Vinyl sides A B or 1 2?

Discussing with another member sides on a vinyl record.

Should they be A B or 1 2 if on the sides it says 1 2.

They quoted
12.2.2. You can enter the positions from release, or using the Discogs standard positions (see below). The positions from the release are preferred.

I quoted
12.2.3. Side specification is mandatory.
12.2.9. The standard Discogs positions are:
Without sides (for example, CD): 1, 2, 3…
With sides (for example LP, 7", cassette): A1, A2…, B1, B2…

Opinions?

FromLondon
The positions from the release are preferred.

^ this.

12.2.9. tells you the standard positioning, and 12.2.2. states the positioning on the release is preferred over the Discogs standard positioning.

I've been told at various times in the past that this Sigur Rós - Takk... – 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 3A, but was soundly rebuffed.

Here's the resulting thread: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/724733

I'd be interested to know how you plan to enter the track positions with sides '1' and '2'. 1-1, 1-2, ... 2-1, 2-2, ... looks too much like a multi-disc release.

andrenafulva
I'd be interested to know how you plan to enter the track positions with sides '1' and '2'

The question was about a 2 track vinyl.

FromLondon
The question was about a 2 track vinyl.

Definitely A1 and B1 then, or simply A and B. No need to complicate things.

Edit: I originally typed A1 and A2 by mistake, which has just been pointed out. I've now corrected it.

RSG §12.2.3. Side specification is mandatory.
As 1 and 2 can't be a side specification when also used to give tracklistings on CDs, only A and B or any unusual specification (i.E. X and Y) should be used.

andrenafulva
Definitely A1 and A2 then, or simply A and B. No need to complicate things.

A1 and A2 do not conform to RSG §12.2.3, as the positions need to specify the sides. Note that the first post in thread talks about sides 1 and 2, so we have two sides.

esque
A1 and A2 do not conform to RSG §12.2.3, as the positions need to specify the sides. Note that the first post in thread talks about sides 1 and 2, so we have two sides.

Oops! I posted that just before I went to bed and was obviously already half-asleep. I meant A1 and B1, but my fingers didn't obey my brain. I've corrected my post now.

Thanks for picking up on that!

seehaas
Side specification is mandatory.

Indeed, but that statement doesn't mean that the "standard" side specification is mandatory, just that sides need to be specified.

At the end of the day, some people refer to vinyl sides as Side 1, Side 2, and some say Side A, Side B. Discogs states to enter A, B, etc. for track positioning, but if there is info on the release that differs to that, then that info is preferred. Important to that some vinyl do not have side specifications, therefore discogs states to use A, B, etc., as opposed to 1, 2, etc.

andrenafulva
I've been told at various times in the past that this RSG §12.2.2 applies to when the sides are denoted something like X and Y.

X and Y as opposed to A and B? So only letters, or can other identifications (numbers, symbols, words, etc.) other than A and B be used? The guidelines do not corroborate this concept of only different letters.

RSG §12.2.2. You can enter the positions from release, or using the Discogs standard positions (see below). The positions from the release are preferred.

2 options:

1 - the positions from release
2 - the Discogs standard positions

The positions from the release are preferred.

In spoken language -
"A Side" and "B Side" are used for singles.
"Side 1" and "Side 2" are used for LPs

For track numbers, A1, A2, B1, B2 makes sense, keeping it simple and differentiating between LPs and multiple CDs, which are 1-01 etc.

But when it comes to matrix numbers, I always write "Side 1" (usually that's what's on the label). But as long as the meaning is clear, it doesn't matter...

RSG §12.2.7. For side identification ... please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

This does not only refer to "program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks" as side identification and program identification are given with "and"

Yes, please, let's re-invent the wheel on a regular basis. Maybe at some point we'll agree that it is circular and going round, and round, and round.

seehaas, that guideline is only referring to "side identification and program identification" on "multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks". It is not referring to any other formats other than "multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks".

RSG §12.2.7. For side identification and program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

If it does mean what you are suggesting then the grammar is wrong; there should be a comma before the "and", but also it should read something more like:

For [general] side identification, and program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks, ...

or

For side identification [for applicable formats], and program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks, ...

If this is the case then it needs a little rewrite.

For side identification
(and program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks,)
please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

hope this helps

_jules
For side identification
(and program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks,)
please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

Indeed. As cartridges don't have 'sides', but two programmes on the same 'side', that part of the clause can't refer to cartridges.

InDaMode
then the grammar is wrong

Obviously. It wouldn't be the only place in the guidelines where there are small errors in the grammar.
As the guideline is talking about 2 different things, sides and programmes, then clearly the guideline applies to vinyl sides.
Pretty sure I have seen comments from Management in Submission Histories advising to use A, B instead of 1, 2.

Currently the grammar indicates "For side identification and program identification" in relation to "multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks".

If that's not what it means then it needs an amendment. It's a tiny thing, but without the comma before "and" it has another meaning. So should be:

For side identification, and program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks, ...

LolH
then clearly the guideline applies to vinyl sides.

Well, and cassettes.

Originally that sentence was:
For side identification please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

And then someone said: surely it doesn't apply to cartridges, because cartridges don't have sides, ah!

Then the sentence was updated to include programme identification.

Then, inevitably, the § doesn't apply to media with sides like a piece of vinyl, because they're not cartridges.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/356624#7258541

InDaMode
Well, and cassettes.

Yup. Note, I didn't say just vinyl sides :-)

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/720425

Here is the thread that lead to that GL update.

Happy to discuss any suggestions for amendments to make this more clear.

Reworked it out with Nik:

For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language. This includes program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks.

Pushing update.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/356624?page=2#7923856

Thank you!

Yes, quick work, thanks.
I'm sure someone will try and confuse another guideline soon!

Diognes_The_Fox
For side identification, please use A, B

Back to the original thread question, if you could clarify, for a 2 track vinyl with sides 1 2 on it, always use A B?

FromLondon
for a 2 track vinyl with sides 1 2 on it, always use A B?

Erm,

Diognes_The_Fox
For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc

seems pretty clear to me.

Diognes_The_Fox
For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language. This includes program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks.

Pushing update.

Ka-BOOM! That's a great update – thanks.

FromLondon
Back to the original thread question, if you could clarify, for a 2 track vinyl with sides 1 2 on it, always use A B?

I think

Diognes_The_Fox
For side identification, please use A, B

is pretty clear and unambiguous.

– Side identification is mandatory (RSG §12.2.3).
– For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2 [etc] (RSG §12.2.7).

The positions therefore have to be A and B, even if the sides are called 1 and 2 on the release. You can use A1 and B1 for the track positions if you want, but A and B are sufficient when there is only one track per side.

Edit: oh, someone got in while I was typing. Well, +1 to that then.

andrenafulva
is pretty clear and unambiguous.

The thread seemed to move on to talking about cartridges, that's all.

KevinGoebbels
But when it comes to matrix numbers, I always write "Side 1" (usually that's what's on the label). But as long as the meaning is clear, it doesn't matter...

I would say the side stated in the Matrix description should match the tracklisting. So for vinyl would never be Side 1.

FromLondon
I would say the side stated in the Matrix description should match the tracklisting.

So would https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/361822#3367829

andrenafulva
I think

Yes

Diognes_The_Fox

andrenafulva
I think

Yes

Therefore I am.

Hi, it’s me nik. I don’t agree Discogs approach of re-standardizing the side ids. from the original release to Discogs standard of A B. Also the guideline/standard language has to be exact. In RSG §12.2.7 The wording “please use A, B, etc” makes it optional, not mandatory. As I see this topic has been discussed for the last 6-8 years, hope it comes to an end soon with a clear explanation referring the original release side id.

AEKSK
The wording “please use A, B, etc” makes it optional, not mandatory.

No; it doesn't. It's a polite phrasing of a mandatory statement. I'm a native English speaker.

AEKSK
I don’t agree Discogs approach of re-standardizing the side ids. from the original release to Discogs standard of A B.

You don't have to like it, but you do have to follow it if you contribute to the database.

AEKSK
As I see this topic has been discussed for the last 6-8 years, hope it comes to an end soon with a clear explanation referring the original release side id.

And every time the staff have been clear about this: use letters to identify sides. There will not be a change of mind, no matter how much you want that to happen.

AEKSK
The question was simple, why we have to use A B instead of 1 2 for vinyl 7” side id.

I think with the database you want to be uniform across it. Do it the same everywhere. The guideline says use A B for the sides, and the database manager has confirmed it. (I agree it was not 100% clear from the guidelines).

regards

Why we’re trying to do it the same everywhere, while it is different in source? Better staff can explain the reason.

Having A and B clearly indicates both that it is a format with more than one side/program, and what tracks are on which side. If you use only numbering, it’s not clear whether you’ve got one track on each side or a single-sided disc with 2 tracks, or a multi-disc set with one track per disc, etc.

People confuse sides and positions.

For sides its always A B etc with no exceptions.
For the position on the side, the position from the release is preferred.
So A[positionfromrelease]...

Would it make sense to have optional
heading: "Side 1" (as written on label)
A - track name
heading: "Side 2" (as written on label)
B - track name

to show that the pressing uses "Side 1" or whatever but still use the track numbering system of A/B?

ah nvm just read RSG §12.13.4

RSG §12.13.4.: Index Tracks and Headings should not be used for denoting generic side, track position, or separate media data (for example, 'Side A', 'CD1' etc), track numbering is used for this.

The only place where you can mention the side given as on release is the release notes:
Sides are given as Side 1 / Side 2 on release (but that is not mandatory).

seehaas
RSG §12.13.4.: Index Tracks and Headings should not be used for denoting generic side, track position, or separate media data (for example, 'Side A', 'CD1' etc), track numbering is used for this.

The only place where you can mention the side given as on release is the release notes:
Sides are given as Side 1 / Side 2 on release (but that is not mandatory).

This!

Thx for this thread,

velove
People confuse sides and positions.

For sides its always A B etc with no exceptions.
For the position on the side, the position from the release is preferred.
So A[positionfromrelease]...

+1

seehaas
RSG §12.13.4.: Index Tracks and Headings should not be used for denoting generic side, track position, or separate media data (for example, 'Side A', 'CD1' etc), track numbering is used for this.

The only place where you can mention the side given as on release is the release notes:
Sides are given as Side 1 / Side 2 on release (but that is not mandatory).

+1

LolH
FromLondonfor a 2 track vinyl with sides 1 2 on it, always use A B?
Erm,
Diognes_The_FoxFor side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc seems pretty clear to me.

+1

Ps, also for
„This Side“ and „That Side“
„This Side“ and „Other Side“
and so on?

Whilst I cannot disagree with the simplicity of A & B (etc.) I also cannot help but feel this is a slightly more problematic & much less accurate approach on many 7" singles where "Side A" means something.

Buz_not_Buzz
Whilst I cannot disagree with the simplicity of A & B (etc.) I also cannot help but feel this is a slightly more problematic & much less accurate approach on many 7" singles where "Side A" means something.

Or maybe rather by specifically not calling something side A it means something.

I've been travelling (still am) and didn't notice this thread, though it's a topic that https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/13445271-Greatest-Hits-Vol-2/history#latest.

A changed the side descriptors from what I had entered, (which was exact as per each side) to the more generic "side A & B". BAOI Guideline 5.9 specifically says that it is OK to enter each side exactly as per the release. Diognes confirmed this is indeed the case.

This makes sense as it is one very easy way of checking an issue. (Eg, If one issue says "Side One" and a different one says "Side 1" it becomes a clear difference. Describing them as "A" or "B" requires further investigation as the identity of the issue in hand.). When sides are described on the label as "This Side" or "That Side", who is really to say should be "A" or "B". Recording this info accurately in the BAOI descriptors follows the general principle of "as is on the item"

5.9. The description field can be used to add any further information regarding the identifier, such as the identifier type, any descriptive text associated with it, its location on the release, or anything else that seems significant. If an identifier is associated with only a subset of the total labels on the release, you can include the exact label name/s it is associated with.

This is at odds with always A, B etc. and may cause confusion as a different system is used on the tracklisting. I suspect the A, B for track positions is primarily due to the confusion that would reign if, as pointed out earlier in the thread, tracks were positioned by 1-1, 1-2 etc.

Track positions in the tracklisting - the guidelines are clear - A, B and so on in multi side items.
BAOI descriptors - it's OK to use the exact identifier as on the release.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/361822#3367829

Nik says Match it with the tracklist where possible

Diognes_The_Fox says " jopla2 says Side 1/2" needs to be changed to "Side "A/B", to match the positions in Tracklist" - No, it doesn't.

Can you guys talk this one out and decide which it is please. :)

I agree with jopla2, it should match the tracklist A B or specific tracks A2, B4 etc...

Based on my previous post I believe the recently changed guideline could do with a minor modification for absolute clarity:

Is now:
To: For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language. This includes program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks,

Suggested:
To: For side identification for track positions, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language. This includes program identification on multi-program cartridges such as 8-tracks,

Some might understand that as section 12 relates to Tracklisting and section 5 to BAOI that each relevant guideline refers only to that particular topic; others (mis)understand that the tracklisting guidelines also apply to the BAOI guidelines and (therefore) the descriptors.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/361822#3367829

Nik says Match it with the tracklist where possible

With due respect to both yourself and Nik, that quote was from six years ago. It's quite possible that, as the database has evolved, the thinking has become more sophisticated to take in the many nuances that have become apparent.

6338041
With due respect to both yourself and Nik, that quote was from six years ago

It's true. Hopefully Brent can comment here, if not I'll file a request for clarification. I'll it when I see A B tracklist and 1 2 side identification in the matrix I've changed it to A B, I thought it was the rule.

6338041
This makes sense as it is one very easy way of checking an issue. (Eg, If one issue says "Side One" and a different one says "Side 1" it becomes a clear difference. Describing them as "A" or "B" requires further investigation as the identity of the issue in hand.)

The thing is, this is not foolproof either. I've seen hundreds of BaOI descriptions that:
Use 1 and 2 when the labels say One and Two
Use One and Two when the labels say 1 and 2
Use 1 and 2 or One and Two when the labels say I and II
Use 1 and 2 or One and Two when the labels say A and B
Use what the runouts use (1/I and 2/II) regardless of what the labels say

Quite a few of those come from using whatever was copied to draft without changing to align with the specific release but not always.

Nothing beats having label images in an entry, when they are available it doesn't really matter what's in the BaOI description field.

cheebacheebakid
The thing is, this is not foolproof either.

The key word there is "fool". With a bit of care and a review before submitting these errors can be avoided or minimised. It's also where the peer review system assists. Perhaps a checklist before submitting (similar to duplicates checklist) might assist and remind contributors.

cheebacheebakid
Nothing beats having label images in an entry, when they are available it doesn't really matter what's in the BaOI description field.

In general (a picture is worth a thousand words.....) I used to agree with this, though, after using the site on mobile devices, no longer think a pic will suffice - sometimes the "differences" can not be seen on a small image. That's where accurate recording in text is very useful.

I recall reading somewhere in the guidelines that the text and images should complement each other, rather than one being a substitute for the other.

FromLondon
I would say the side stated in the Matrix description should match the tracklisting. So for vinyl would never be Side 1.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/361822#3367829

Nik says Match it with the tracklist where possible

Diognes_The_Fox says " jopla2 says Side 1/2" needs to be changed to "Side "A/B", to match the positions in Tracklist" - No, it doesn't.

Can you guys talk this one out and decide which it is please. :)

I agree with jopla2, it should match the tracklist A B or specific tracks A2, B4 etc...

I didn't understand DtF's decision there. (Where is it btw? That link you quote doesn't refer to it). I mean, if a set positions has been decided to be used in Tracklist, why doesn't that decision apply throughout the release?

It was long time common sense that side info is always A and B.
Until this unfortunate guideline update,

_jules
Originally that sentence was:
For side identification please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

And then someone said: surely it doesn't apply to cartridges, because cartridges don't have sides, ah!

Then the sentence was updated to include programme identification.

Then, inevitably, the § doesn't apply to media with sides like a piece of vinyl, because they're not cartridges.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/356624#7258541

Edit typo

velove
People confuse sides and positions.

Very often!

jopla2
I didn't understand DtF's decision there. (Where is it btw? That link you quote doesn't refer to it).

The relevant guideline that explicitly says it's OK to use the "exact label name/s it is associated with" is 5.9 which discusses the BAOI, specifically the descriptors.

Found in section 5 of the guidelines @5.9.
https://.discogs.cinepelis.org/hc/en-us/articles/360005054893-Database-Guidelines-5-Barcodes-Identifiers

The quote "No it doesn't", can be found:
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/13445271-Greatest-Hits-Vol-2/history#latest

jopla2
I mean, if a set positions has been decided to be used in Tracklist, why doesn't that decision apply throughout the release?

I suspect the set positions in the track list are to make it easy to identify a tracks position on a release. Using the letters of the alphabet for the sides and numbers for the actual position on that side (A1, A2, B1, etc) is easier to read & therefore a less confusing method than using the side descriptor (That side-1, This side - 2, That side - 1, That side - 2, or SIde 1-1 Side 1-2 or (worse) 1-1, 1-2 , 1-3, 2-1).

The fact that it correlates with many items, especially from the USA, may be a coincidence, or, just sensible, given the more "as is on item" options.

When it comes to describing the matrix information in the BAOI, there's no chance for confusion - the descriptor can be correlated with the actual item without confusion - if the descriptor say "stamped runout side one" and the item's label on one side is called "side one", then it's an exact match.

Personally I think describing a side as "A" in the descriptor when the label says something else (1, One, This side, etc) is, at best, a compromise. "As is on item" is very simple and works well.

For a while I was missing the distinction of the rule between tracklist and BaOI description too. Once it was pointed out to me it was obvious and since I have a background in database applications even more so.

The track list fields are DATA and need to be consistent across database to automated searches and sorting and whatnot.

The BaOI descriptions are FREE FORM TEXT, and are there as aides to human readers. They do not need to be consistent from release to release, however it is best if they are consistent within one release. Thus, if one matrix variant is described as "Label Side A variant 1" it is best if the second variant is "Label Side A variant 2" and not "Var2 ThisSide Label". This internal consistency helps the human viewer trying to match the copy in hand to the entry in the database, but it isn't used by the computer systems for other than display.

Changing the way the BaOI description is presented, from say "Side 1" to "Side A" is considered a 'preference edit'. There is no rule that the description has to match the tracklist.

KeithLatham
Changing the way the BaOI description is presented, from say "Side 1" to "Side A" is considered a 'preference edit'. There is no rule that the description has to match the tracklist.

It would be good if there was one.

KeithLatham
The track list fields are DATA and need to be consistent across database

And this simply cannot be true as RSG §12.2.2 states that "You can enter the positions from release, or using the Discogs standard positions (see below). The positions from the release are preferred.", and RSG §12.2.4 that "The positions numbering needs to be under fifteen characters long, and can use lower-case or mixed case letters.".

So basically it's just side specification that is standardized (except in the cases described by RSG §12.2.3 "The side order versus tracklist order will sometimes change on different versions of the release - always follow the side order on the specific release."

Easily reasoned it is not...

FromLondon
RSG §12.2.2. You can enter the positions from release, or using the Discogs standard positions (see below). The positions from the release are preferred.

I've only read the first few posts, but I've always been under the impression that "positions" refers to track numbering/lettering, without taking sides into consideration.

This interpretation allows it to work in tandem with RSG §12.2.7. For side identification, please use A, B etc in place of 1, 2, One, Two, Side One, Side Two etc, including variations in any language.

.
Without seeing the single in question, I can't say for sure, but I suspect that it is Side 1 and Side 2 (since 7" singles with one track per side don't usually bother with track numbering), so I would say Discogs track positions would be A1 and B1, following RSG §12.2.9...
but then shortened to A and B, as per RSG §12.2.5. For double sided releases with a single track per side, trailing numbers are not required (you can use A instead of A1), but they are acceptable.

* Note that everyone except for me chooses to ignore the "single track per side" criteria when applying 12.2.5. (eg. A, B1, B2 when it should be A1, B1, B2).

I just don't see the logic in referring to one thing on a release with two different indicators. Why complicate things and make a problem where there isn't one?

I can think of a problem, these already exist in the database.

Sometimes a credit is sourced from vinyl matrices and there might be unclarity if it applies to the whole release or just the one side (so in Credits positions are needed). Let's say we have the most typical case: "Side 1/2" on labels, so Tracklist will have A1, A2... B1, B2...etc. Matrices are submitted with "Side 1" and "Side 2" though (following what's advised above). But when the credit is submitted, the logical way (IMO) is to enter it as:
Mastered By - XX (tracks: A1 to A5)
and not as:
Mastered By - XX (tracks: Side 1)

Another thing is that substituting 1/2 with A/B is very very very widely used in the db and sticking to 1/2 (when Tracklist has A/B) is something that I see very rarely.

(edit: typo)

FromLondon
It would be good if there was one.

I tend to agree, but I've been slapped down for doing it. And fair enough - I was not following the rules.

poorlonesomecowboy
And this simply cannot be true...

It is the data entry methodology that needs to be consistent, not the data. The data will, of course, often vary from release to release.

KeithLatham
It is the data entry methodology that needs to be consistent,

Still not an argument for side indicators, the consistent Field "Pos :" accepts 15 characters free text.

Right now 'A1' and 'AsongNumeroUno' are both acceptable (if the latter is on release of course - in which case it's even preferred).

My bookmark:

FromLondon
...side stated in the Matrix description should match the tracklisting

velove
For sides its always A B etc with no exceptions.
For the position on the side, the position from the release is preferred.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/798021#7924091

That link looks at track position, not Matrix Description.

FromLondon
That link looks at track position, not Matrix Description.

The majority here was always for side A and B etc

no.signal
My bookmark:

FromLondon...side stated in the Matrix description should match the tracklisting

veloveFor sides its always A B etc with no exceptions.
For the position on the side, the position from the release is preferred.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/798021#7924091

FromLondon
That link looks at track position, not Matrix Description.

The majority was always was for side A and B etc

so far plus this thread i have taken that "Matrix description should match the tracklisting" but it seems this is not the case or, if the standard (one more time) not in the guidelines/changelog...


what is correct?

Matrix / Runout (Disc 1 - Side One): 12345-01 A2
Matrix / Runout (Disc 1 - Side Two): 12345-01 B1
Matrix / Runout (Disc 2 - Side Three): 12345-02 C1
Matrix / Runout (Disc 2 - Side Four): 12345-02 D1

or

Matrix / Runout (Side A, runout): 12345-01 A2
Matrix / Runout (Side B, runout): 12345-01 B1
Matrix / Runout (Side C, runout): 12345-02 C1
Matrix / Runout (Side D, runout): 12345-02 D1

(or something else?)

and:

is a NMIC vote appropriate after a major revision of a release and edit inside this edit the BaoI description to match the tracklisting
from:
Disc 1 - Side One
...
to
Side A, runout
...

no.signal
Matrix / Runout (Side A, runout): 12345-01 A2
Matrix / Runout (Side B, runout): 12345-01 B1
Matrix / Runout (Side C, runout): 12345-02 C1
Matrix / Runout (Side D, runout): 12345-02 D1

+1

no.signal
Matrix / Runout (Side A, runout): 12345-01 A2
Matrix / Runout (Side B, runout): 12345-01 B1
Matrix / Runout (Side C, runout): 12345-02 C1
Matrix / Runout (Side D, runout): 12345-02 D1

Based on this thread
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/805089?page=2#8292707

no.signal
Matrix / Runout (Side A, runout): 12345-01 A2
Matrix / Runout (Side B, runout): 12345-01 B1
Matrix / Runout (Side C, runout): 12345-02 C1
Matrix / Runout (Side D, runout): 12345-02 D1

This

no.signal
is a NMIC vote appropriate after a major revision of a release and edit inside this edit the BaoI description to match the tracklisting
from:
Disc 1 - Side One
...
to
Side A, runout
...

Is a correct edit, should be voted correct.

FromLondon
Is a correct edit, should be voted correct.

Done, I think one more is ok

no.signal
what is correct?

In isolation (ie: just in theory), none of those options are "correct".

The option that uses letters for side identifiers (A, B, C etc) is the acceptable, often generic, method that is used, and may be "correct" some of the time, as outlined below.

The guidelines for the BAOI specifically address this and explain why the generic method is acceptable, along with a more accurate approach.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/798021?page=1&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm#8296632

"5.9. The description field can be used to add any further information regarding the identifier, such as the identifier type, any descriptive text associated with it, its location on the release or anything else that seems significant. If an identifier is associated with only a subset of the total labels on the release, you can include the exact label name(s) it is associated with."

The last sentence is the key - each side is a subset (ie only one of one or more) of the total sides, so it is perfectly OK to use the "exact label name"

The exact labels name can vary - they may commence be "Side A", "Side One", "Side 1", "This side" and so on.

In processing a collection of over 10k I have found examples between variations where the only major difference is the side name - one album had some with Side "one", others side "1".

no.signal
is a NMIC vote appropriate after a major revision of a release and edit inside this edit the BaoI description to match the tracklisting
from:
Disc 1 - Side One
...
to
Side A, runout

If the sides names are recorded accurately in the matrix descriptors, then any change is incorrect. If that change was to a generic lettering name, though whilst the generic lettering is acceptable for original submission, the later change becomes a preference edit (which is not allowed).

If the item that received the NMIC vote recorded the sides accurately (ie they were "Disc 1- Side One"), then that NMIC is not appropriate and I would suggest filing a request. If the item's label names were A, B etc, then the BAOI was in error, though some would say that a NMIC vote is harsh - a comment would have sufficed.

Here's two examples when that (NMIC) occurred and staff concurred that the accurate recording of exact label names in the BAOI was correct:

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/release/13445271-Greatest-Hits-Vol-2/history#latest

The tracklisting position guideline,
https://.discogs.cinepelis.org/hc/en-us/articles/360005055373-Database-Guidelines-12-Tracklisting#Position

default is to identify sides on multi-sided items using letters (A,B,C etc). There is a logic to using the same system throughout the listing, throughout Discogs - it becomes very neat.

The downside it loses accuracy, and given that one of the strengths of Discogs is to record even minute differences accurately (L 35299 & L-35,299 anyone?) because they matter, it fundamentally shifts the focus from reflecting the hodgepodge of different approaches to identifiers used throughout the world, to a "one size fits all" approach.

The tracklisting could be altered to have the sides identified by headings (not allowed ATM), which would largely do away with the conflict between where some info is recorded accurately and other info generically.

6338041
In isolation (ie: just in theory), none of those options are "correct".

Nope, discussed here
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/805089?page=2#8292707
A and B and so on....

punkergott
Nope, discussed here
https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/805089?page=2#8292707
A and B and so on....

Nope - that guideline that says to use A, B, C etc refers to the tracklisting position - - use letters to identify the sides so it clear that which tracks appear on the same side and which ones appear on others. Those guidelines refer to the section of the listing called Tracklisting.

Other guidelines refer to the content of the BAOI which is what is being discussed by the poster I quoted.

Different guidelines for different sections. Observe and respect the guidelines for the relevant section.

According to staff guidelines override discussions.

Don't like the guideline for BAOI?- then ask for that to be changed.

6338041
Nope

The solution in the thread was another

This has become an argument over the Kaiser's beard.
Life is too short.

punkergott
The solution in the thread was another

Prior to posting I checked the BAOI guidelines - they still say that using the exact label names is correct.

As staff have said, guidelines trump discussions.

Come up with, or suggest a thread that explores methods accurately records the hodgepodge of different ways used throughout the world of recording identifiers, side names, track positions, so each individual listing doesn't have "confusing' multiple methods of recording the same info (unless the release also does), and you will assist creating a better approach that uses the "as is" approach rather than shoehorning everything into a "one size fits all" generic one.

I'm agreeing with 6338041.

Honest opinion (I'm sure many would agree/disagree), I find it frustrating that Discogs torment us s with this confusion of the rules, which just wastes our time arguing/debating over this. I'm not up for a divide, but seems like it is sometimes. Unsure about anyone else, but I'm far more up for learning good information from all s and making more time to follow the other Discogs guidelines (it's a long enough guide as it is, as well as the forums and information to go with it). I think I just wasted a stupid amount of time back and forth checking and debating the guidelines and forums on A&B vs. 1&2.

There's not much to learn from two opposing debates on this query and politely request Discogs (If they're following this thread) to logically revise the guidelines to make sense of this question once and for all.

In my opinion I've learnt the hard way and made far too many 1&2 to A&B to 1&2 edits that's annoyed other s and confused the hell out of me when I started listing my mini humungous collection of Records and CDs. I now find it 'FAIRER' that 1&2 is fine (if it's the exact writing on the label), A&B it's fine as well (I'm unsure why it should be though, exact should just be exact), but others should respect either description and shouldn't go changing other's if it's set either way until Discogs finally make a revision on the guidelines.

Rant over with Big Love attached, as I do respect you all and feel your pain on this thread xx

Showbiz_Kid
This has become an argument over the Kaiser's beard.
Life is too short.

'The Kaisers' Beard'.....Great name for a band!!!