Disque Americ / Americ Disc company numbers

As the usual suspects and other have been adding company numbers to Disque Americ with no discussion I can find and nothing mentioned on the profile or the history, would like to bring this up to see if this can be backed up and added to the profiles.

0AM48 for example, number, 2 letters, 2 numbers

Hmm. I wonder whether these numbers are sequential at all? Or whether we can determine the meanings of any of the letters or numbers, perhaps year/month of glass master. I cannot see any pattern in them so far.

Myriad
I wonder whether these numbers are sequential at all?

Had not looked into it too deeply yet, but this what I wanted to figure out. If it turns out the are not, to have in profiles not to use and what they are (if we can figure it out), and if they are to add that to profile. Will leave comments on those with the number added with a link to here. Maybe they can enlighten us with their deep knowledge of the subject as these would be based on properly backed facts (falls off chair laughing).

trondl, both known for these types of edits, both still at it after they have been explained many times they should not add these numbers to companies without proper backing. There are more like them, many more.

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/search/?barcode=DADR&type=release

You're about to enter a world of pain =o

Another I see adding these all the time with no references is brianvy

dreeat
You're about to enter a world of pain =o

Somebody has to bring it up. Only checked the first pages of both profiles, may be other ways s have been adding them, one added a 3 digit number, another a 4 digit one. I don't want to spend too much time on this as am still working on the Mexican Sonopress profiles. Let the two who added most of these numbers sort it out and back it up, they are convinced they are correct.

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/history?release=2497693&diff=38 ??

xjoxjox
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/history?release=2497693&diff=38 ??

He is now doing a bit of a mass edit adding these numbers since I left the comment. Taking the piss or what?

I believe management has said before these types of edits without backing can be EIed right? Somebody already had EIed some of them 3 months ago by another , but NAPALMED just went ahead and added them again.

Went through some random Americ Disc releases:

MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 1MY92<0241>FISH6CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 158H2<0241>MRG136CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 09GV8<0241>TG342CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 2K562<0241>MRG244CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 055B5<0241>QS67CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 27X51<0241>QS72CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 24NK1<0241>TG225CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 10LP3<0241>DC134PROMO
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0P6Y2<0241>TG162PROMO

MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0QB32<0585>DC100CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 1DYR3<0585>DC143CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 1DYF2<0585>DC151CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 1PZQ3<0585>DC170CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 1P2K3<0585>DC175CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 16V62<0585>DEX15CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 1AQJ2<0585>PR19CD

So far it seems like it's either XYYYX<0241> or XYYYX<0585>

X= number
Y= number or letter

EDIT:

There also seems to be releases with <585> instead of <0585>.

MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0PW52<585>DC88CDPROMO
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0WDF3<585>DC102DEX10CD (http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-735935-1359894704-2448.jpeg)
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0WDH3<585>DC103DEX11CD (http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-689123-1398070404-9238.jpeg)
[note the almost sequential numbers on the last two]

And also with <241> instead of <0241>:

MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0N0S2<241>MRG103CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0QK61<241>ALP58CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0PZE3<241>TG130PROMOCD

Amsreddevil
Maybe they can enlighten us with their deep knowledge of the subject as these would be based on properly backed facts (falls off chair laughing).

On a related note... I recently came across a sub where someone had helpfully added the Cinram company number from the CD matrix. Thing is, Cinram doesn't have any such thing: the string of numbers is merely the date the glass master was made, plus a letter.

brunorepublic
Cinram doesn't have any such thing: the string of numbers is merely the date the glass master was made, plus a letter.

Which is the case for other pressing companies too, also often added as number. At least the Cinram profile is clear about what the numbers are. If s read it they would get it. IF s read it.

There also seems to be releases with <585> instead of <0585>.

MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0PW52<585>DC88CDPROMO
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0WDF3<585>DC102DEX10CD (http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-735935-1359894704-2448.jpeg)
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0WDH3<585>DC103DEX11CD (http://s.pixogs.com/image/R-689123-1398070404-9238.jpeg)
[note the almost sequential numbers on the last two]

And also with <241> instead of <0241>:

MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0N0S2<241>MRG103CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0QK61<241>ALP58CD
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC 0PZE3<241>TG130PROMOCD

dreeat
Another I see adding these all the time with no references is brianvy

The disc manufacturer numbers I add to LCCN are all very obviously sequential numbers (usually a work order (W.O.) number) used by that specific company extracted from the matrix. I don't pull random numbers from matrixes and call them "sequential". I appreciate the name-dropping, but adding matrix info to the LCCN for these companies is fairly well established.

Examples are:
DADC

For vinyl, a couple well-established companies with known pressing sequence schemes are:
Rainbo Records

So, anyways, please don't accuse me of anything "improper" or "illegal".
Yes, I edit these. And yes, my edits are well within the guidelines.

brianvy
Examples are:
American Helix

MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN HELIX -CD02809- SFTRI39CD W.O. 61259-2
MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN HELIX CD02880 RED6036 W.O. 61196-1
Manufactured By American Helix -CD02881- RED W.O. 61260-1
MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN HELIX -CD02919- HALF8 W. O. 61306-1

So why have you chosen the 6XXXX one and not the CDXXXXX one?
Both seem pretty sequential to me...

I am not surprised. Another balls up which could have been avoided had the intention been brought up in the forums first. How many suspensions until it sinks in?

Eviltoastman
Another balls up which could have been avoided had the intention been brought up in the forums first. How many suspensions until it sinks in?

The other s doing these types of edits have never been banned afaik, maybe why they think they can keep getting away with it since the idea came up to be able to add company numbers. Same core group, if not them assuming company numbers, its the buddy voters assuming company credits. When will they all just bggr-off and go somewhere like reetyourmusick or musicksammmler where they can make up their own rules up as they go along and leave this site to those who go about things properly? Rank-hunting-vote-hunting-p.i.t.a.'s.

Anyway, if the main culprits don't chime in here, I will assume they don't care, and management can deal with them, I've done my part, they can sort it out from here.

brianvy
The disc manufacturer numbers I add to LCCN are all very obviously sequential numbers (usually a work order (W.O.) number) used by that specific company extracted from the matrix. I don't pull random numbers from matrixes and call them "sequential". I appreciate the name-dropping, but adding matrix info to the LCCN for these companies is fairly well established.

And yet these Disque Americ numbers appear so far not to be sequential in the slightest. No one has a problem with you linking valid sequential pressing plant numbers, so long as there has been a preceeding forum discussion.

I know we all like to get to enter a company number for pressing plants and make nice neat lists on their label pages, but these XYYYX/XYYYX strings obviously don't meet the criteria. I vote in favour of removing them and editing the profile instructing s not to enter anything in LCCN.

Amsreddevil
He is now doing a bit of a mass edit adding these numbers since I left the comment. Taking the piss or what?

So Biz2Net Corporation (http://discogs.cinepelis.org/submissions?=NAPALMED#=NAPALMED ). What is the merit of this, and what does he mean to imply? I, for one, can't see any pattern in these numbers. Needless to say, this mass edit was unannounced and unexplained.

[edit: grammar]

pic
this mass edit was unannounced and unexplained.

And some already buddy-voted correct

Even complete & correct. Ok, another SR is is then.

And another mass edit Media Trade Partner s.r.o. by same adding numbers,

Are we permitted to EI these if they have not been discussed? If anyone has a link to nik giving clearance to do so, please post it, and I will happily EI revert every damn one of these, because my inbox is full of this nonsense and it's time for it to stop.

ChampionJames
Are we permitted to EI these if they have not been discussed?

I am sure there was a statement made sometime last year on one of the many threads brought up on these types of edits. Had sent an SR on this already, should be hearing soon how to proceed.

Am still wondering about http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/53f0d9804c5e2e5763ec30d1 (has Solved added), are those mass edits now accepted? Loads of releases edited there with no proper backing.

Whilst I agree we should be able to, the vote guideline for EI says "if nothing can be saved". In this case, the change is correct change has been ignored. As such I think the correct course of action is to report the mass edit which breaches RSG §14.2.2 and to discuss the matrix patterns ourselves and if correct to update the profile.

It seems to me that the matrix scheme did belong to them but might have belonged to Omni before them (same people afaict, different name after bankruptcy), but the has only added the matrix to the cat# field where Biz2net Corporation appears in the matrix too. Sanctions are left with staff and we mop up the mess it seems.

Amsreddevil
And another mass edit Media Trade Partner s.r.o. by same adding numbers,

These seem to be wrong. They;re on the releases as secondary cat#s and are unique to the release and are not paired to the distributor. I can't see anything on the release which suggests a relationship to the distro.

Myriad
I know we all like to get to enter a company number for pressing plants and make nice neat lists on their label pages, but these XYYYX/XYYYX strings obviously don't meet the criteria. I vote in favour of removing them and editing the profile instructing s not to enter anything in LCCN.

Any more opinions on Disc Amerique while we're here?

Myriad
I vote in favour of removing them and editing the profile instructing s not to enter anything in LCCN.

+1

Noticed this before, but the reverted the edit:
- http://discogs.cinepelis.org/history?release=4860120&diff=7
- http://discogs.cinepelis.org/history?release=4863099&diff=7

Most of the s have now removed the number from the company credit, just the one that did the most is not reacting, guess they were too busy doing yet another mass edit? They have had 4 days to remove the numbers, have been actively submitting and editing, EI those that just had number added in edit, and needs changes votes on the rest?

You know what might be nice... a thread that lists all the already decided/approved companies and their sequential numbers (with examples), a little like the sebfact.

brianvy I was simply stating a fact, it was neutral.
NAPALMED is doing the same thing

brianvy
The disc manufacturer numbers I add to LCCN are all very obviously sequential numbers (usually a work order (W.O.) number) used by that specific company extracted from the matrix. I don't pull random numbers from matrixes and call them "sequential".

This is the attitude some s have, "it is obvious therefore I am allowed to do this" attitude. No, you first need to discuss this, back this up, and if agreed on, add this info to the company profile. Only then should you start adding the company numbers. As you see in this case, they are not correct.

The reason your name is dropped so often these types of threads is because you are notorious for these types of edits, as are the others involved. And all of you are still at it even though you have all been called out on this before. Management asked me how they could make the guidelines clearer. I don't think it is a guidelines problem, I think it is a general attitude problem of a part of this site. They make up their own rule and don't give a crap about procedure. They get put on CIP, banned for a while, but after some time right back to their old tricks again.

It is incredibly frustrating when other s actually open threads, do everything by the book and get nowhere, and these s just go ahead and do whatever they want to. The question is: do we really need s like this on discogs? I think when you have had several warnings about this kind of editing behaviour but keep doing it, 3rd strike out for good. No coming backsies.

For the companies I have specified above (Greg Lee Processing, Rainbo Records, American Helix, Disc Manufacturing, Inc., Disctronics H, DADC), to the best of my knowledge, the sequential company-specific numbers extracted from the matrices have been discussed... so I'm not sure what you're going on about besides the general frustration with s picking and choosing random (guessed & not discussed) numbers. I don't do that. Look at the Rainbo Records pages for editors besides myself, and the clear pressing sequence which has been established.

If I did this in the past, I apologize. I now focus on clear W.O.#'s which have been through the forums.

brianvy
For the companies I have specified above (Greg Lee Processing, Rainbo Records, American Helix, Disc Manufacturing, Inc., Disctronics H, DADC)

Let's start by
Greg Lee Processing - I see nothing about extracting a # for lccns there
American Helix, Disc Manufacturing, Inc. have no profiles, you names the incorrect ones here I take it
Disctronics H - no specific explanation of the lccn number
If these were all discussed, why don't the profiles reflect this info then?

And you still base release date on matrix info. We have been here so many time before with s like you, you are not the only one, you are but one of many who keep doing these things, who think they are a law unto themselves.

, you are in the top 10 ranking, others will look to you as an example.
When I first came to this site, I used to check how high ranking s submitted as example, because I thought they must be doing things correctly by now. I found out that this says sweet f.a., even now there are 8 in the top 15 who do things according to their own rules.

Need to make a new thread "Company numbers added with no backing/discussion/profile indication"

Another one Panteon

Inter-disc GmbH as well

Even worse is the widespread problem of s "filling in" release dates based on these "sequential numbers" when it has been demonstrated over and over again that these numbers do not necessarily correlate with the order in which releases were even pressed, let alone released.

I used to complain about it all the time, but management never seemed particularly interested. So these self-appointed experts in pattern recognition have scrawled their guessed-at dates on untold numbers of database releases as well.

ChampionJames
I used to complain about it all the time, but management never seemed particularly interested.

You happen to have kept track of those? I am in discussion with management at the moment about all this, maybe good to include this in the discussion as well. The more 'ammunition', the stronger the case, and have proper consequences for this type of behaviour. And also the voters voting these edits correct.

I get threatened by a with a NmC vote if I did not remove single tag as he was not satisfied with my sources (4 other releases in MR with no threats or comments by said for single tag), yet this same votes edits correct where lccns numbers were added with no backing, or exact release dates with no sources provided. Go figure.

Amsreddevil
You happen to have kept track of those?

Not specifically. It's so widespread, I wouldn't even know where to start. I know it happened on a great deal of DADC pressings, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Forum search might bring up a few threads in which I complained about it back when these numbers first started to be added. After a while, many of the subbers involved got wise and stopped writing the "release date derived from pressing ###" and simply put "release date" without a source, or surreptitiously added the date in the midst of other edits, without comment.

Here is one that the forum search decided I was allowed to see. There were many more.
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/521519829469733cfcfb946e#521519829469733cfcfb9457

fyi, management's official position on these kinds of edits:
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/54385f445e75a7395c03af3f

Have you figured out anything about the Disque Americ codes yet? I have entered a couple but am not sure they are telling us anything. They don't seem to be sequential.

Hi

is it O.K. to enter this matrix as follows?

LCCN
Pressed By – Disque Americ - 01S12

BaoI:
Matrix / Runout: 01S12 <961> 2GETHER [Disque Americ logo] DISQUE AMERIC

~ thank you in advance

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
is it O.K. to enter this matrix as follows?

LCCN
Pressed By – Disque Americ - 01S12

BaoI:
Matrix / Runout: 01S12 <961> 2GETHER [Disque Americ logo] DISQUE AMERIC

~ thank you in advance

Please do not try to make guesses about company numbers. If there are not very clear instructions on a company profile, including links to discussions posted in the history, then please do not enter numbers for pressplants in the LCCN.

ChampionJames
Please do not try to make guesses about company numbers

thats why i ask :-)

so i enter:

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
LCCN
Pressed By – Disque Americ

BaoI:
Matrix / Runout: 01S12 <961> 2GETHER [Disque Americ logo] DISQUE AMERIC

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
thats why i ask :-)

Why edit out my "please" to make it seem confrontational? Seems odd.

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
so i enter:

Yes, that looks fine, based on the images.

mjb
Have you figured out anything about the Disque Americ codes yet? I have entered a couple but am not sure they are telling us anything. They don't seem to be sequential.

Then please remove them. Other s are still adding these, think a clear addition to profile text should be done to not add any numbers at all to the company number field.

Why is this discussion focusing so much on the codes from the matrix needing to be SEQUENCIAL. Most importantly they seem to be unique - at least, I couln'd find an instance, where the number/letter combinations appeared twice.
They seem to have used a unique code to identify either their masterings or their pressings.
Without any inside source as to how these codes were generated or used by the company, we might not be able to decipher them - BUT, that still makes them unique identifiers.
Instead of neglecting them, I think rather a solution should be found as to HOW to enter them or IF to enter them at all.
I don't see anything hurtful to the integrity of the database to add them in an orderly fashion. Just because we don't know their meaning does not make them wrong IMHO.

Mr.Slut
Why is this discussion focusing so much on the codes from the matrix needing to be SEQUENCIAL.

Because that is what the guideline requires. (RSG §4.7.2) If you want to lobby to change the guideline, that's a separate discussion.

[Nevermind.]

ChampionJames
[Nevermind.]

Only took a year, others take 2 to react ;-) Funny how a little needs minor changes vote gets things rolling...

just looked at a bunch of releases from Americ Disc ordered by year and I think that those numbers might be sequential
this pattern:
XYYYX<XXX> or XYYYX<XXXX>
X= number
Y= number or letter

seems to have some logic
it's starts from 0YYYX and then it goes to 1YYYX and then 2YYYX
the second number/letter seems to go sequential too firstly the numbers [from 1 to 9] and then the letters [A to Z]
it's really hard to know for sure as there isn't much full string matrixes added

also this pattern:
MADE IN CANADA BY AMERIC DISC XYYYX<XXXX>[catalog number]
seems to start around 1994, before I found different pattern altogether or in the early 90's with only 3 or 4 characters before <XXX>/<XXXX>

also looks like numbers on Disque Americ are supplementing eachother [nothing strange as it's the same company]

i think the only way to be sure is by ing someone who worked there
don't know if the places still exist as a manufacture just by different name or been closed down completely

I agree with Mr.Slut

Mr.Slut
Why is this discussion focusing so much on the codes from the matrix needing to be SEQUENCIAL.

Because the management conscession to actually allow them at all was that they had to be sequential.

vellozet
I agree with Mr.Slut

It doesn't matter. I might agree with stamping on kittens, it's against the law and generally frowned upon, so just like adding non sequential numbers I don't do it.

Mr.Slut
Most importantly they seem to be unique - at least, I couln'd find an instance, where the number/letter combinations appeared twice.

This is not a satisfactory condition. Matrices by definition are normally unique. Even CDr batch numbers can be unique to the individual piece.

ChampionJames
Because that is what the guideline requires. (RSG §4.7.2)

I was not aware of this strict definition.

Eviltoastman
Matrices by definition are normally unique.

Exactly, that's why they should be added. They are identifiers.

Eviltoastman
Even CDr batch numbers can be unique to the individual piece.

Never seen that...

But back to the problem at hand, as noboby bothered yet to comment on the great detective work julass provided.
As they seem to follow a sequencial pattern, I see no reason not to include them in the LCCN section.

Mr.Slut
Exactly, that's why they should be added. They are identifiers.

5. Barcodes & Identifiers
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode.html

It's exactly why they should be added to the identifiers section. No mitigation for the cat# field at all.

Mr.Slut
Never seen that...

I have. So no you know.

Mr.Slut
great detective work

What? Sadly Julas did nothing of note apart from state what we already know, that in order to use these we need someone who was familiar with the workings at the plant to confirm they are sequenced. Since it's not obvious and that a certain leap of faith is currently required they stay in the matrix section of the baoi area.

julass
the second number/letter seems

"Seems" relates to appearance. We don;t need them to seem that way, we need them to be that way. If we cannot establish that they are sequential, then we cannot use them in the manner being presented. They stay in the identifiers section as per section 5 of the guideline and the aforementioned guideline that James advised.

Mr.Slut
I was not aware of this strict definition.

Now you are so that's some progress in this thread.

julass
i think the only way to be sure is by ing someone who worked there

so my "great detective work" took me about 20 minutes [imagine what could be done in a year that ed since this thread was created]
but that was enough to see that there is a pattern in those numbers: 01YYX, 02YYX, 03YYX... 0AYYX, 0BYYX... 0ZYYX, 11YYX etc...
so there is some sequence... the question is do we need to add those numbers to lccn section at all? apparently there's no need so a note could be added to the both profiles explaining about not adding those numbers, linking to this thread, and then other s could have proper proper "weapon" against those who consequently adding those numbers to lccn

julass
so there is some sequence... the question is do we need to add those numbers to lccn section at all?

I would say yes, as it would then show up in the company entries. We might be able to decipher the pattern more clearly, if more entries would feature that code.
The more info there is, the more we can find out (probably).

julass
but that was enough to see that there is a pattern in those numbers

We established that at the start.

julass
so there is some sequence

That's not sequencing. it;s a three digit prefix which is repeated. Thae pattern isn;t ujderstood so Mr Slut's post just above this is pretty redundant.

julass
do we need

We never need. However we can if the guidelines are satisfied and in this case we're on the way to Barbados but still tied to the docks in Russia.

Eviltoastman
we're on the way to Barbados but still tied to the docks in Russia

ha ha ha! XD