF
Why is it (c) (p), not the official © ℗ in the field titles?

Compatibility, sometimes the special fonts are not available to a s machine.

SickMF
Arranging several companies that have the same role in one line, just like in the credit section, would make a more neat appearance IMO.

yes, display issue only, we'll sand down the edges once the basic cabinet is hammered together :-)

SickMF
A company mentioned in a (CD) matrix without any role is to be entered with "Manufactured By" as role?

Need to be discussed with the CD matrix experts.

SickMF
A company mentioned in a (CD) matrix without any role is to be entered with "Manufactured By" as role?

Wouldn't it be Pressed By?

ChampionJames
Wouldn't it be Pressed By?

According to http://discogs.versitio.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_And_Company_Definitions "Manufactured By" is the general role, the others apparently more specific / explicit ones.

Edit: Just seeing "Manufactured By" is to be used as per explicit print as well. (The generality in the description refers to its use on releases, not in the DB). NVM.

hehe, I'm coming across a few things which specifically say "no copyright"... would it be taking this function beyond it's indended use if I added Copyright (c) - No Copyright :)

maybe we need a placeholder page for all of the "uncopyritten" items :)

ChampionJames
Wouldn't it be Pressed By?

Sure it can't be 'glass-mastered by' too?
(I'm not sure at all!)

Great, but a query.

Most modern albums are no longer made in one sitting and use multiple recording sessions at many recording facilities. How do we log what was recorded where as this doesn't just affect compilations.

nik
Compatibility, sometimes the special fonts are not available to a s machine.

These are both standard on a windows character mapping. I'm pretty sure that macs have them too.

nik
Stick to the straightforward name, no locations. Locations in profile IMHO. Even with NV, I don't think we'd want locations unless part of the company name, would we?

Excellent. Stamp of approval applied. RSG mention?

Since locations are in as linked entities, how about about some for country of manufacture :)

printed by - Gebrüder Jänecke gets linked as "label" ?

http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Gebr%C3%BCder+J%C3%A4necke

Recorded At – Long Beach Civic Auditorium gets linked as "label" ?

http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Long+Beach+Civic+Auditorium

What to do with the following credit " Arranged at:" ?

Ok a fix has gone out for the labels not appearing on artist pages and Master Releases - please do a blank update to fix anything edited in the last hour, sorry for the inconvenience!

nik
Here is my pet example I just updated:

Are the copyrights to remain in the Release Notes, too?
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=57526#latest

I'd thought Capitol Inc wasn't to be used?
http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Capitol+Records%2C+Inc.

Why can't we just use that field to the right for copyright date info, instead of having to repeat the info twice?
Example draft: http://discogs.versitio.com/release/3077970

I imagine we could also use the same for publishing info (naming individual tracks for a compilation, for example).

Can the series entity be used to group series of same-named compilations (generally numbered) such as for instance Rave Massacre Vol. III... ?

Does it matter if the compilation name is always written through a consistant artwork - would that qualify as a branding?

Sorry if these questions have already been answered, I didn't follow all the pre-update discussions.

first bug (nik is already informed): http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/274065

What ing the fields for descriptions as I've (boldly) done here?

http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=1054942#latest

Thanks

Eviltoastman
Most modern albums are no longer made in one sitting and use multiple recording sessions at many recording facilities. How do we log what was recorded where as this doesn't just affect compilations.

That is ok IMHO. The exact tracks an entity is involved in can go in notes. This is a compromise for the moment.

Eviltoastman
These are both standard on a windows character mapping. I'm pretty sure that macs have them too.

Some browsers gag on them, also mobile devices etc. We are just KISS for the moment, it can be updated later.

hmvh
RSG mention?

Yes we can pick through the guidelines once the dust has settled!

hmvh
Since locations are in as linked entities, how about about some for country of manufacture :)

Sorry, I don't understand. Getting late here!

8m2stereo
printed by - Gebrüder Jänecke gets linked as "label" ?

http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Gebr%C3%BCder+J%C3%A4necke

Recorded At – Long Beach Civic Auditorium gets linked as "label" ?

http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Long+Beach+Civic+Auditorium

nik
At the moment, these new tags will still point to pages with the URL http://discogs.versitio.com/label/ , and there will be references to 'Label'. We plan to continue to update things as we start to see data getting entered with the new tags.

seek
I'd thought Capitol Inc wasn't to be used?
http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Capitol+Records%2C+Inc.

Not as label, but now valid as company. Looks right to me, profile probably needs an update.

seek
I'd thought Capitol Inc wasn't to be used?

quite some similar previously unused/"forbidden" pages will now be reactivated
and need checks & updates then ..

just noticed, isn't it better to display the companies under the credits? I'd rather read the artist information first...

(bug fix worked!)

nik
Here is my pet example I just updated:

http://discogs.versitio.com/release/57526

Post yours!

Nik, can you please explain me why you put each copyrights (c) & (p) for both companies?
While in the notes it's written:
℗1977 Capitol Records, Inc.
©1993 CEMA Special Markets

hmvh
Not as label, but now valid as company. Looks right to me, profile probably needs an update.

Quick one done. It will need a more formal one added.

maxxyme
Nik, can you please explain me why you put each copyrights (c) & (p) for both companies?

nik
On the back cover, both entities get (p) and (c).

yuhann
What to do with the following credit " Arranged at:" ?

To be honest, I don't know. I'm not sure why the place that something is arranged is important, unless there is a deeper credit that appears at face value here.

seek
Are the copyrights to remain in the Release Notes, too?
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=57526#latest

Yes, it includes date information.

seek
I'd thought Capitol Inc wasn't to be used?
http://discogs.versitio.com/label/Capitol+Records%2C+Inc.

It's fine, http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/227529

thefoureyedfox
Why can't we just use that field to the right for copyright date info, instead of having to repeat the info twice?
Example draft: http://discogs.versitio.com/release/3077970

I imagine we could also use the same for publishing info (naming individual tracks for a compilation, for example).

Because that is a catalog number field.

0frg
Can the series entity be used to group series of same-named compilations (generally numbered) such as for instance Rave Massacre, Rave Massacre Vol.II, Rave Massacre Vol. III... ?

Does it matter if the compilation name is always written through a consistant artwork - would that qualify as a branding?

I'd discuss that in adding & updating.

The most common and sure way of knowing if something is a series is when the word 'series' appears in the name, for example, "The Silver Spotlight Series". The word can also appear on the back of the release, or externally on official websites or publications.

Releases that are not a series include numbered or otherwise ordered works from an artist, for example, Led Zeppelin l / II / III / IV, Beethoven's Symphony No.1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 etc, Selected Ambient Works 85-92 and Selected Ambient Works Volume II.

eusebius
What ing the fields for descriptions as I've (boldly) done here?

http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=1054942#latest

No no please don't, that field is strictly catalog number only.

hmvh
Not as label, but now valid as company. Looks right to me, profile probably needs an update.

Makes sense. Makes sense.

And this?:

seek
Are the copyrights to remain in the Release Notes, too?
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=57526#latest

maxxyme
Nik, can you please explain me why you put each copyrights (c) & (p) for both companies?
While in the notes it's written:
℗1977 Capitol Records, Inc.
©1993 CEMA Special Markets

Asked and answered, above.

What about - Mixed By xxx Studios, tracks 3 5 7 and 9?

Dr.SultanAszazin
just noticed, isn't it better to display the companies under the credits? I'd rather read the artist information first...

Maybe. Display issue -> can be tweaked later :-)

maxxyme
Nik, can you please explain me why you put each copyrights (c) & (p) for both companies?
While in the notes it's written:
℗1977 Capitol Records, Inc.
©1993 CEMA Special Markets

I refer the right honorable gentleman to the answer I gave previously -http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/274056?page=1#2966163

nik
No no please don't, that field is strictly catalog number only.

Fair enough. I still think it's kinda stupid to have to show the into twice on the page. When I heard about this update I assumed that there would be a Description field (like for BAOI) for these kinds of things.

consort
What about - Mixed By xxx Studios, tracks 3 5 7 and 9?

Tracks go in notes for now.

thefoureyedfox
Fair enough. I still think it's kinda stupid to have to show the into twice on the page. When I heard about this update I assumed that there would be a Description field (like for BAOI) for these kinds of things.

Perhaps, yes.

nik
We can expect to be changing and improving things as we go, code, layout, guidelines, our own concepts. This is just the beginning...

Remixed At - The sound studio where the music / audio was remixed
Silly Q - should we enter
Remixed At (A1)
Remixed At (A2)

etc.?

zevulon
Remixed At - The sound studio where the music / audio was remixed
Silly Q - should we enter
Remixed At (A1)
Remixed At (A2)

etc.?

No, only entity name please, that info has to go in notes for now.

I ran into 'additional studios': Sonny Landreth - From The Reach

Should I leave them to Notes, or what? It's not indicated what was done in those locations. Engineered at?

With all that being said, I'm super-stoked about this addition to the process. It just needs some shaping up, and I'm sure we are capable of shaping it into something that'll work for everyone.

"Replicated by" from CD matrix = Duplicated by ?

Revert bug fixed

Collection extra comma fixed, this needs another blank edit to clear it, sorry!

wow, let the games being!

nik
I refer the right honorable gentleman to the answer I gave previously -http://discogs.versitio.com/help/forums/topic/274056?page=1#2966163

Apologize, I missed that sentence.

BTW, what about "Copyright Control" e.g. in Tiki (4) - Funki Fing?

Biggest and best thing in Discogs history.
THANKS.

auboisdormant
I ran into 'additional studios': Sonny Landreth - From The Reach

Should I leave them to Notes, or what? It's not indicated what was done in those locations. Engineered at?

I'd use "Recorded At".

yuhann
"Replicated by" from CD matrix = Duplicated by ?

Pressed By

maxxyme
"Copyright Control"

rights society (in the Barcode & others)

Pressed By - The manufacturing plant that presses vinyl, CDs etc
Do we use simply Damont (The name that appears in 99,9% of the cases)
and the one "We" use here
or the official Damont Audio Limited
?

Still wondering...

Are the copyrights to remain in the Release Notes, too?
http://discogs.versitio.com/history?release=57526#latest

Notes
℗1977 Capitol Records, Inc.
©1993 CEMA Special Markets

nik
http://discogs.versitio.com/release/57526

Umm is there a reason © and ℗ can't appear when used? it looks icky like that.

Nice development :)

Just submitted this one:
http://discogs.versitio.com/Daryl-Braithwaite-The-Horses/release/3077987
and it looks ok,

but on MR page:
http://discogs.versitio.com/Daryl-Braithwaite-The-Horses/master/132566
it shows in the cat# field:
1991: Entered as year of Copyright
A, B: Publisher specified by track

Where is such info meant to be added, if not in the field right to them?