Can someone enlighten me on the latest common agreement or management decision on if to add Gatefold to the FTF of all gatefold releases or only if there is a non-gatefold version existing as well. This has been discussed so often I lost track of what needs, should or can be done, especially if you are not reading each and every thread here every day. Thanks.
Mop66
Can someone enlighten me on the latest common agreement or management decision on if to add Gatefold to the FTF of all gatefold releases or only if there is a non-gatefold version existing as well. This has been discussed so often I lost track of what needs, should or can be done, especially if you are not reading each and every thread here every day. Thanks.
it's actually part of the RSG ...
RSG §6.1.6.
Unless any release that has the same title and format on the artist or label pages is also released using different packaging (for example a slimline jewel case and a Digipak), package description should not be added to the free text field, but remain in the Release Notes.
and the corresponding guideline has not changed ...
related discussions: [Discussion] Digipack in the Format line (May 2013) [Discussion] Gatefold in FTF (June 2013) [Discussion] Request for Guideline Change on Gatefolds (October 2013)
Well, that guideline does demand additional edits too happen. It would be nice if they'd lighten up on that. Being allowed in that freetext field only after a 2nd sub isn't efficient and someone might not bother to put it in the Notes. Someone thinks minimal or no pics and nothing in the Notes and a dupe gets added. Less efficient still. :/
I would a guideline change that allowed certain common packaging descriptors to be added to FTF, regardless of whether an alternate version is in the database. For this very reason. When we are entering a new submission, we don't necessarily know if there is an alternate version that is packaged differently. Candidates for this change, in my opinion, include:
Gatefold
Picture Disc
Digipak
Or alternately (preferably to be honest), adding those to the formats list, in addition to unrestrictedly allowing their factual usage.
progcode
I would a guideline change that allowed certain common packaging descriptors to be added to FTF, regardless of whether an alternate version is in the database. For this very reason. When we are entering a new submission, we don't necessarily know if there is an alternate version that is packaged differently. Candidates for this change, in my opinion, include:
Gatefold
Picture Disc
Digipak
+1
Coincidentally I just tonight added a release to my collection - a gatefold LP - and it was not indicated as gatefold anywhere in the release,although there were several editions. I was left wondering if mine was different or not.
In any case, I don't see the harm in including that information in any case, even if there is only one release for an album. I spend a good deal of time perusing the database (i.e., viewing releases I don't own) and I find those descriptors interesting and helpful.
None of this would be an issue if people submitted full image sets instead of just the front cover... By this point I primarily identify my version of an album by comparing it to the images rather than paying much heed to the words in the sub to be honest. It's usually more accurate.
MarchHair
None of this would be an issue if people submitted full image sets instead of just the front cover..
+1
If we ever get the packaging pull-down menu that we (meaning lots of 'oggers) have been asking for then this issue becomes moot. I still believe that's the right way to solve the issue.
So, to summarize (which confirms I did not miss anything, but who can be sure):
With the current guideline it goes to the notes, there is no common agreement that this rule makes sense, but as well there is no update to it expected at this point in time. Did I miss something?
Fauni-Gena
MarchHair
None of this would be an issue if people submitted full image sets instead of just the front cover..
+1
That would be great, and I always submit images when I'm the OS. But I don't think it would be fair to require that - unfortunately not everyone has access to a scanner, and even then it's a pain with LPs. When I was trying to use my home scanner, it was a major task, so I started bringing my LPs to work where I am lucky to have access to a professional scanner.
silverleaf
Well, that guideline does demand additional edits too happen. It would be nice if they'd lighten up on that. Being allowed in that freetext field only after a 2nd sub isn't efficient and someone might not bother to put it in the Notes. Someone thinks minimal or no pics and nothing in the Notes and a dupe gets added. Less efficient still. :/
Exactly. I fail to see what possible harm could there be in adding this information to FTF right away rather than after another submission appears as 6.1.6 dictates today. plus what's the chance you'd notice the 2nd submission to make the "now-all-of-a-sudden-correct" edit?!
And just today, I was going through some releases trying to match up mine and wondered; did they forget to add gatefold in the notes or are there versions without a gatefold?
Lungman00
And just today, I was going through some releases trying to match up mine and wondered; did they forget to add gatefold in the notes or are there versions without a gatefold?
