Discogs Guideline Review 2009

This page is now locked, please put any new guideline TODOs at


This page follows on from the Guideline Review 2007/08

This page should be used to list out all the outstanding identified guideline changes that still need discussion, formulating etc.

General Guideline Todo

  • Add glossary
  • Outline new guideline update procedure
  • Create draft PDF
  • Tie guidelines in with current + possible future error checks
  • Review QuickStartGuide, see if it can be made shorter?

Specific Guideline Todo

1. General Guidelines

  • Explain when a combined release should be entered as one Discogs release, and when it is considered two items
  • Explain when packaging (or lack of packaging) can denote a unique release
  • Remove ""Lower case joins are accepted only for the abbreviations "vs." and "w/". " -
  • Broaden the ANV guidelines (rule 6) regarding typography and punctuation to other text in general:
  • Redo pt 5 of errors + conflicting info - the conflicting title example is already covered in a more concise way in the title guidelines -
  • Update HTML guidelines for strike through
  • Add Format Free Text Field to the caps guidelines

2. Artist (inc ANV and joins)

  • Join field + colabs - rewording proposal at . This incorporates or attempts to address the following:
    • Solve or explain the joined / separated artist name problem - Why is Simon And Garfunkel joined? When should this rule be followed?
    • Should there be an automatic separator used for the join field? ATM it defaults to no separator, but this is usually (always?) not applicable. "a comma between them if there is no joiner on the release itself.". mjb I believe suggested that the slash (/) seems to be a good default, but pipes and commas are also a possibility. nik - let's go with a comma, it's less visually distracting for me and strikes me as less 'loaded'.
    • Make clarifications under "The Join Field and Artist Collaboration" section that collaborating artists must be distinct. So, (artist X) Presents (alias of artist X) is not considered a collaboration; it must always be split. This topic was raised in discussion at and the proposed guideline change is at
  • Make a guideline for what the best Primary Artist Name to use is - see
  • Do not use ANV's on unlinked credits
  • Clarify - see

3. Title

  • How To Interpret Artist Names As Release Titles When Listed On The Cover - "There is no limit to the number of artists that can be listed as 'Main Artist', but the release itself has to show the intention that the artists are to be taken as the main artists on the release (or to list the artists in a way that doesn't allow us to differentiate)."
  • How to title split releases without a given title.
  • No explicit forbidding of slash-separated titles for non-double-A-sided singles without sleeves, should there be?

I think yes! What's the difference if there is no sleeve? In practice this would mean that a non-double-A-sided release will be submitted with only title A if there is a sleeve and with 2 titles if there is not. What's the use of that? Seems confusing to me... (marcelrecords)

  • Add sentence regarding self-titled releases / reorder + minor rewording of guidelines

4. Label / Catalog Number

  • Discuss and figure out something more people can agree upon re: items with multiple cat#s on them: ...Examples include:
    • multiple cat#s for a single item intended to be sold under different #s in different territories (such as on many WEA releases in UK+Europe), regardless of whether corresponding, single-cat# items exist for each territory
    • extra cat#s added by distributors (via stickers, stamps, custom printing, or not mentioned on the release at all) - interesting cases include EFA, Caroline, etc., which call into question where to draw the line between distributor and licensee label
    • cat#s in typographic artwork, including those possibly accidentally left on an item by a licensee label
  • Explain matrix numbers and their use as catalog numbers
    • Some discussion is here:
    • A specific proposal is here:
  • Explain how to differentiate between a new label, and a series on an existing label
  • Something needs to be added about cat#/distribution code confusion. It is hard to differentiate between the two looking at a release in isolation.
    • Recent:
    • What is the difference between a label cat#, distribution cat# and distribution code? One difference is that the codes are repeated on seemingly unrelated releases, but they do change. Why should they not all go in the cat# field?
  • add the situation of jamaican matrix numbers to the next guideline revision (as in: DSR... are not catalogue numbers but matrix numbers, please add them to notes blahblah)
  • Typo fix: The "by released" needs to be replaced with "for release" in this sentence: "DIDX - Recordings pressed by DADC by released on non-Sony-affiliated record labels."
  • Explain the correct action for capitalisation differences in catalog numbers - follow mjb's logic?
  • Update label guidelines for distributors and the like -

5. Format

  • MP3 - Update to make clear that Qty should be used for # of audio files
  • CD versus CDr - Needs a few lines (and a picture) to explain that commercial, consumer-audio CDRs (a.k.a. audio-CDRs) can very well include a barcode and etched numbers, but no IFPI codes. A serial number, however, is (seemingly without exception) always printed in a "dot-matrix"-like format on the inner ring.
  • CD versus CDr - Pressed CDs often are visibly different in their data-containing portions, so remove the following blanket statement from the guidelines: An additional method to discern if the media you hold is a pressed CD or CDr is to look for a difference in the hues. A CDr that is burnt will display a ring where the data has been written. The ring starts from the inner hub, and will be a lighter shade than the rest of the CDr. The less that has been burned, or the shorter length of the stored audio, the smaller the burnt circle will be. You cannot tell how much data is stored on a pressed CD by this same method, as the whole underside will be a consistent color.
  • From - remove "Technically, LP describes the use of micro-grooves on the record to lengthen the playing time." - not factual - see
  • Clarify what an item is regarding the Free text Field.
  • 'stamped' should really be 'stamped, stickered, or similarly altered' at -

8. Genres / Styles

Why are styles required for the electronic genre and not for the rest? Proposal - remove this requirement or even extend it to the other genres.

9. Credits

  • Need to work on the page indexing! "Indexed credit roles (ie. Producer, Mixed By) that entered in the same field with other multiple roles, are not indexed into their proper section on the artist page."
  • Write guideline regarding how to credit complex / duplicated / subset credits, for example (Artist & Artist's "The Group" Remix) - discussion at
  • Allow mastering engineers 'signatures' in the run out grooves to count as normal credits -
  • Make it clear which ways credits can be entered
  • Update the 'Written By' guidelines
  • How to add presently unlisted credits

10. Release Notes

  • Resolve conflict between stated "Forbidden content for the release notes... Excessive cosmetic text formatting using HTML codes. Using italics or underline when referring to album titles is fine, but attempting to mimic every aspect of typography on the packaging is overkill" and
  • Mention liner notes not being acceptable

11. Tracklisting (inc all tracklisting field rules)

  • How to create nested index tracks
  • Some minor track position guideline updates discussed at
  • Clarify index track usage

14. Updating An Artist

  • Improve the Alias section link to ANV, and explain the difference

Format List

  • Update some entries

Voting Guidelines

  • Add

Updating Release Information Guidelines