Should label/company name variations be split into separate pages?

Electro-Magnetic
Gideon Music Inc. and Gideon Music, Inc.

In general abbreviations and punctuation differences in record company names do not require a different profile and variations should be mentioned in profile:
Gideon Music Inc. = Gideon Music, Inc. = Gideon Music Incorporated = Gideon Music, Incorporated

In general, differences in legal nomenclatures require a different profile and variation profiles should be cross-linked:
Gideon Music Inc. =/= Gideon Music Ltd. =/= Gideon Music GmbH =/= Gideon Music Company =/= Gideon Music

One exception is studios tend to get merged into most-used-on-release name since they are generally considered one location:
Sun Studios = Sun Records Studio = Sun Studio Beale Street = Sun, Memphis

Above is a bit simplified but is a solid rule-of-thumb from hundreds of various forum threads. Edge cases continue to be hammered out in the forums on an individual basis.

Electro-Magnetic
many s disagree with management's opinion

FWIW I'm one of the many.

Electro-Magnetic
useful

It's useful if you're a contributor. And for research. I find tons of records through research but spend silly amounts of time looking for duplicate company pages to make sure I don't miss anything. Maybe not so useful if you have other preferences for spending your development budget, but who is this database for s or staff?

I was away from Discogs for a week and I've returned to see only two replies here so far - thanks for your opinions.

cheebacheebakid
In general abbreviations and punctuation differences in record company names do not require a different profile and variations should be mentioned in profile:
Gideon Music Inc. = Gideon Music, Inc. = Gideon Music Incorporated = Gideon Music, Incorporated

In general, differences in legal nomenclatures require a different profile and variation profiles should be cross-linked:
Gideon Music Inc. =/= Gideon Music Ltd. =/= Gideon Music GmbH =/= Gideon Music Company =/= Gideon Music

One exception is studios tend to get merged into most-used-on-release name since they are generally considered one location:
Sun Studios = Sun Records Studio = Sun Studio Beale Street = Sun, Memphis

I definitely agree to this and perhaps one day such a guide could be added to the guidelines to make it clear for other s in order to try and prevent more and more duplicate pages being created. https://discogs.versitio.com/team ) so it would be good for him to give a tick of approval on this.

Echo (29) (a added one as a sublabel of the other)

Do you think my second example should be handled in the same way as studio name variations are as it's relating to name variations of the same entity?

I invited the Echo Music (2) when printed as such."

- Was the creation of the separate page for the name variation acceptable?
- Should there have been a discussion about the creation of the separate page?
- Should the name variation really be listed as a 'sublabel'?

Electro-Magnetic
Is it correct that the same entity should have more than one page?

As far as I can , it was stated in the beginning that two separate pages are justified in case there is doubt the name variations refer to one and the same entity. Otherwise -> use one entry. It should be handled case by case, backed up by research and/or external sources.
Also when a trademark is credited, it should be entered as a separate entry from the actual legal company entity. (Mostly a trademark is a label, so these credits go to the label page). (legal entities are either natural persons or have the kind of company attached to the name, as required by trade laws, such as Inc., Ltd., GmbH, ...)
A label/trademark variation shouldn't be entered as separate entry anyway, that stays the same from the beginning of discogs.

Electro-Magnetic
nor does he believe that it is useful

That's a major flaw.
Company/label pages should be organized the same as artist pages, with implementation of name variations, and different sections for different kind of company credits. (Actually, it's even possible omitting two kind of pages, one for artists, other for label/companies would be a major step forwards).
Currently we have a mess on lots of company entries, especially major record companies: lots of dupe entries at one side and at the other side lots of information where it is very unsure how it actually appears on the release (it's only known if 'as-on-release' is also entered in the notes, which is not always done)

The current situation is needless complex, and could easy be solved by handling labels/companies in exactly the same way as artists.

Thanks for the reply Dr.SultanAszazin and I agree with your opinion about this complicated matter. Would any other experienced s like to comment?

The main question I would like to have answered at the moment is should the following entity (and similar label/company name variations) be merged back?:

Echo (29) (a added one as a sublabel of the other)

Again, there was no discussion about creating the second page and the https://discogs.versitio.com/release/383599-The-Astral-Sleep/history#latest

But listing "as on release" name variations is what the release notes are used for, right?

Electro-Magnetic
But listing "as on release" name variations is what the release notes are used for, right?

using the example

Electro-Magnetic
Echo Music (2) and Echo (29)

if there were 30 releases that stated Echo and 25 that stated Echo Music
then i would say two pages make sense but if the ratio was like 4/30 then maybe using notes
in the subs and on the profile page to explain that occasionally it is given as "Echo"
would possibly be a better option as Echo Music is more complete eh?

also there is this which i really dislike, using your example again :
sometimes where a Echo Music page is created for company and an Echo page for the label
i have seen debates and profile pages state that keeping each page all neat so that only entries for the label are on the label page (vice versa for the company) no matter what the releases state,
like i say i strongly disagree with this and think that as on release is better when there are pages for each and also sometimes when it may make submitting easier

here's one example i may make a separate thread about

https://discogs.versitio.com/Havanna-Schtoom/release/56742
Record Company – 23rd Precinct & Limbo Recordings Ltd.
on that release nowhere does it state 23rd Precinct & Limbo Recordings Ltd.
IMO there should be another label or company page for simply "23rd Precinct"
as well as the other variations
https://discogs.versitio.com/search/?q=23rd%20Precinct&type=label&strict=false

just dumping them all on one page when there are already a few variations seems rather backward,
this is a good example of why keeping things split can be useful IMO

Electro-Magnetic
Echo Music (2) and Echo (29) (a added one as a sublabel of the other)

We have 4 profiles which should be looked into:
Echo Schallplatten Ges.m.b.H.

Currently it is a mess, as all profiles seem to contain different ways of appearing mixed up within each other.

1st thing that should be researched: Were there actually two companies ed in Austria: Echo Music Gmbh & Echo Schallplatten GmbH? Or is it one company being a bit too free with the name they use (as far as I'm aware, a company should list it's name correctly, one cannot just use a name & attach a legal status to it without ing it properly)

2nd thing: Echo & Echo Music seem to be variations of each other. Trademarks can be used and varied without actually ing them. They are even protected without ing them (although it would make a difficult legal case if someone steals the name and you need to proof in court you were first if you didn't them anywhere.)

When it is known whether Echo Music GmbH & Echo Schallplatten GmbH were actual companies (existing at the same time, or a name change at a certain point?) It should be researched if the 2 used trademarks were used by both, or one company used one trademark (probably Echo Music GmbH at least used Echo Music) and the other one the other trademark.

Logo design is the same for Echo & Echo Music.

As long as this is not properly researched, by the current RSG they should all 4 be listed separately.

I think the
-1. first thing to do is clean the pages so releases mentioning Echo go to Echo Schallplatten Ges.m.b.H. (& maybe there are releases with just Echo Schallplatten? These should go to just Echo Schallplatten.
&
-2. also first thing to do (simultaneously) is -> write in the profiles of all the above label/trademarks/companies where newly submitted (& edited) releases should go, listing the 4 existing profiles.
then
-3. second thing to do is research the history of the companies (when did they exist, are they really 2 companies,...?)
&
-4. third thing to do is research the trademarks (by which company/ies were they used, are they a mere variation, or do they each link to a different company that existed at the same time, are they a mere variation used by company which at a certain point just changed their legal name?...)

My feeling is that Echo & Echo Music are actually no more than a variation, but a feeling does not count, so currently it is correct to list them separate until more is known. Only the profiles need to clarify how to enter things asap. That's the only way to do a clean merge, if that seems to be needed later.

Electro-Magnetic
Thanks for the reply Dr.SultanAszazin and I agree with your opinion about this complicated matter. Would any other experienced s like to comment?

If it's one label and a consensus is reached then one, We do that with Virgin, Virgin Records, Virgin Music, Island, Island Records, ECM, ECM Records, plus the Casablanca variations. If the company sees it as one label we should enter it as such IMO.

Opdiner
If the company sees it as one label we should enter it as such IMO.

+1
But shouldn't we try to research this a bit before deciding? Or is it enough it feels like that for this one?
Mainly the 2 company names make me hesitate a little, but I have no knowledge about this particular label.

Dr.SultanAszazin
But shouldn't we try to research this a bit before deciding?

Absolutely. That's what we did with all those mentioned above :-)

Thanks a lot Dr.SultanAszazin - that's an excellent overview on how to handle the 'Echo' pages and others like it.

What do you think of this Echo (29) page. Have you received the notifications about this discussion?

(I will PM the in case their notification settings are turned off.)

It would also be good to get some staff input but it seems the only staff member assigned to replying to forum threads is Diognes_The_Fox. Discogs has a growing staff but very few of them actually have any real experience in using the database. In my 14+ years of using Discogs communication between staff and s in my experience is at an all time low.

I've found a similar situation with SeRKeT who has already participated in this thread). The label logo only has the text "Distance" but it appears that the copyright information sometimes appears as "Distance Records".

Electro-Magnetic
I've found a similar situation with Distance and the second page Distance Records (3) that was recently created (coincidentally created by SeRKeT who has already participated in this thread). The label logo only has the text "Distance" but it appears that the copyright information sometimes appears as "Distance Records".

Label = Distance
Company = Distance Records

Don't understand why this is such a struggle for some s. No offence intended.

Honestly, I don't have a good solution for any of this and it keeps me up at night sometimes. Discography Unification vs. Submission Individualization is hard, especially when there's no functional middle ground.

cheebacheebakid
In general abbreviations and punctuation differences in record company names do not require a different profile and variations should be mentioned in profile:
Gideon Music Inc. = Gideon Music, Inc. = Gideon Music Incorporated = Gideon Music, Incorporated

In general, differences in legal nomenclatures require a different profile and variation profiles should be cross-linked:
Gideon Music Inc. =/= Gideon Music Ltd. =/= Gideon Music GmbH =/= Gideon Music Company =/= Gideon Music

One exception is studios tend to get merged into most-used-on-release name since they are generally considered one location:
Sun Studios = Sun Records Studio = Sun Studio Beale Street = Sun, Memphis

Above is a bit simplified but is a solid rule-of-thumb from hundreds of various forum threads. Edge cases continue to be hammered out in the forums on an individual basis.

Spot on!

Electro-Magnetic
I definitely agree to this and perhaps one day such a guide could be added to the guidelines to make it clear for other s in order to try and prevent more and more duplicate pages being created.

I this. Any suggestions on wording?

Until we can get some kind of more formal solution to this issue, likely the best thing to do is to link similar companies together at the label profile page level manually.

Electro-Magnetic
now listed as a "Discography Specialist" on the Discogs Team page: https://discogs.versitio.com/team

In the beginning of the year, I got moved out of the department and am now on the database team and report to Nik directly. My responsibilities are almost entirely to the database now.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Echo (29)
Echo Music (2)
Echo Music GmbH
Echo Schallplatten Ges.m.b.H.

As it stands at the moment, I think these should all be separate.

andygrayrecords
Don't understand why this is such a struggle for some s. No offence intended.

I'm not sure if your comment was directed to me but I'm the one trying to assist other s about this e.g. https://discogs.versitio.com/release/10195967-Distance-To-Goa-6/history#latest

Of course if one name is a label name and another is a company name that is fine. The thread is also about the abundance of duplicate pages which were created for simple name variations which is not fine.

Electro-Magnetic
abundance of duplicate pages which were created for simple name variations which is not fine.

Depends on what those variations are.
Ltd. vs Ltd are the same, xyz company inc. vs xyz company, inc. vs xyz company inc are the same.
Echo vs Echo Music vs Echo Music GmbH are not the same

Diognes_The_Fox
As it stands at the moment, I think these should all be separate.

Electro-Magnetic
I'm not sure if your comment was directed to me

It was just a general statement, don't read anything that's not there into it, please.

andygrayrecords
No offence intended.

No probs andygrayrecords. 👍

Thank you Diognes_The_Fox for your reply and approval to the above points as it makes things easier when editing releases and directing other s as I can link to the post.

If such information is added to the guidelines I'm not quite sure about the wording as I guess that is usually left to cheebacheebakid's points are a solid base. Perhaps also adding something like "Name variations should also be added to the release notes of the individual release." which has been the protocol since LCCN was established (but the amount of duplicate pages proves that some s are not aware of the importance of this).

Also congratulations on your new position which allows you to focus more on the database. I wonder if any more purely database focused positions will exist in the future and if any experienced Discogs s will ever apply and become a staff member like you did...

Electro-Magnetic
What do you think of this heaven83? You recently created the separate Echo (29) page. Have you received the notifications about this discussion?

Sorry, was too caught up in work the last couple of weeks to go through threads.

Dr.SultanAszazin
-1. first thing to do is clean the pages so releases mentioning Echo go to Echo (29), those with Echo Music go to Echo Music (2), those With Echo Music Gmbh / Ges.m.b.H. / ...(all variations on Echo Music Gesellschaft mit bekränkter Haftung) Go to Echo Music GmbH & those with Echo Schallplatten GmbH (+variations) go to Echo Schallplatten Ges.m.b.H. (& maybe there are releases with just Echo Schallplatten? These should go to just Echo Schallplatten.

Actually, that was the reason I created Echo (29). I was told a while ago that labels should be as on release (probably the reason why so many label variations exist nowadays). The explanation I got was that at some point the labels would get extra features including the possibility to link to a role. If the correct 'sublabel' with a different role already existed, they could easily get linked.
Of course with the exception of legal suffixes (Inc. and Incorporated are clearly the same).

That sounded like a reasonable argument at the time. I'm glad to hear Diognes_The_Fox is still thinking about it. Although you shouldn't leave your sleep over it :).

If we don't create separate entries for a different role (e.g. a distributor) and enter 'Echo Music' whilst 'Echo' is mentioned on release, realistically we won't ever get those releases properly linked in a later stage.

cheebacheebakid
In general abbreviations and punctuation differences in record company names do not require a different profile and variations should be mentioned in profile:
Gideon Music Inc. = Gideon Music, Inc. = Gideon Music Incorporated = Gideon Music, Incorporated

In general, differences in legal nomenclatures require a different profile and variation profiles should be cross-linked:
Gideon Music Inc. =/= Gideon Music Ltd. =/= Gideon Music GmbH =/= Gideon Music Company =/= Gideon Music

One exception is studios tend to get merged into most-used-on-release name since they are generally considered one location:
Sun Studios = Sun Records Studio = Sun Studio Beale Street = Sun, Memphis

Above is a bit simplified but is a solid rule-of-thumb from hundreds of various forum threads. Edge cases continue to be hammered out in the forums on an individual basis.

　　　　agreed 100%

Electro-Magnetic
Perhaps also adding something like "Name variations should also be added to the release notes of the individual release." which has been the protocol since LCCN was established (but the amount of duplicate pages proves that some s are not aware of the importance of this).

　　　　thinking strongly that many s choose the first appeared artist/label via the dropdown menu,, or mostly dont have the reflex to click on "Open" icon to the label's profile. And if clicked, how many label's profile have not a clear showing with variations. A specific § in guidelines will be feasible ? (about bold variation in label profile, as i said in the past, it's a major info for contributrs/submitters).

Diognes_The_Fox
Until we can get some kind of more formal solution to this issue, likely the best thing to do is to link similar companies together at the label profile page level manually.

This should be the standard. There's a tendency amongst a group of regular visitors of the forums to want everything to be put on one page. This makes data entry more complicated and results in loss of data. It is suggested the latter will be solved by requesting s to use the release notes to list the variation, but such requests are often unsuccessful - as is proven by various other things which are supposed to be added to the release notes, and aren't. Also, why add something to the release notes that can be entered in a dedicated field ?
This is all because there's no label name variation functionality available. I the old days when we didn't have ANVs. Back then a new entry was created whenever an artistname had a slight variation in it. Even down to comma's, hyphens and dots. Some artists had 10+ aliasses because of this. While there had been some discussion about the necessity of creating entries for such minor variations, it never caused real issues and was a great help once ANVs were introduced.

why add something to the release notes that can be entered in a dedicated field ?

or

was a great help once ANVs were introduced.

　　　　that's i was thinking in better words, one or the other would be so useful. one day may be! but technically possible ?

cheebacheebakid
In general abbreviations and punctuation differences in record company names do not require a different profile and variations should be mentioned in profile:
Gideon Music Inc. = Gideon Music, Inc. = Gideon Music Incorporated = Gideon Music, Incorporated

In general, differences in legal nomenclatures require a different profile and variation profiles should be cross-linked:
Gideon Music Inc. =/= Gideon Music Ltd. =/= Gideon Music GmbH =/= Gideon Music Company =/= Gideon Music

One exception is studios tend to get merged into most-used-on-release name since they are generally considered one location:
Sun Studios = Sun Records Studio = Sun Studio Beale Street = Sun, Memphis

Above is a bit simplified but is a solid rule-of-thumb from hundreds of various forum threads. Edge cases continue to be hammered out in the forums on an individual basis.

Best practice for the database for me, too

Loanesloan
Best practice for the database for me, too

+1 on that, after having digested the complete thread. The proliferation is out of hand over tiny differences which are functional equivalents.

In about the same way as we have myriads of "Not On Label (X Self-released)" we do also have artists creating an ad hoc structure for publishing or copyright activity, which they istrate themselves. This often leads to different spellings for something that IS the same. The discussion above doesn't take this kind of self-istrated structure (maybe even physically unexisting) into consideration and applying the *thumb* rules described above may therefore still lead to --->

Showbiz_Kid
The proliferation is out of hand over tiny differences which are functional equivalents.

which is exactly what we try to avoid! Case in point here: https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/775911

Note that the difference may well just be a question of how the structure name was printed - maybe from failing memory - instead of what it legally is ed as!
Self-istrated structures with slightly different spellings aren't here the same as X inc. versus GmbH ... but are one and the same thing istrated by the same person. I think those should be merged if we don't want to drown soon!

Piotrlerouge
Self-istrated structures with slightly different spellings aren't here the same as X inc. versus GmbH ... but are one and the same thing istrated by the same person. I think those should be merged if we don't want to drown soon!

Those would be cases that have to be dealt with individually. If evidence is provided they are the same companies as required by RSG §4.2.2 they can be merged. If there is no evidence, just conjecture, then they shouldn't be merged.

Piotrlerouge
Case in point here: https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/775911

Provide evidence they are the same (company registration documents, confirmation from the company on their official website, etc.) and I would happily vote to merge into the official entity (like I did here the other day). Otherwise it's just your conjecture about the artist and how the artist manages their business, which may not even be "ad hoc" and might be methodical.

http://www.tonymacalpine.com/news/
The name of the publishing company is printed at the bottom of any page on MacAlpine's web site.
All credits using the same name + music are all leading to MacAlpine's solo or group releases ---> Eyes On The Prize Music

Is it thinkable that the same artist creates two distinct publishing companies with such similar names, not even differentiating them on one or other aspect? (I've ed Tony by mail, asking for eventual clarification)

cheebacheebakid
... Provide evidence they are the same (company registration documents, confirmation from the company on their official website, etc.) and I would happily vote to merge into the official entity (like I did here the other day). Otherwise it's just your conjecture about the artist and how the artist manages their business, which may not even be "ad hoc" and might be methodical.

cheebacheebakid - the thread you pointed to (thanks for your input again) doesn't hold up against the guidelines set in this thread and by your own definition:

cheebacheebakid
In general abbreviations and punctuation differences in record company names do not require a different profile and variations should be mentioned in profile:
Gideon Music Inc. = Gideon Music, Inc. = Gideon Music Incorporated = Gideon Music, Incorporated

In general, differences in legal nomenclatures require a different profile and variation profiles should be cross-linked:
Gideon Music Inc. =/= Gideon Music Ltd. =/= Gideon Music GmbH =/= Gideon Music Company =/= Gideon Music

and that is the case here, differences in legal nomenclature, not variations of abbreviations and punctuation so they should be kept separate, not merged into one company:

Pure Energy Music, Inc.

What if a label is usually represented by a certain name, as an example "ABCDE" via logo and general appearance, and has copyrights for "ABCDE Records".
My understanding from previous discussions is, that "ABCDE Records" is then regarded as a company entry and "ABCDE" as the label.
So far so good.
But what if at a later point in time and history the label name get's a little tweak for whatever reason and the new records feature a new logo / branding "ABCDE Records".
Should these be listed still under "ABCDE" label, even if the name as presented on release is present in the database?

Is this a case by case thing, or is there any general consensus how to handle this?

Currently we have a mess on lots of company entries... lots of dupe entries... lots of information where it is very unsure how it actually appears on the release

So it's just like the rest of the database. Lots of duplicates, lots of ambiguous entries in the database, and no clear guidelines or standards.

Pinging hwanin. Requesting them to stop asking s to make incorrect changes.
Publishers are as on release.
Winter Hill Music
Winter Hill Music Ltd.
These are separate entities.

andygrayrecords
These are separate entities.

As long as there is no offices of Winter Hill Music abroad (and there isn't), it directly means these are the very same.
When we are talking about a multi/international brand and company, the issue is up to discussion.

In the case you mentioned, it's just witch hunt by you with no benevolent intention.

Not really.
You're the one co-ercing other s by leaving comments to do the changes for you.
As I said in my reply to your comment: I don't know how many times you need telling.

hwanin
it's just witch hunt by you with no benevolent intention.

It may be a witch hunt, but we're only following orders ;-)

nik
I am more and more strongly feeling we should stick to as-on-release for such things. I don't think it hurts to have 2, 3, 4 or so variations of a company.

hwanin
In the case you mentioned, it's just witch hunt by you with no benevolent intention.

Not a witch hunt.
Also not ok to mass leave comments asking other s to make changes that are not correct and which might lead to other s getting negative votes if they follow your advice

Then I will make those changes by myself in the future.

It was most probably me, who started to tell people to use Price Code for Sony releases (CB602, CB608, etc) years before you started to comply with it.
It's the same now with multiplying the pages for the same companies.

You did not react anything relevant in the case that Andy has brought up.

velove
Also not ok to mass leave comments asking other s to make changes that are not correct

If you can prove the entries belong to the same entity, it's just pure incorrectness to multiply the page.
Please stop implying that correct edits are incorrect... You can say it's against the word of Nik, but it's not in the guidelines and not even correct what you demand.

hwanin
Then I will make those changes by myself in the future.

+1

hwanin
If you can prove the entries belong to the same entity, it's just pure incorrectness to multiply the page.

I agree. However it's usually difficult to prove it. Unless the company itself says it's the same we've got to assume that there's a reason the use different names

velove
Unless the company itself says it's the same

Joke of the year.

Yeah, stuff gets misprinted and transcribed wrong all the time. And we must document it, because we are Discogs.

I am all for Label Name Variations. Unfortunately it will likely never happen.

Mr.Slut
What if a label is usually represented by a certain name, as an example "ABCDE" via logo and general appearance, and has copyrights for "ABCDE Records".
My understanding from previous discussions is, that "ABCDE Records" is then regarded as a company entry and "ABCDE" as the label.
So far so good.
But what if at a later point in time and history the label name get's a little tweak for whatever reason and the new records feature a new logo / branding "ABCDE Records".
Should these be listed still under "ABCDE" label, even if the name as presented on release is present in the database?

Is this a case by case thing, or is there any general consensus how to handle this?

Anybody?

Mr.Slut
Mr.SlutWhat if a label is usually represented by a certain name, as an example "ABCDE" via logo and general appearance, and has copyrights for "ABCDE Records".
My understanding from previous discussions is, that "ABCDE Records" is then regarded as a company entry and "ABCDE" as the label.
So far so good.
But what if at a later point in time and history the label name get's a little tweak for whatever reason and the new records feature a new logo / branding "ABCDE Records".
Should these be listed still under "ABCDE" label, even if the name as presented on release is present in the database?

Is this a case by case thing, or is there any general consensus how to handle this?

Anybody?

Case by case I think.
Labels can change their branding over time, but we still use the original brand.
Virgin / Virgin Records for instance.