Guideline change proposal – Format (gatefold-type packaging)

In Biggest pet peeve on Discogs?, I made the following post, and thought since it's the season for making wishlists, I'd re-post a version of it here for community (and database management) consideration to add to RSG §6.

Addressing the conditional/subjective and unstructured data nature of FTF (RSG §6.1.6.) as it relates to gatefold-type (and others ... digipak, slimline, etc.) packaging.

If a release is issued in a gatefold jacket, the "correct" placement of that format element in the submission form depends entirely on analyzing the rest of the subs in a Master Release. Which not only relies on whether other subs have complete/accurate data/images, the "correct" placement is subject to change if it turns out there's a version in a different type of packaging.

Meaning a sub's "correct" data state is not observable in and of itself, and "Complete & Correct" (RSG §20.2.5.) is subject to factors outside of the physical release elements.

An structured/objective data element (i.e., checkbox group in the format section for packaging that would include common packaging types — derived from the now-defunct Packaging wiki: Sleeves (& Other Vinyl Housings) — potentially differentiated by media type), would benefit the database by:
- ing the new filtering tools
- Search/discovery
- Standardized terminology (with language translations).
- Minimize the need to edit every sub in an MR when its packaging facts change.
- Free up the FTF for more meaningful differentiation data, instead of repeated in most every sub.

And the resulting display could potentially hide/show the format element conditionally in certain displays if so desired by the database designers.

This was already done for Stereo (Guideline 6.13 has been changed regarding stereo tag), so that one submission's channel format was not conditional upon another being added to the MR.

Further, the "Stereo" descriptor will not show in certain displays (like MR, related releases, collection/wantlists, marketplace, etc.), only Mono.

So it's been shown that this can be done for format's channel section, why not packaging?

But even if a submission form modification of the format options is not feasible at this time, the FTF could still be considered the only "correct" placement for the packaging description, and not its conditional placement, by slightly modifying the guideline.

That is ... either "packaging" is part of the format (RSG §6.), or it's not (RSG §11.). So ideally the data can have a "permanent" home in the submission data.

Therefore proposing the following modifications to RSG §6.:

6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe:
Any notable packaging (for example, gatefold sleeves, Digipak, etc. (see 6.1.6)).

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.

Thank you for any or other ideas on this proposal.

j_lit
Therefore proposing the following modifications to RSG §6.:

6.1.5. The Free Text field should be used to describe:
Any notable packaging (for example, gatefold sleeves, Digipak, etc. (see 6.1.6)).

Yes please, or just a packaging dropdown as requested for years.

would love a packaging field (with drop down to standarlise) but I could live with a change of guidelines to allow it to include packaging aswell.

Would prefer a packaging field.

But if we can't have that, then this will definitely put an end to the small edit wars where digipak gets added incorrectly and later removed, and later added again. I am assuming similar edit wars occur for other types of releases as well.

+1 to your proposal! Thanks for making it!

A packaging field.
I prefer a free typing field with automatic suggestions (for standardisation) over a stiff dropdown (which would require staff intervention any time a package type is missing.)

j_lit
Digipak

Small side note:
I prefer the term digipack for the guidelines instead of the specific brand Digipak.

Dr.SultanAszazin
I prefer the term digipack for the guidelines instead of the specific brand Digipak.

Noted, thanks. Was just basing that comment since that's what's shown verbatim in RSG §6.1.5./RSG §6.1.6. as well as the former packaging wiki.

Slightly off topic, but are there non-branded digipack-style products? Similar to Unipak, that's a product/style typically unique to Shorewood Packaging.

Thanks all for comments so far. Agreed, a dedicated field/section/dropdown separate from the media would certainly be welcome as well. IMO, it would presumably mean a rewrite of the format section itself, since "Box Set" -- a type of packaging -- is already a dedicated option (RSG §6.19.).

I just saw an expansion of the checkbox groups per format (i.e., for vinyl, below channel, above FTF) as an "easy" expansion of the existing form structure.

But in the long run, a dedicated packaging section altogether, incorporating box set and with its own FTF, does make good sense, and would allow the "all media" to be better understood by s, and not compete with box set.

Whatever the solution, ideally just something to remove the conditionality of where the packaging data go in the submission form.

Thanks again.

j_lit
are there non-branded digipack-style products?

Yes, any "Digipak" is branded somewhere (usually the tray), the generic ones don't have a brand, or a different branding.

Warepire
then this will definitely put an end to the small edit wars where digipak gets added incorrectly and later removed, and later added again. I am assuming similar edit wars occur for other types of releases as well.

Yes, this is the exact scenario I'm referring to! Far too often in vinyl release Master Releases, where a later reissue, or an issue in a different geographic market, may come out in a different packaging style, causing all the original issue subs to have to be edited accordingly.

Warepire
Would prefer a packaging field.

But if we can't have that, then this will definitely put an end to the small edit wars where digipak gets added incorrectly and later removed, and later added again.

+1

Sorry all, I just realized I posted this thread in general database forum, not advanced discussion, as intended. Will cross-post it there as per that forum's rules.

j_lit
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.

I like this rule. Adding package descriptions to the FTF is pointless if it’s not being used to differentiate between different versions.

j_lit
ing the new filtering tools
- Search/discovery

Can anyone here honestly imagine a scenario where they would use a gatefold or a Digipak filter when searching?

berothbr
Adding package descriptions to the FTF is pointless if it’s not being used to differentiate between different versions.

The point of this proposal is to give packaging descriptions a permanent objective home in the submission form. If that permanent home is Notes only, so be it. As it stands, the "home" for it is conditional (FTF or Release Notes), based on factors not derived from the physical release.

To clarify, the Format Free Text Field's purpose is not *only* for differentiating between different versions, that's only one element. It's also used for describing the format elements that aren't otherwise accommodated by the format description tags.

berothbr
Can anyone here honestly imagine a scenario where they would use a gatefold or a Digipak filter when searching?

I actually do all the time (via the new in-MR search field) -- because in order to properly place the packaging description, one must know whether it goes in FTF or Release Notes due to RSG §6.1.6.

berothbr
Can anyone here honestly imagine a scenario where they would use a gatefold or a Digipak filter when searching?

I was looking for a Gatefold version a few months ago and used exactly that search term.

That aside, it's not always about searching for something from a specific point of view. Data is Data, you never know what you might want to use data for until you have it.

Being able to put actual search queries into the database would be interesting. How often is gatefold used? Have CDs actually increasingly come in gatefold, digipak, or walletfold style releases over time as the large plastic cases have fallen out of favor?

You can get all kinds of statistical information from a properly built database.

cellularsmoke
was looking for a Gatefold version a few months ago and used exactly that search term.

were you satisfied with the results?

Opdiner
or just a packaging dropdown

^This

BaldGhost
were you satisfied with the results?

Eh, the search function needs to be Exclusive, not Inclusive. Searching for LP+Stereo should yield results having both, not either.

Mixed results, but not because of the lack of a packaging drop (though I'm sure that would have helped if it were a wholly separate search drop), mostly because the search function is terrible.

Oh yes, yes, yes +1

Packaging is an integral element of any release and ideally should be given its own format check box's, more so these days than ever before. Even to the extent of including a check box for 'screen-printed jewel cases', but I'll take any improvement, no matter how basic, with both hands.

cellularsmoke
Exclusive, not Inclusive

Additive

cellularsmoke
terrible

yass

Thanks all for the discussion/comments. It seems a majority here would be in favor of the programmatic change to the submission form's format section to accommodate packaging, in whatever fashion that would take.

However, knowing that would take much longer to implement, I do still think that the simple change to remove RSG §6.1.6. as suggested in OP would still bring about the desired benefit to at least make packaging in FTF objective instead of conditional (and subject to repeat edits).

Anything else to discuss here, or shall we invite staff to consider this proposal?

j_lit
I actually do all the time (via the new in-MR search field) -- because in order to properly place the packaging description, one must know whether it goes in FTF or Release Notes

Would you still use that filter if you were not looking for releases with RSG §6.1.6 errors?

berothbr
j_litI actually do all the time (via the new in-MR search field) -- because in order to properly place the packaging description, one must know whether it goes in FTF or Release Notes
Would you still use that filter if you were not looking for releases with RSG §6.1.6 errors?

Sure - such as if some release came in a card sleeve vs. jewel case vs. slimline vs. fatbox in trying to find my copy's version.

Example scenario:
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/master/68475-The-Who-Quadrophenia?format=CD
With 77 versions.
Where if I want to locate the "fatbox" vs. single jewel case version, only one of the four hits in the query has used the term in FTF:
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/master/68475-The-Who-Quadrophenia?format=CD&query=fatbox
And three have used "fatboy"
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/master/68475-The-Who-Quadrophenia?format=CD&query=fatboy
And 18 have used "double"
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/master/68475-The-Who-Quadrophenia?format=CD&query=double
Plus subs that don't state anything though images that show the double thick case:
The Who - Quadrophenia
So we have different terminologies, which would ideally be standardized by formalized tagging, and therefore filterable down to a more reasonable amount of subs rather than having to check all subs to find out their packaging details.

Another example scenario specific to gatefold packaging.
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/master/68451-The-Who-Live-At-Leeds?format=Vinyl
130 vinyl versions, some of which are in gatefold, some not.

A gatefold search query returns 36.
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/master/68451-The-Who-Live-At-Leeds?format=Vinyl&query=gatefold
But only 15 have it in FTF.
And that's because some are returning "non-gatefold" in the notes in the query (e.g., Live At Leeds).

Meaning my query is returning false positives and negatives. So rather than have to hunt through the 21 non-FTF versions that may be gatefold, all 36 versions could be identically tagged and filtered. Let alone the remaining 94 versions of the 130 that don't state anything related to packaging version.

IMO, the more structured the data, the more benefit to the database and its utility.

Now inviting Diognes_The_Fox to consider this wishlist proposal to:

1. Consider removing RSG §6.1.6. so that notable packaging details can be allowed in FTF as a permanent (not conditional) home.

2. Propose to the developers a potential functional enhancement to the format section to accommodate packaging data.

With the assumption that the functional enhancement would take much longer to implement, the database would still benefit from the RSG modification in the near term.

With many thanks for considering or sharing any .

so you mean never make a fuzz again whether it goes to ftf or notes.. so to say even if there is e.g. one digipak version - always to ftf no matter what?

some other choices for dropdown instead of notes: in case of more versions
so all possible packaging in ftf/dropdown.

normal jewelcase (official description?)
super jewel box
double jewelcase
digiPAK ofcourse
digisleeve
book [some are released in bookform with sleeve]

for other packaging
j card (for singles)
cardboard sleeve and variants as it often misspelled as cardsleeve and so.

Chimiel
so you mean never make a fuzz again whether it goes to ftf or notes.. so to say even if there is e.g. one digipak version - always to ftf no matter what?

I think the "notable" statement is still our guide here. If Digipak/digipack (or gatefold) is notable, and you would otherwise document it in the release data, then yes, packaging info would go to FTF. Today, sometimes it goes to FTF, sometimes it's prohibited from FTF. The point of the proposal is to not make its location in the submission form to be contingent on the rest of the Master Release subs. Pick a spot, let it stay there without conditionality.

Chimiel
some other choices for dropdown instead of notes: in case of more versions
so all possible packaging in ftf/dropdown.

Yeah, hopefully they could just take the terminology that was already well documented in the former packaging wiki as a start. I'm sure not all permutations could be ed for, but at least the basics, and then a packaging-specific FTF could allow for expansion (e.g., tri-gatefold).

j_lit
So rather than have to hunt through the 21 non-FTF versions that may be gatefold, all 36 versions could be identically tagged and filtered.

Is searching for the CD manufacturing/BAOI into more effective than drilling down by packaging description?

berothbr
Is searching for the CD manufacturing/BAOI into more effective than drilling down by packaging description?

Hmm, I would imagine both, depending on what one is searching for. Is there a reason this would need to be a choice?

I would add also signed.

Time changes, now artits sell specific releases which come signed on the jacket, why isn't it possible to add signed in the format in these case? it's a very obsolete rule, and it would make the researches quicker

VinylsLove
I would add also signed.

Time changes, now artits sell specific releases which come signed on the jacket, why isn't it possible to add signed in the format in these case? it's a very obsolete rule, and it would make the researches quicker

As far as I can recall, "signed" isn't considered part of the format, and therefore ineligible for RSG §6.1.5. If that changes, then yeah, ideally it could be formalized into the proposed submission form packaging option.

The only downside I can see to the proposed change is that there will inevitably be s who use it to add "non gatefold" to releases in an MR that has a mixture of sleeve design. This happened recently which is why I bring it up. I can't help but feel that the intention of the current rsg was to avoid such instances.

Danthewhippet
The only downside I can see to the proposed change is that there will inevitably be s who use it to add "non gatefold" to releases in an MR that has a mixture of sleeve design. This happened recently which is why I bring it up. I can't help but feel that the intention of the current rsg was to avoid such instances.

Yeah, I can see that point. In today's world at least, if there's a mixture of gatefold and non-gatefold versions in an MR (e.g., Eagles), without ing info or images showing what style it's in, some kind of packaging description -- non-gatefold or what have you -- would be needed to avoid potential merges per RSG §1.4.2.

But sticking to the "notable" threshold for FTF already in place, non-gatefold still wouldn't meet that criteria, IMO.

Though if the actual packaging functionality gets built out, perhaps a "standard" packaging option could for this?

j_lit
Is there a reason this would need to be a choice?

I’m just trying to understand why people think this data is useful in the format.

berothbr
I’m just trying to understand why people think this data is useful in the format.

Got it. Well, IMO, structured data is far more valuable than unstructured data in a database. And packaging is an integral part of a release. As it stands, some packaging elements are already part of the Format RSG §6. -- Box Set, "notable" packaging in FTF. So it would seem to make sense for the long-term direction of the database to formalize all packaging rather than it remaining piecemeal, the same way other sections of the submission form have been evolved over time. There was a time not so long ago when company data, runout data and credits were placed in the Release Notes only. Surely the database is better off with these in the submission form.

j_lit
formalize

this is the crux. This logic also applies to things like push out centers on 45s: some say “4 Prong Centre”, some say “Pushout Centre” and don’t specify 3 or 4 prongs, and don’t capitalize correctly in FTF etc. etc. ad infinitum. If there’s a commonly-found characteristic that can be defined, let’s define it and remove the fuzziness.

BaldGhost
j_litformalizethis is the crux. This logic also applies to things like push out centers on 45s: some say “4 Prong Centre”, some say “Pushout Centre” and don’t specify 3 or 4 prongs, and don’t capitalize correctly in FTF etc. etc. ad infinitum. If there’s a commonly-found characteristic that can be defined, let’s define it and remove the fuzziness.

Indeed, perfect example.
Anything that applies structure and reduces -based decisions (i.e., "preference"), the better. How many debates over the years here on BaOI descriptions of runout vs run-out vs. deadwax vs. matrix groove, etc., that could all be solved by making a dedicated field in BaOI for these data instead of commingling multiple types of data into a single field, requiring s to redefine the field each time. Let s focus on adding the data, and let the database control the structure and presentation.

I agree that the current system for tagging gatefold sleeves is unwieldy, I also see the need to differentiate at MR level between gatefold and non gatefold.
Another request for a packaging drop down.

And a +1 for standardised descriptions, stop pointless editing

Came across previous discussions asking for tickboxes for packaging, with a staff response that it may not be coming soon.
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/713701?message_id=7090212#7088890
That was 9 years ago.

Hopefully it can be reconsidered again.

The format FTF is getting pretty overloaded. So is the format list. I have been tempted to create a rudimentary format subsection for packaging, but I don't think it's a good longterm solution (and probably not worth issues an immediate mass edit stampede that will likely cause).

It's doubtful anything is going to change here in the immediate near future, but I've added it to the list of stuff to ask around about.

Diognes_The_Fox
The format FTF is getting pretty overloaded. So is the format list. I have been tempted to create a rudimentary format subsection for packaging, but I don't think it's a good longterm solution (and probably not worth issues an immediate mass edit stampede that will likely cause).

It's doubtful anything is going to change here in the immediate near future, but I've added it to the list of stuff to ask around about.

Thank you for acknowledging, so we at least can temper expectations on this, much appreciated.

Yes, the Format FTF being used for things that are not related to the format -- just what may be seen as any potential differentiation attribute (e.g., artist credits) or essays in the FTF, certainly contributes to this overload situation, IMO. Given the evolution of the filtering with the recent site design enhancements, it would certainly be welcome to restore the Format FTF to be about the "format" only. But that's probably for a different discussion. :-)

I still think there's value in just striking RSG §6.1.6. and making the FTF for packaging unconditioned, since packaging is already in the FTF sometimes.

But if that's not possible at this time due to other potential format enhancements, or the subsequent mass edit stampede even that would cause, I will understand.

Diognes_The_Fox
The format FTF is getting pretty overloaded.

Maybe it should be noted that the perception of overload, might also be caused by certain design decisions.
Discogs has a limit on the screen width. Vertical compositions have two effects:
- They create tension (that's the reasoning behind the vertical Gothic cathedrals, impose the people by vertical tension)
- Limited width causes less info to fit on a single line. Too much line breaks make reading a hard thing

The mandatory capitalisation in the FTF doesn't help either. Smart capitalisation (first word of an expression, rather than every word) is far more relaxed to read.)
You Can Immediately Feel The Effect Whenever You Start To Write Complete Sentences With Every Word Capitalised.

Unused screen space is a waste anyway. Since about a decade, every screen is in 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio, Almost anyone has 1920 pixels or more screen width. about 720 of those are empty bars on Discogs. It's good the site worsk with limited screen width (working half screen, rotated screen, etc.) But it should never be a reason to put a limit. (I use a script to override that limit + some other tweaks.)

The limited screen width is the main cause of the perception of "clutter" and "overload" on this site. (including the forum, where a short paragraph quickly turns into some huge block of text.)

Other possibilities are to use a slightly smaller font for the FTF.
By adjusting the layout, one could allow long FTF content, without any overload.

(Not that I'm in the opinion we should encourage entering more than what is useful in FTF, but huge MR's might benefit from more FTF info, rather than less.)
A standard field/checkboxes to list the package would be good, even if it would only be visible when opening up the release. This stimulates defining the package type a bit more than release notes. It could also be used for filtering purposes in the MR.

Although I understand all these things don't have highest priority. It's in the area of fine-tuning.
More urgent improvements would for instance be a way to rename a PAN without having to individually change all individual releases. We just entered the year 2025...

So, currently, if more than one version is gatefold, gatefold should not be added to FTF, correct?

Earjerk...
So, currently, if more than one version is gatefold, gatefold should not be added to FTF, correct?

No, if just one version is non gatefold, those that are should be noted

avalon67
No

Great! Thank you.

Diognes_The_Fox
The format FTF is getting pretty overloaded. So is the format list. I have been tempted to create a rudimentary format subsection for packaging, but I don't think it's a good longterm solution (and probably not worth issues an immediate mass edit stampede that will likely cause).

It's doubtful anything is going to change here in the immediate near future, but I've added it to the list of stuff to ask around about.

Then instead of adding a subsection, I suggest Discogs add a new (full) section for All Media then. :) There's a lot of information in the Format section that actually applies to the entire release, and although it may take a while to get it coded right, a split of the information in the Format section will definitely improve the database and drastically reduce the overuse of the Format section's FTF field.

Using the checkboxes available for CD releases as an example, the following checkboxes currently in the Format field would go into the new All Media section:
Advance, Club Edition, Deluxe Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Partially Unofficial, Promo, Record Store Day, Reissue, Repress, Special Edition, Test Pressing, Unofficial Release.

I'd also like a new subsection in Format (since I'm asking for the moon here anyways) called "Other" that the checkboxes for Copy Protected, Enhanced, Mispress, Misprint, Mixed, Partially Mixed, & Remastered can go. If you can think of a better heading than Other, then let's have it!

That leaves the following checkboxes in the Description subsection:
Album, Compilation, EP, Maxi-Single, Mini-Album, Mixtape, Sampler, Single, Tour Recording.

Then Discogs would add the following new checkboxes: Censored, Karaoke, Live, Music Video, Partially Live and Uncensored to the Format section (all under the "Other" subsection).

The All Media section
The Packaging section would have a drop down for the packaging (like the Format section has for media types). A good starting resource listing packaging types is the defunct packaging wikilab.

All Media would also have a free text field for:
- Media color (only used if the vinyl was pressed in different colors, or if the CD labels were printed with different label colors) or;
- Alternate cover art variants for otherwise regular releases (examples: the Big & Rich - Horse Of A Different Color with it's different background colors, etc).

All Media would have new Anniversary Edition, Boxed Set, Collector's Edition, Extended Edition, Longbox, Mislabel, O-card, and Retailer Exclusive checkboxes added. Also, the Boxed Set and All Media options would be removed from the format drop down. (No need to add an All Media option in Packaging, since the new section IS All Media) And this fixes that stupid postage calculation bug for when All Media or Boxed Set is added as a "Format". Pat yourself on the shoulder for fixing several issues and numerous grievances at once, Discogs!

Additional updates
For DVD media:
- Add a Region subsection (under the DVD Type subsection) with check boxes for 1 to 6 + "0/All" (since NTSC and PAL both can have regional coding).
- The Multichannel tag would be moved over to the Channel subsection (it's currently in the DVD Type subsection).

For all video media formats, these Format tags would be added to the Other subsection: B&W, Close Captioned/Subtitles, Color, Full Screen, Widescreen.

Reasoning for (maybe debatable) suggested additions:
- Censored because it's helpful to know if the audio on the release has been censored in any way, and Uncensored can be checked if the release has a PA/Explicit label, or if a censored version of the same release exists. Clean and Edited are alternative term options.
- Live/Partially Live because it's helpful to know if there are live tracks on a release.
- Mislabel (or a better name if anyone has one) for when a release has a completely incorrect label printed on the media.
Example of a Mislabel: Hilary Weeks - The Collection
- Retailer Exclusive to for the Best Buy/Target/Walmart/etc exclusives pressings.

I don't know why anyone would debate me on the following, but I want to state it out loud anyways: Karaoke needs a checkbox in the Format section >>> it is absolutely not a Style! Same for Music Video. And then, when Discoggers assemble and eliminate all Karaoke and Music Video style taggings, Discogs Devs can then delete these "styles".

Cheers!

Edit: Originally proposed the new section be called Packaging, now using "All Media", but could also use Edition or any other name if Discoggers come up with a better title to use.

I would love either checkboxes or a drop-down for packaging. This would free up FTF for more useful identifiers (as has been said above).

berothbr
Can anyone here honestly imagine a scenario where they would use a gatefold or a Digipak filter when searching?

Yep. A lot of ‘Motown reissues use the original label and catalog numbers, but omit the original gatefold packaging in favor of less-costly single-pocket sleeves, eliminating a lot of info that’s in there. I don’t mind buying a reissue of a desirable title but I’ll always prefer the original packaging style over one of those cheapos.

star_man_20
Then instead of adding a subsection, I suggest Discogs add a new (full) section for Packaging then. :) There's a lot of information in the Format section that is actually packaging data, and although it may take a while to get it coded right, a split of the information in the Format section will definitely improve the database and drastically reduce the overuse of the Format section's FTF field.

Using the checkboxes available for CD releases as an example, the following checkboxes currently in the Format field would go into the new Packaging section:
Advance, Maxi-Single, Record Store Day, Club Edition, Deluxe Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Partially Unofficial, Promo, Reissue, Repress, Special Edition, Test Pressing, Unofficial Release.

Could you please clarify what you mean here, because nothing here (except Record Store Day, which is another debate, and Numbered) is guaranteed packaging only and can affect the audio carrier as well.

Warepire
star_man_20Then instead of adding a subsection, I suggest Discogs add a new (full) section for Packaging then. :) There's a lot of information in the Format section that is actually packaging data, and although it may take a while to get it coded right, a split of the information in the Format section will definitely improve the database and drastically reduce the overuse of the Format section's FTF field.

Using the checkboxes available for CD releases as an example, the following checkboxes currently in the Format field would go into the new Packaging section:
Advance, Maxi-Single, Record Store Day, Club Edition, Deluxe Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Partially Unofficial, Promo, Reissue, Repress, Special Edition, Test Pressing, Unofficial Release.

Could you please clarify what you mean here, because nothing here (except Record Store Day, which is another debate, and Numbered) is guaranteed packaging only and can affect the audio carrier as well.

Hey my friend, thank you for taking the time to read my post!

star_man_20
Also, the Boxed Set and All Media options would be removed from the format drop down. (No need to add an All Media option in Packaging, since the Packaging section IS All Media for the pressing!)

The above is kind of an answer to your question. What I mean is that those tags are for the collective content of the release, to include images, the packaging, who retailed/sold it, if the release was a CD/DVD/LP/digital combo, etc., all of that.... those tags would apply to all parts of the release equally.

Tags remaining in the Format section could vary on the media, such as a 2 CD release with one disc with enhanced content, one without.
One could have a remastered continuous mix CD, and have a digitally ed bonus remix EP come with it.

Using the last hypothetical, if that's a Record Store Day release, RSD would apply to both the CD and digital , hence the RSD tag would belong in the Packaging section. Or, to put another way, any current Format tag that could only apply to the entire media (or "package") or not at all would go into the Packaging section.

I hope this explanation makes sense.

star_man_20..

( *Quoted.. )

I'd also like a new subsection in Format (since I'm asking for the moon here anyways) called "Other" that the checkboxes for Copy Protected, Enhanced, Mispress, Misprint, Mixed, Partially Mixed, & Remastered can go. If you can think of a better heading than Other, then let's have it!

Why .. would you remove these .. and what is your alternative?

star_man_20
Advance, Maxi-Single, Record Store Day, Club Edition, Deluxe Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Partially Unofficial, Promo, Reissue, Repress, Special Edition, Test Pressing, Unofficial Release.

None of these have anything to do with packaging in my opinion. And going by your definition, you're not talking about packaging at all but a general section that describes the whole release. Would be very wrong to call such a section Packaging.

star_man_20
I hope this explanation makes sense.

I'm still a not following I'm afraid, I will post some examples of what I am trying to convey, which might clarify what I am missing from your explanations:

Advance (not final mix / not final mastering, example): Life Of Agony - Soul Searching Sun
Limited Edition (adds bonus track across different packaging, example): Evergrey - Recreation Day (jewel case & o-card)
Promo (voice overs / "track annoyance" , example): Baroness - The Red Album ("track annoyance")

When the tag is also an indication of how the audio content is different compared to another release, it still belongs in Format to me. How would your suggestion handle these examples above?

If we are wishing for things I would like to sugest:
1. FTF stays for format descriptions only (ei 25th annaversory edition, vinyl color etc)
2. New field for packaging
3. Another new field for diferentiating factors (such as pressing plants, text placements, whatever else is deemed important).

This would free up the FTF so it gets shorter. We would get a field for packaging (as needed) and we would get a separate field to look in/document the nerdy stuff like different pressing plants and such that might just confuse the casual and is only needed when looking to diferentaiate between very similar releases.

EDIT: this was just a thought I had while reading this tread (but it can’t be that much more work adding two new fields rather then one) so there are most likly problems with this or improvements that can be done to the idea.

star_man_20
Using the checkboxes available for CD releases as an example, the following checkboxes currently in the Format field would go into the new Packaging section:
Advance, Maxi-Single, Record Store Day, Club Edition, Deluxe Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Partially Unofficial, Promo, Reissue, Repress, Special Edition, Test Pressing, Unofficial Release.

No idea why Maxi-Single is any less of a format then Single.

Edit: in sweden almost every CD-Single (in 90s-00s) got released as both Single (usually 2 tracks) and Maxi-Single (usually 4-5 tracks) and everybody called them that. Often with different extra track(s) on each to boost sales (I assume)

star_man_20
Using the checkboxes available for CD releases as an example, the following checkboxes currently in the Format field would go into the new Packaging section:
Advance, Maxi-Single, Record Store Day, Club Edition, Deluxe Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Partially Unofficial, Promo, Reissue, Repress, Special Edition, Test Pressing, Unofficial Release.

Almost none of those are "Packaging" at all.
Packaging should refer to the physical container elements only.

Advance, MAxi-Single, Test Pressing, Repress, Reissue, Promo - these are all literally a type of release, part of the Format.

Otherwise we would need 3 sections:
Media Kind (vinyl, CD, cassette, file, etc...)
Release Kind (reissue, promo, single, album, etc...(
Packaging Kind (digipack, gatefold, box set, jewel case, digisleeve, double-CD box, etc...)

Which starts to get complicated if more precise... Not entirely a bad idea but I'm not sure the Database could handle such a massive paradigm shift in thinking and implementation.

Packaging is the least represented, and therefore the easiest aspect to create a new sub-section for; pertaining only to the physical container of the release (should it have one, ed Files have no packaging, USB-stores files would have "Memory Stick" as packaging), including the Box Set from the Format List.

star_man_20
I don't know why anyone would debate me on the following, but I want to state it out loud anyways: Karaoke needs a checkbox in the Format section >>> it is absolutely not a Style. Same for Music Video. And then, when Discoggers assemble and eliminate all Karaoke and Music Video style taggings, Discogs Devs can then delete these "styles".

+1

cellularsmoke
Otherwise we would need 3 sections:
Media Kind (vinyl, CD, cassette, file, etc...)
Release Kind (reissue, promo, single, album, etc...(
Packaging Kind (digipack, gatefold, box set, jewel case, digisleeve, double-CD box, etc...)

Which starts to get complicated if more precise... Not entirely a bad idea but I'm not sure the Database could handle such a massive paradigm shift in thinking and implementation.

+1 I agree it would be a mess but if would worth it.

cellularsmoke
Packaging is the least represented, and therefore the easiest aspect to create a new sub-section for; pertaining only to the physical container of the release (should it have one, ed Files have no packaging, USB-stores files would have "Memory Stick" as packaging), including the Box Set from the Format List.

+1 It's been a mess for years. It definitely needs a revamp.

Chimiel
star_man_20..

( *Quoted.. )

I'd also like a new subsection in Format (since I'm asking for the moon here anyways) called "Other" that the checkboxes for Copy Protected, Enhanced, Mispress, Misprint, Mixed, Partially Mixed, & Remastered can go. If you can think of a better heading than Other, then let's have it!

Why .. would you remove these .. and what is your alternative?

Remove??? I am proposing those be grouped into their own subsection. They should definitely be kept, but better to as their own group.

Edit: Please read again the 5th and 6th words of what you quoted my saying. :)

Warepire
When the tag is also an indication of how the audio content is different compared to another release, it still belongs in Format to me. How would your suggestion handle these examples above?

Ah, thank you for helping ground me, I sometimes see through trees. :) What if the new section were called 'Edition'? Or 'All Media'?

cellularsmoke
Almost none of those are "Packaging" at all.
Packaging should refer to the physical container elements only.

See above.

Relvet
star_man_20Advance, Maxi-Single, Record Store Day, Club Edition, Deluxe Edition, Limited Edition, Numbered, Partially Unofficial, Promo, Reissue, Repress, Special Edition, Test Pressing, Unofficial Release.
None of these have anything to do with packaging in my opinion. And going by your definition, you're not talking about packaging at all but a general section that describes the whole release. Would be very wrong to call such a section Packaging.

Agreed. Please also see above.

Silvermo
No idea why Maxi-Single is any less of a format then Single.

Edit: in sweden almost every CD-Single (in 90s-00s) got released as both Single (usually 2 tracks) and Maxi-Single (usually 4-5 tracks) and everybody called them that. Often with different extra track(s) on each to boost sales (I assume)

I it my limited knowledge on maxi-singles. Thank you for the explanation, I will update my initial proposal to reflect this.

cellularsmoke
Which starts to get complicated if more precise... Not entirely a bad idea but I'm not sure the Database could handle such a massive paradigm shift in thinking and implementation.

Thank you for these kind words. If not implemented carefully, yes there could be some issues. And some s may get upset over it. When Discogs was smaller it wasn't a big issue, but now that Discogs is growing, it needs to expand it's framework. This is essentially adding a new wing to the house, even if it will still be smaller than the others. Discogs is a victim of it's own success in this instance. :) It's better to get the realignment done now as opposed to a few years from now when there are another 10M releases added and it's just that much harder to do. Bullet needs to be bit.

I think, in a long term sense, adding three sections of "Media, Release Type, Packaging" would overall benefit the database more than harm it. But yeah, it would have to be very carefully thought out and implemented. And ideally some serious programming put into automating updating the system.

star_man_20
Chimielstar_man_20..

( *Quoted.. )

I'd also like a new subsection in Format (since I'm asking for the moon here anyways) called "Other" that the checkboxes for Copy Protected, Enhanced, Mispress, Misprint, Mixed, Partially Mixed, & Remastered can go. If you can think of a better heading than Other, then let's have it!

Why .. would you remove these .. and what is your alternative?

Remove??? I am proposing those be grouped into their own subsection. They should definitely be kept, but better to as their own group.

Edit: Please read again the 5th and 6th words of what you quoted my saying. :)

Maybe I misinterpreted the words "Can go".. 🙂😉

Chimiel
Maybe I misinterpreted the words "Can go".. 🙂😉

All good my friend.

With all respect to star_man_20, I think this discussion has gone off into the weeds.

Given the state of the database backend and Brent’s misgivings about even adding one new thing, it might be best to just focus on j_lit’s one request rather than trying to expand this 2-lane country lane into an 8-lane highway.

Showbiz_Kid
With all respect to star_man_20, I think this discussion has gone off into the weeds.

Given the state of the database backend and Brent’s misgivings about even adding one new thing, it might be best to just focus on j_lit’s one request rather than trying to expand this 2-lane country lane into an 8-lane highway.

Ah, my apologies to you, j_lit, sometimes when I have a thought my problem-solving mind kinda takes over me. The original post does a very good explanation of the current issues with usage of the FTF for packaging.

star_man_20
my apologies

No need to apologize! I'm glad this topic has seen some activity, though as we saw above, it seems this is still unlikely to gain any traction with site development as DtF noted. Hopefully some day that changes...