Dev LabelCompany Proposal Editor Thread Country

NOTE! This is a thread from the Editor forum discussing the country
issue. Opinions contained in this thread may have changed since it was
discussed. The purpose of posting this on the Wiki is to show everyone
the discussion, so you can draw your own conclusions.

As of October 2007, I am of the opinion that it WOULD be a positive
move to remove the country field from releases, and attach it to
labels/companies instead. It is very rare that a "country/s of
distribution" is noted on a release, whereas we can discover the
companies / labels / distributors countries fairly easily. Please see
Dev-LabelCompany-Proposal-Sep-2007#Country_field
for more discussion.

Nik 05:44, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

''The Development forum has a thread devoted to this topic: Label /
Company update - discussion and
links
.

Lazlo 14:05, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

1. Country?

[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
How is it possible to know in which country a record was released or for which market a release was intended? How can we list that inforation at the moment here at Discogs? --------------------------------------------------------------- Unless you have good contact with the distributor(s) of a particular release you haven't really got much to go on. It's almost impossible to know exactely in which country (countries) a release was marketed in. For most releases we just list the country in which the offce of the label is located as the country. A lot of users believe that a release saying "Made in Holland" is a Dutch release so they submit it as a Dutch release. Where the record was made has often nothing to do with in which countries that record later was marketed. As it is now you must very often guess how to list the country! For experienced coggers the BIEM code can be of some help but it really doesn't say exactely in which countries a release was marketed in either. I helped my girlfriend with a submission the other day and it was a BIEM/GEMA release (and said: Made in Germany) but it was a Swedish pop record in Swedish that was sold in Sweden and I'm pretty sure it was never even sold in Germany. If I had been from some other part of the world and if I was trying to submit that record without really knowing the artist, how would I know that I should use Sweden as country? Sweden is/was the market so using Germany would be wrong if following the current set of rules. --------------------------------------------------------------- **My ideas how to solve this problem with listing the market: 1. Remove the country field (or hide it if you want to keep the data) because it's redundant. It doesn't really say anything more than that a submitter guessed that a release was marketed in a particular country. If the label office is located in that country then listing that on the label page is enough in my opinion. It has nothing to do with in which countries a recod was distributed in. A lot of Swedish techno labels aren't even available here in Sweden for example because they simply don't have any distribution here. So the market can't be Sweden, can it? 2. BIEM (Market field) Add a dropdown to a new "Market" field. Most releases from the big labels got BIEM information and it is easy to understand if you have a dropdown with a list to use. If a release hasn't got any BIEM information then listing "none" (or no market listed) in that field seems logical. The BIEM information doesn't really say in which countries a record was marketed in but it allows us to tell different releases apart! 3. Made In (Made in country field) A lot of releases list in which country the release was made in/manufactured in. That information is crucial if we are going to be able to list all unique releases here at Discogs. A lot of releases are incorrectly listed with the country in which a release was made in as the market now. Adding this "Made In" field is the only way to avoid that in my opinion. If no country is listed on a release then using "Unknown" seems logical.** 4. Manufactured By (Manufactured by company X field) This information isn't always so important but in cases with releases that got no information about market (BIEM code) and no information about in which country a release was manufactured in either then this information could be useful. If we allow company pages for manufacturers too then if a company is listed on a record you could get information about in which country a release was manufactured in by visiting the company page. The "same" album with the same label, cat\#, tracklisting, packaging and artwork is sometimes re-pressed at another factory/pressing plant than the original release or just the sleeve might be printed at another place than the original sleeve was printed. 5. Manufactor cat\# (Some pressing plants use manufacturing numbers) This doesn't really have anything to do with the country field but it is related to the Manufactured By field. 6. Distributor (Distributed by company X field) This is a field that doesn't just affect the country issue so I'll come back to this later. 7. Distributor cat\# (Some distributors use a distributor cat\#) We need to list both distributor and distributor cat\# but I'll come back to this too. --------------------------------------------------------------- **Point 2. & 3. are the most important here regarding the country field problem. The BIEM field is easy to add to the submission form but it will lead to that several different but similar releases will be submitted. We need the master release before that is included if you think it's a good idea or an idea that we could evolve into something more useful. The "Made In" field is also very easy to include into the submission form, but that will also lead to that a lot of releases will be updated/submitted. We need the master release for that too. A lot of other things are needed too but before I go on I'd like some input on this. Do you think we should leave the old way of listing the country and use my way or do you have another better idea?**
posted 9 months ago.
[/user/nik **nik**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] 1. Remove the country field
I think we need another method for this. A large percentage of records in my own collection have the country field used correctly, and in fact they could be narrowed down to City and even record shop. For example, a lot of US techno and house releases, many UK dance releases etc. Furthermore, a lot of the following proposed fields may not be applicable to these releases. I don't believe discarding the country field is an option on these I'm afraid. Transposing, renaming, and/or clarifying this field would be the only way forward I can see. I don't have any concrete ideas about how this can happen ATM.
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] 2. BIEM (Market field)
I can see this being very helpful, but only on the bigger releases / labels as you say, not in all cases. I am wondering also how Euro-centric BIEM was in it's history, and when countries joined. There is some info up on their website, for example , and I suspect they would be happy to furnish us with any other info we require.
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] 3. Made In (Made in country field)
I can see definite advantages in having this field. Of course complications arise, for example, some releases have sleeves / artwork made in one country, and the media made in another.
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] 4. Manufactured By (Manufactured by company X field) / 5. Manufactor cat\#
I would include the manufacturer cat\# in this as it is directly related. I think the manufacturer information is very specific, and can see how it would be useful in distinguishing unique releases. I presume you see this field making a manufacturing company page?
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] 6. Distributor (Distributed by company X field) / 7. Distributor cat\#
Again I would include the Distributor cat\# here as they are directly related. As for manufacturers, I presume you see this creating a Distributor Company page? I would also think there are examples of multiple distributors for different countries, and / or distributors changing over the period the release was on sale. How would this be dealt with on the release? ===================== Those are my initial thoughts. I think it is apparent to us that not all fields will apply to all releases, and in fact many fields will not apply to many releases. However, I do think that where this information is known, including it will for definite help everyone figure out what release they are holding. My personal two main concerns are how we deal with the existing country field (as I have already commented on above), and how we integrate these new fields into the site in the cleanest and most simple way possible. I have further ideas regarding label and company structure that I will put in another thread.
` ``posted ``9 months ago``. ` ` `
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/nik **nik**] A large percentage of records in my own collection have the country field used correctly, and in fact they could be narrowed down to City and even record shop.
Perhaps we should start with a decision about what should be listed in the country field if we shall keep it? The submission guide says that you should list the market as country but it also contradicts itself by saying that you could list the country a label is based in. The submission guide also clearly says that you should NOT list the country a release was manufactured in (atleast not if it differs from the market and the country the label is located in). That is too fuzzy for me to fully grasp when to use rule 1 vs. rule 2 vs. rule 3. That is what I meant with that submitters have to guess what country to use.
` ``posted ``9 months ago``.`
[/user/nik **nik**] wrote:
Part of the problem is it is glaringly obvious for (I suspect) a large number of small run dance releases that the country field relates to the initial market AND the label base AND the manufacturing base, and that these facts are not nessasarily noted on the release themselves, but are simply common knowlege. The problem is, as you note, when we get into larger labels and convoluted distribution methods... It is like there is two separate models we are trying to incorporate... one where an individual presses up 500 records and drives about their city selling them, and another where a global corporation manufactures millions of items worldwide using many distributors and manufacturers, and includes barcodes, BIEM codes, Distributor codes and logos etc. Of course these are the two extremes, and as usual there will be items that lie somewhere in-between these points, so somehow we have to reconcile that. Thinking out loud...
` ``posted ``9 months ago``.`
[/user/nik **nik**] wrote:
Just a thought - perhaps the existing country field could be expanded to include the BIEM regions, and some guidelines made to tell us when to use what (i.e. if BIEM is available, use that). I know that multiple country fields have been proposed in the past, is this still needed if we do something like this? That way we can hone the country field to mean 'Initial Market', either by using country or region names, BIEM names, or maybe even a combination of both.
` ``posted ``9 months ago``.`
[/user/nik **nik**] wrote:
Further, are BIEM's noted using the initials on this page [? *auto-converted long url*] Could we not simply make this translation easier, and the guidelines clearer on how to go about finding the 'country'? Does it help to have crypic codes entered, rather than straightforward countries?
` ``posted ``9 months ago``.`
[/user/md **md**] wrote:
Briefly after reading the first couple of posts: Removing the current country field is an interesting prospect. Regarding your objections, nik, I see your point of view exactly, but, speaking from the POV of someone who has run a couple of small techno labels, I can say that: 1) all my label's releases are listed as UK. 2) probably no more than 5% of my sales were in the UK 3) I have no fucking idea what markets my releases were marketed in when they left the hands of my distributor who was UK based. I do know that most were sold in Germany and Japan, but I also know that people in all corners of the world have somehow got hold of some of the few copies that exist. Perhaps this issue can be solved by adding a Country field to label profiles, because for those small scale labels that's how the Country field is used. As Stormbringer says about the Swedish case - well known Swedish techno label Drumcode had the same distributor as my labels, based in Alperton, London. Yet all their releases are listed under Sweden. Likewise many British labels moved their distribution to Europe after the collapses of Integrale and Prime, but their releases are still listed as UK. IMO this is correct. Also, the suggested Market field would need a "Worldwide" option, to cover releases that were exported to here, there, everywhere and godknowswhere. re: Made In field. I had to make sure that all my releases said "Made In England" on them. All my releases were made in France, however, by MPO. re: Distributor field. There aren't many (any?) worldwide distributors, most releases will have been distributed by a local organisation. For a single release that has no variations to be included in a MR, but was essentially distributed by many distributors....what would we put there? My releases were distributed by Prime as far as I'm concerned, but I know they were distributed by Neuton in Germany, Cisco in Japan, etc. etc. But there was only one version of each release.
` ``posted ``9 months ago``. ` ` `
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
Should we only list the information that is actually listed on a release or should we really force people to guess/research when submitting a record? Besides the BIEM information and "Made In" information, is there any other useful information that is usually listed on a record about which country a record was released in? The location of the label office might be listed but if it isn't listed? Should we really force people to add that information? Why not only add the information that is actually listed on a release?
` ``posted ``9 months ago``.`
[/user/md **md**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] Why not only add the information that is actually listed on a release?
Of course, that's the only thing we can expect people to do, if they don't have access to other information. Would you think a "Worldwide" option in the marketing field would necessary, Stormbringer?
` ``posted ``9 months ago``.`
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/md **md**] Would you think a "Worldwide" option in the marketing field would necessary, Stormbringer?
Well... that depends if we are going to list any country names at all in the market field. If we only list the BIEM code then there's no need to list any countries or territories. It could perhaps be useful though if the market field gets filled in with "Worldwide" if the release isn't intended for a particular market.
` ``posted ``9 months ago``.`
[/user/md **md**] wrote:
I'm sorry, I must admit that I don't even know what a BIEM code is. None of my releases and probably very few items in my collection have any such code, but they were still marketed somewhere. If this Market field is to be specifically populated with a particular industry standard code system then it will exclude a large portion of non-industry standard releases. I realise that the industry standards are becoming more and more important as Discogs expands further away from its roots as an electronic (and subsequently, largely underground) music database, but I rather think this BIEM system should be used as a key to guide the way any such Marketing field is populated when available, rather than it being the sole driver.
` ``posted ``9 months ago``. ` ` `
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/nik **nik**] Does it help to have crypic codes entered, rather than straightforward countries?
The reason I think the country field is redundant is because a lot of releases just don't have any information about where those releases were sold/distributed/marketed. If you fill in the country field you often have to guess or pick some country that is connected to either the label itself or the artist behind the label. Some people use the "Made In" information as a guide and some other people base their decission on where the distributor is located. **So basicly people are guessing! Do we want that?** The risk is that we get releases into the system that just don't exist. Another problem is that you can't trust the information listed here at Discogs. Look at this merge here: Check kreuztots answer at the bottom of the thread! Does it even exist? If it doesn't exist then why was that US pressing kept and the Dutch/European pressing merged? The images were from the European version. I'm not attacking the editors here!!! I'm just saying that the only way we can trust the information we list is if we ONLY allow information that actually is listed on a release to be submitted. Atleast when it has to do with differences between unique items. If we list a vocalist wrong on a release that doesn't create a new unique item so that isn't such a big problem and it can be updated later, but if we list the country wrong... then suddenly a US-pressing that doesn't exist might be listed here forever. How can we prove that an item doesn't exist unless the original submitter says so after he/she has been contacted? If an item was submitted by someone who later deleted his/her account or by someone who just don't answer to mails, how will we find out if that item even exists? Why do I bring this up? Because I think we already have thousands of items listed that don't exist! The BIEM field and "Made In" field won't be enough to tell different releases apart but it will be a start.
` ``posted ``8 months ago``.`
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/md **md**] If this Market field is to be specifically populated with a particular industry standard code system then it will exclude a large portion of non-industry standard releases.
Yes! If a release got no BIEM code then you can't add one! If a release has no country listed, should you still add a country? If we keep the country field? How will we be able to know which country of a submitted release is the correct one? Not even with a clear scan is it possible to know in my opinion.
` ``posted ``8 months ago``.`
[/user/md **md**] wrote:
Right, that's why I suggested moving the Country field to the label page rather than the release page. But then I guess that's impossible on majors where the "label" transcends the location of any of the "companies" that market the label.
` ``posted ``8 months ago``.`
[/user/sjcee **sjcee**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] If a release has no country listed, should you still add a country?
I think we have to divide the discussion for Major labels/ multiterritorial labels on the one side and small labels on the other side. I agree, that it might not be easy to spot or even know the correct country for Major-/ multiterritorial labels. Info from the BIEM members printed on the release local company info may help to spot at least the primary country it was released for, but cannot provide info of all the further territries it has been released (with the very same outfit) But for small labels it's very obvious in 99% of the cases, that the release is primary to be published in the country the label is based. Of course distributions would spread it worldwide if there are customers demanding it...
` ``posted ``8 months ago``. ` ` `
[/user/nik **nik**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/sjcee **sjcee**] I think we have to divide the discussion for Major labels/ multiterritorial labels on the one side and small labels on the other side.
I was just about to say this. I think we will tie ourselves in knots trying to solve an issue that doesn't really exist for small labels. It is common knowledge for enthusiasts that [/label/Dance Mania Dance Mania] releases are from Chicago, [/label/Metroplex Metroplex] releases are from Detroit, [/label/Music70 Music70] releases are from Edinburgh, [/label/Spymania Spymania] releases are from England (London is it?) etc. For these type of labels, I don't think there is anything complicated about the country field, since there is only one pressing of each record, no licensing deals etc. Now, I TOTALLY see the issue when things get bigger, deals are struck, distributors start pressing their own copies etc, and I understand the need to strictly define the country field then, especially as it relates to unique releases. We don't want a punter who bought a record in Berlin putting 'Germany' in the country field just because that's where he bought it, or because it says 'made In Germany' on it. I think the first part of the solution for this is to clarify exactly the requirements and methods for working out the country field for larger releases, much like we clarified the difference between LP and 12" last year. This should take the form of a concise set of instructions for discovering the country field as related to BIEM codes and other factors. We can be as strict as necessary with this. I think the BIEM codes should be 'translated' into human-readable countries, and entered into the country field as usual.
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/md **md**] I suggested moving the Country field to the label page rather than the release page. But then I guess that's impossible on majors where the "label" transcends the location of any of the "companies" that market the label.
Right, and I was also thinking about this for our small labels, but i really don't see much advantage in it. We would still want to transfer the country code to be viewable on the release page, and there would no doubt be times when a label has more than one country and introduces complications etc.
` ``posted ``8 months ago``.`
[/user/Spy\_On\_Summer **Spy\_On\_Summer**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/nik **nik**] We can be as strict as necessary with this. I think the BIEM codes should be 'translated' into human-readable countries, and entered into the country field as usual.
but that is not sooo easy. it works for 70s releases. but before and later it can be complicated (like stormbringers swedish example) from the biem.org site: *BIEM was formed in 1929. Originally it exercised the licensing function on behalf of its European members but in 1968 those responsibilities reverted to the individual societies.* -\> a lot of pre68 copies have only BIEM on the labels e.g. [](http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?what=R&obid;=806276) *Every time a CD, audio cassette or LP containing protected musical works is made, the producers require a license from the owner of the works and they must pay royalties for each copy they manufacture and sell. The mechanical rights societies issue the licenses and collect the royalties which they distribute to the owners of each work.* now does it always mean the distribution area or could it also be the country of the "producer"? i though about this for a long time now: on scandinavian copies ("Made in Holland") is sometime a "NCB/BIEM" (market: scandinavia / made somewhere in BIEM territory????) or european copies of CBS: "BIEM/STEMRA" (market: some of the BIEM countries/made in Netherlands???). could this be possible? (it would also fits stormbringers example (swedish pop artist) with BIEM/GEMA and made in Germany, sold in sweden). In such cases i am not really sure if the abbreviations of the mechanical rights societies can be translated in an easy way for all releases.
` ``posted ``8 months ago``.`
[/user/delysid **delysid**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Spy\_On\_Summer **Spy\_On\_Summer**] i though about this for a long time now: on scandinavian copies ("Made in Holland") is sometime a "NCB/BIEM" (market: scandinavia / made somewhere in BIEM territory????) or european copies of CBS: "BIEM/STEMRA" (market: some of the BIEM countries/made in Netherlands???). could this be possible? (it would also fits stormbringers example (swedish pop artist) with BIEM/GEMA and made in Germany, sold in sweden). In such cases i am not really sure if the abbreviations of the mechanical rights societies can be translated in an easy way for all releases.
Very interesting idea. This would be supported by the forcing of nearly every german pressing plant that you have to provide a statement from the GEMA which allows them to press your items, even if you don't have GEMA content. So BIEM/GEMA could indeed mean: Content is correct licensed in "Territory of market / territory of manufacturing". About the topic: I also hardly suggest, that only information which is explicit listed on the release should be used on the release page, so I would second the suggestion to remove the country field at all and move it to the label page where it could be named "Label located at: Dropdownmenu". On the major labels the location could be listed with "Worldwide". All the other suggestions by Stormbringer sound very useful to me. Even if there is a high percentage of releases, where that information fields will only list "none" or keep blank, all this fields can only make the whole situation better. Next to that it could be implemented that unused fields will not show up on the release pages. So agreement from me to the following: - BIEM field realised via a dropdown menu with option "none" if not listed on the release - "Made in" field realised over country dropdown, disappears on the release page if no info entered - distributor ditributing cat which links to distributing company pages (similar to label pages) I'm not really sure if a Manufacturing field with number is really needed or not already good enough covered by the "Made in" field, but at least is more info always better then less. What I would additional request would be LC and Barcode fields, but I', sure that that is already in discussion in one of the other toppics I haven't read yet.
` ``posted ``8 months ago``.`
[/user/nik **nik**] wrote:
So the BIEM really means 'licenced in' then. I think we have to take into account all the many releases that have nothing to do with BIEM as well (i.e. make it a generic thing we are looking for rather than a specific thing - imagine if BIEM was to stop existing tomorrow). After saying that, i don't have an issue with making the BIEM codes listable, as long as we have a solid method and explanation behind it. I can see the argument for moving the country field to the label page, but i am still worried about how the small releases will be represented with this system. On a small release, Country: UK probably means 'Licensed, Produced, Manufactured, and Distributed in the UK', so are we going to extrapolate the existing country field into all these proposed new fields for these releases? I am also worried about the added complexity with these updates. May I suggest that working on a document that outlines the 'how to's' for any new system would be a good idea, perhaps one knocked together on the wiki by a few knowledgeable eds?
` ``posted ``8 months ago``.`
[/user/sjcee **sjcee**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/delysid **delysid**] Very interesting idea. This would be supported by the forcing of nearly every german pressing plant that you have to provide a statement from the GEMA which allows them to press your items, even if you don't have GEMA content. So BIEM/GEMA could indeed mean: Content is correct licensed in "Territory of market / territory of manufacturing".
Good idea, but not valid for everything. For example: At the time I used to work for BMG, I was to make picture 12" for Robin S. - I've forwarded the order to our plant in germany (optimal media). But as they don't manufature picture discs themselves, they've sub-mandated the order to a czech plant. In the end the record was not pressed in germany (nor the EU - at this date) - we had to change layouts, because "Made in the EU" (note, not "Germany") had to be removed (note, not being replaced by another info). Finally the release has been manufactured in Czech Republic for the german market (GEMA is listed) - but the majority of sales had been distributed to foreign countries (by demand - not by order of the label) Complicated, innit...
` ``posted ``8 months ago``. ` ` `
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
**So the silence in here regarding this HUGE problem means that submitters are still allowed (or forced!!!) to guess which country to use?** Why should we keep this system? To be honest... it's not even a system because we use different rules for different "labels". Example: I have a release from a swedish artist on a label that was first located in Sweden but then relocated to Berlin. The distributor is german and the publishing company is swedish. The vinyl was manufactured in France by MPO but the label sticker says "Made In Germany" NCB/BIEM (= Scandinavia The Baltic States Estonia and Lithuania). I don't know if the label office was located in Sweden when this particular record was released but the record is listed as a swedish release now. All the other releases on the label except the release after this one (and that is NOT the last release on the label) are listed as swedish releases. Why is only one listed as a german release? Because the system we use to list the country is unclear! The "market" can't be listed correctly with the "system" we have now. If i follow the BIEM code nothing in the country drop down matches NCB even though Scandinavia is pretty close. If I decide to list the record as a swedish release (as it is listed now) that is clearly wrong even if the label office still was located in Sweden. The primary market was never intended to be Sweden anyway. Listing it as a german release seems the most logical thing to me as the distributor is german and the primary market was most likely intended to be Germany. But why make this so complicated and why let the submitter guess or add the country they believe is correct rather than just submitting the information on the record? Following my idea (above) how to list the country would give the following data: BIEM: NCB Made In: France Made In: Germany Yes! It's obvious that we need the possibility to add more than one "Made In" fields. The vinyl might be manufactured in a different country than the sleeve, or as in this case the record might list conflicting information. Then the company fields I've requested would clarify things even more and give: Label: X Distributor: Y Publisher: Z Manufactor [Vinyl]: MPO I haven't linked to the actual label/release in question because I want you to focus on the idea itself, not the data. I understand that my idea might not be perfect but I haven't seen any other idea yet. Time just goes by and we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!
` ``posted ``7 months ago``.`
[/user/Spy\_On\_Summer **Spy\_On\_Summer**] wrote:
in reference to ... [*auto-converted long url*](http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=125873#1648616) ... i think a combination of both (countries & companies) would be better. 1. field: "Mechanical Rights Society" with a dropdown list 2. [role] [company] [country] your case: MRS: [NCB/BIEM] [Pressed] by [MPO] in [France] [Made] in [Germany] ... a scipt could add "by" between role and company if a company is listed and an "in" if a country is listed. so you can have for example: [Pressed] by [MPO] [Pressed] in [France] [Pressed] by [MPO] in [France]
` ``posted ``7 months ago``.`
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
That's a good idea!
` ``posted ``7 months ago``.`
[/user/Spy\_On\_Summer **Spy\_On\_Summer**] wrote:
here are two examples why a combination would be usefull: [/release/11826 Shout To The Top] (p)&(c) JBO LTD. V2 Distribution - UK: 3MV/Pinnacle, Benelux: P.I.A.S., France: Sony Music, Germany/Austria: Rough Trade, Scandinavia: S.M.D., Eire: Record Services, Italy: Universal [/release/84246 More Than Distance] (p)&(c) RKM Distributed in France by WEA, Distributed in Belgium by Vogue, Distributed in Sweden by Sonet, Distributed in Netherlands by CNR (the only question is: Have all copies the french cat\#?, because the album Neurovision is listed under different labels and the "belgish copy" has a Sonet logo on the sleeve and a Sonet cat\#: [/release/64115 Neurovision])
` ``posted ``7 months ago``.`
[/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Spy\_On\_Summer **Spy\_On\_Summer**] the only question is: Have all copies the french cat\#?
That type of question is one of the major problems right now. Even if we get a new system to list labels, companies, countries (and more) we still won't be able to update the releases already listed here at Discogs unless we own them. I'm not sure that we can use the images/scans of the records either because even if the submitter of a release also submitted the record image that might NOT be a image of the release in question. If the image submitter was different than the release submitter and doesn't even have the record in his/her collection then the image is useless in my opinion. It will be extremely hard to update the releases already listed here at Discogs because a lot of those only have some of the data submitted. Some are listed with the correct label and the company information in the release notes, but sadly most don't have that information listed. So unless you own a particular release you won't be able to update it even if you are able to see that it's incorrectly listed. That's why I think this problem is a priority. If we wait too long then too many releases will stay incorrectly listed here at Discogs forever. We will probably need some "tag" to mark releases that we suspect don't even exist too. We can't just delete them even if the submitter is no longer a member of Discogs so what do we do with releases that we suspect don't even exist?
` ``posted ``7 months ago``. ` ` `
[/user/kreuztot **kreuztot**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] We will probably need some "tag" to mark releases that we suspect don't even exist too.
like the wikipedia tags:
` ``posted ``7 months ago``.`
[/user/delysid **delysid**] wrote:
![](user.gif "fig:user.gif") [/user/Stormbringer **Stormbringer**] Even if we get a new system to list labels, companies, countries (and more) we still won't be able to update the releases already listed here at Discogs unless we own them.
That could be done with an informing line on the top of the label page which says that this release is a pre "Discogs Vx.x" entry and which disappears when the release get's full updated the next time. But I don't think it is a problem at all. Many releases also only get proper ANVs when someone take it in his hands again. So if building a new country/label system, we only have to convert given information and fill all fields with a "no info" tag where info is not available. Someday anyone will update it (or not) but there is nothing else we could do. And incomplete (not wrong) info is better than nothing.
` ``posted ``7 months ago``.`
[/user/nik **nik**] wrote:
I don't know really what I can add here. As you can see from the complexity of doing a simple guideline update (featuring) and the work that entailed, i think this issue is exponentially more complicated. It seems to me that every point carries with it numerous counter points and questions, every field has issues etc. I would urge anyone who is interested in solving this to please try to start a wiki page trying to sort it all out, it is simply too much to try to 'talk through' on a forum IMHO - we need lists of possible fields together with expected information, known problems, guidelines, update information, etc. IOW the whole thing needs to be written up clearly so it is possible to see what is going on.
` ``posted ``7 months ago``.`