Any chance we could have an ANV-style field for companies?

I didn't find any preexisting threads on this topic.

I frequently find that labels/companies/artist's publishing companies have many different spellings in the liner notes, and this leads to multiple entries in the database. Would it be feasible to create an LNV field or something of the sort, to deal with this issue? I think it would save a lot of trouble!

If you search for the "Co Ltd" you'll find countless examples of entries in which differences in the locations of periods or commas lead to several separate entries.

... and I know we use the DO NOT USE pages to redirect s, but there are always people who overlook the exclamation point & bold text.

i.e.
King Records Co. Ltd

I this. It would also respect the principle of submitting information as on the release.

Elukkae
I this.

+1

Elukkae
I this. It would also respect the principle of submitting information as on the release.

As do I.

But,

peekil
create an LNV field

Is something that has been requested many, many times.

peekil
I didn't find any preexisting threads on this topic.

There have been many threads on this topic, but it is well known that the forum search function does not work very well.

It is something that management says that they might implement sometime in the far distant future, but no time soon. Even though we have desperately needed, wanted, and asked for LNVs ever since the Company pages were first introduced.

peekil
I think it would save a lot of trouble!

It will potentially also cause a lot of trouble with people LNVing companies and labels that are not variants. I'm sure this will happen.

Laffnmules_Lode
the Company pages were first introduced.

The company pages were never introduced. The only thing that was introduced were the company tags (e.g. the Label dropdown menu). Label pages were 'hacked' to also include companies.
For LNVs to be introduced, label pages need an overhaul and companies and labels should be separated.

Laffnmules_Lode
There have been many threads on this topic.

What is the point here? I'm simply highlighting an issue that I had no evidence had been addressed in the forum.

jweijde

It will potentially also cause a lot of trouble with people LNVing companies and labels that are not variants.

As a member of the "con" side of the issue, do you have recommendations on how to deal with the glut of unnecessary label pages that exist? Or do we just ignore that fact for now and wait to fix the issue later.

Elukkae
I this

I also this, but we need a good solid solution, not a quick and dirty one.

+1 from me anytime.

jweijde
It will potentially also cause a lot of trouble with people LNVing companies and labels that are not variants.

Sure.
But we'll see those variants on the respective company pages, won't we?
As opposed to the current state where there are possibly thousands of differently spelled duplicate entities we aren't even aware of.
I, for one, prefer a couple of easily identifiable false positives over the plethora of "false negatives" we already have now.

+1

I'd like to see it for studios too. I mean, how many times have you seen the situation where you end up with separate database entries for

Blah Studio
Blah Studios
Studio Blah
Studio Blah Studio
Studio Blah Studios

etc. - when they're really the same place?

I'm sure this has been discussed over and over before (unfortunately the forum search is more or less useless) but yes, I agree - if artists should be entered as on release, then why not companies? Even labels may have variations, even though they usually have to do with a logo change.

This has been suggested time and time again. The community wants it. Oh, and yes, I'll say I'm all for it one more time.

Count me in.

Ok, enough votes. I'm starting to hold my breath in three, two, one..

jweijde
It will potentially also cause a lot of trouble with people LNVing companies and labels that are not variants. I'm sure this will happen.

People are frequently ANVing artists that are not name variations either. Or use ANVs when an alias is more appropriate. That hasn't led to ANVs being abolished either.
We have the parent label function for companies and labels. But this isn't fully functional either, because only one parent is possible, whereas in reality parent companies usually have a timeline associated with them. Frequently what is now used as parent company here might not have existed at all when the actual label was operational.

jweijde
companies and labels should be separated.

As many labels (brand names) are tagged with company roles, I don't see how such a separation would be possible. Proper organization of the label/company pages would be urgently needed. But that seems to have very low priority either.

Btw., label pages just had another layer of eye candy attached to them, now showing cover images. But this seems to have broken catalog number sorting, rendering the label pages rather useless right now.

Eviltoastman
The problem is, as you are probably aware is that most cries for an LNV come when people see two separate but related entities and want but fail to get them merged.They cry "argh! if only we had LNVs!" to which I think, "yes, so you can fuck those up as well". Who in their tiny minds would really think that Joe Bloggs, Joe Bloggs Inc. and Joe Bloggs Ltd. are the same entity and need an LNV? Whilst there are cases for LNV (Inc v Inc. v Incorporated - for example) most people ask for the LNV not understanding what the hell they;re doing. Introduction of the LNV will be like opening a machete shop in 1990's Rwanda. You're going to be busy, and there's going to be one hell of a miserable mess to clean up.

I the LNV idea, but most people lack the wherewithal to know when something is not a name variation or not even an alias. Most calls for an LNV are related but not aliases and not variations on a name. The constant calls for LNVs are also misplaced. Since it is the intention to merge artist and label pages, the "ANV" function would come naturally and automatically.

Eviltoastman
most people lack the wherewithal to know when something is not a name variation or not even an alias.

You're right.
The best solution to avoid errors will be to shut down discogs.versitio.com altogether.
This web site will self-destruct in three, two, one, …

Nice reply, glad you're not over reacting like a mary-queen of something, that would be awful!
My point is very valid and simply advises that when the artist and label pages become one and ewe get ANVs for what were labels/companies that the EI and revert functions will be used quite frequently. What I am advocating is that peple learn what name variation is and what an alias truly is before they ask for the function as the evidence of merge company threads suggests that people have no idea when the functions they want truly apply. Start with a proper development discussion to formalise when an entity is a new entity rather than relying on precedents in threads, from that sensible platform we may then start bleating for an LNV function and not before. To ask for something when you have no idea when you may use it is not sensible.

Eviltoastman
To ask for something when you have no idea when you may use it is not sensible.

I don't know who you are referring to but I would for sure know when to use it; all too many times I have to rewrite the company entries so as to fit them into the right company page (for many companies I know this by heart now), and then (if I can be bothered) enter the name as written on the release in the release notes. Of course it's not always easy to know if it really is the same company or not, but it never will.

I may add that I've seen quite a few s that in fact enter the company names as written on release, and as such are creating multiple pages for the same company, as they think it should be entered as on release. I can't really blame them...

Eviltoastman
Start with a proper development discussion to formalise when an entity is a new entity rather than relying on precedents in threads, from that sensible platform we may then start bleating for an LNV function and not before. To ask for something when you have no idea when you may use it is not sensible.

Who bleated?