Resolved: a URL does not necessarily have to be considered a separate brand

OUTCOME

The consensus is as follows:

It is not necessary to consider a URL/domain name as a separate brand from the company name. It can in many cases be considered equivalent to an 'ANV' of the company name and the two can then be entered using the same 'primary company name' (PCN). Whether the URL/domain name or company name is chosen as the PCN will depend on which form is most often used on releases.

This would not apply in the following cases:
1. The domain name differs too much from the company name to be a variation;
2. The company uses both the name and the URL as distinct entities, pointing to different locations or different processes for their company.
In these cases, we would usually keep two entries: one for the company name and a separate one for the URL.

This is not a blanket decision to eradicate PCNs for URLs from the database. As these cases are not always clear-cut, each case will need to be discussed in its own thread to gain consensus on how to deal with that particular case.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––

For a number of years, the practice in Discogs has been to enter a URL as a 'brand' in LCCN when it appears on the release. This was based on various statements by nik, who was at the time Discogs' database manager, from about 10 years ago.

This has led to multiple entries for the same entity: for instance (an extreme case), www.keyproductions.co.uk.

I've always felt this was a really poor decision, and long blamed nik for it. Looking into it now, however, it seems that he might not have said anything that should have entailed the situation we now have.

Statements I've found from him on the subject actually say that a URL should be used as a PCN ('primary company name') when either:

1. They differ too much from the company name to be a variation, or
2. When the company consistently uses a URL as its branding.

See, for instance, https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/345499?message_id=3274885#3246166

An example of the former case (names differ too much) is one nik gives in that post: SLI Manufacturing Inc. The latter case is common in web-based companies, such as Amazon.com, moneysupermarket.com, and so on.

In the first case, there will be two or more PCNs, in the same way we use aliases for different names used by an artist. In the latter case, there will be one PCN, which will be a URL if that's the company's consistent branding on releases.

However, it seems that nik did not say that a URL must be entered as such whenever it appears on a release - that, in fact, not every URL is a brand; that, in fact, outside of these two cases, URLs can be entered using the company name in the normal form. To use my first example, 'www.keyproduction.co.uk' in a matrix can be entered as Key Production.

On this basis, I'd like to see if we have or can get consensus for changing the practice of always entering URLs for companies as on release, as if they were 'label' brands. Even if nik did make a statement that every URL must be entered as such in the past, we've been told for several years that we are now a community-led database, so we have the ability to over-rule such a statement made in the past if we can get consensus to do so.

So, please chip in with your views. Can we change the common practice so that a URL is only entered as a PCN if (a) it is a significantly different name from other names used by that company, or (b) if it is the form primarily used by the company in its branding.

I hope we can!

Inviting the usual helpful suspects: zevulon

I would be for treating URL branding as an identifier for a company and crediting that company.

If "Orlake" in the runouts is an identifier of dunk!pressing this is already the case, and I don't see a point in splitting subs that say dunk!pressing or dunkpressing.com on a random basis.

It could still be handled on a case-by-case basis, possibly sometimes it might be beneficial to keep separate URL profiles, but when it's clear the URL is just there to identify the company, I'd say let's credit the company.

+1, we should take the context into . I think cases where using an URL as a PCN is appropriate is probably more the exception than the rule.

+1 to all of the above, and for common sense.

I am fully ive of this proposal!

I need to read this closer, but in general I would totally agree that a URL shouldn't be an alias or separate thing, but should be an ANV or just label name variation. Maybe would need to be handled on a case by case basis.

I too have opened a Key Productions thread, to no resolution.

Anyway, when I have more time I'll read this more thoroughly, but I'm generally on board with the concept.

rdvriese
I would be for treating URL branding as an identifier for a company and crediting that company.

Another +1. I found breaking CDI Ltd. (the Israeli pressing plant) into CDI Ltd. was insane. They are all the same company and I would love to see them merged back into the original CDI Ltd. company.

I would totally agree that a URL shouldn't be an alias or separate thing, but should be an ANV or just label name variation

+1 to the proposal.

URLs are not brands, just the means to an end. There are exceptions, of course.

Agree that having urls or www as companies looks mostly absurd.
On the other hand, the presence of such "branding" on a release / in matrix can be a useful identifier, a relevant way to identify a particular version or production patterns.
Case in point (though unresolved) - David Bedford, Tom Newman (2) & Mike Oldfield - Variations On A Rhythm Of Mike Oldfield

I'm a bit on the fence here:
• pressed by www.imsgroup.it credits look a bit silly
• but having a page grouping all releases bearing this identifier with the knowledge that it means "no earlier than 2003" = valuable

+1 from me as well.

nik always liked "easy" for s, in case it is a new entering data.

With that in mind, as much as it can drive experienced s crazy, I think using the URL is best (for a pressing plant when it is written in the matrix). There are cases like Media Motion.

So I say "no" to reverse URL=Company.

obs
So I say "no" to reverse URL=Company.

I say No to this proposal too.
The benefits of simply entering the URL as the credited name far outweigh the mostly cosmetic downsides.

This is like "Label name = what's written in the logo".

There should be evidence provided in order for the Label to be entered differently than what is presented in the logo.

Maybe this was discussed in one of the the previous age-old threads but can anyone clarify what the significance is of an URL as compared to the "normal" company name.

If this is really a question of intuitive data entry (i.e. just entering exactly what is in the runouts rather than thinking about what it means), then we should have separate "Bell Sound" and "Sterling" profiles rather than crediting Monarch Record Mfg. Co. perhaps?

How does the presence of www make it something more than an identifier for where something was made?

As for the argument it helps dating releases, the same applies for instance to other runout identifiers (like the Sterling example above, or "Foon" which only appears for Foon around 1977), or even label designs, but we don't split off such groups either. It's only interesting on the level of the individual submission to use such date indicators since label profiles are woefully inadequate to get anything resembling a chronological list at any rate.

andrenafulva
This has led to multiple entries for the same entity:

And that's why I your proposal.

Is an URL really a brand or a logo? What if e.g. Orlake would have used "20 8592 0242" as identifier - shall we use a phone number as LCCN just to please the self-satisfied as-on taliban?

I know, nik 's mantra always was KISS but I sometimes have the feeling we are simplifying things too much (no, I'm not starting to lament on the hundreds of ghost companies due to that approach).

obs
different URLs for different countries (www.mediamotion.com and www.media-motion.nl)

Wasn't Mediamotion a Dutch company with Dutch replication plants only? These URL profiles are totally unspecific catch-all pages with the same zero meaningfulness as Mediamotion itself - not even the plants themselves can be identified by the URL.

obs
So I say "no" to reverse URL=Company.

There are pros and cons to the OP's proposal, but simplicity wins, not a fan of change on this one. Either way, if there is a change, I'll muck in.

obs
in case it is a new entering data

If I was a new and saw "www.companyname.com" in the matrix and wanted to enter it as a company credit then I would start by typing "Companyname" in the name field because it's obvious that www. and .com isn't part of the company name. I would be surprised if any new thought something else.

Bong
obsin case it is a new entering data
If I was a new and saw "www.companyname.com" in the matrix and wanted to enter it as a company credit then I would start by typing "Companyname" in the name field because it's obvious that www. and .com isn't part of the company name. I would be surprised if any new thought something else.

as above - discogs.cinepelis.org

+1

Sounds like a good idea to me.

obs
This is like "Label name = what's written in the logo".

But we don't do that for labels, nor for company roles.

For labels particularly, one name is chosen and all entries for that label are entered using that name, even if the logogram has different wording. Island Records, for instance, collects all releases from that label, whether the logogram reads 'Island Records', 'Island' or simply 'i'.

Likewise for companies, we only split entries when there is the presence or absence of a legal company designator (Inc., Ltd, etc) or when the name is considered significantly different: mainly for publishers, where 'X Music' would be kept separate from 'X Publishing'. A studio, for instance, would be entered as 'X Studio' (where that was the existing PCN and the most common form of credit), even when a credit on a particular release credited it as 'X Recording'.

So splitting URLs from the company name when both are used on release goes against the practice for all other LCCN entries.

'www' and '.com' are no significant factors in naming: they simply allow one to find the company in a web browser. Entering a URL in releases is little different from entering a phone number or postal address; the only difference in appearance, but not in function, is that the URL usually includes the company's name in some form or other.

How about you quote the whole message instead of cherrypicking to suit your argument?

But let me rephrase: "We use what's on the logo unless evidence has proven otherwise."

edit// There should be not a blanket reversal of "URL = branding", but have open discussions on a case-by-case basis (same as with Label names ;-)).

-- edited out--

If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.

In this case, that would be “a mess”.

andrenafulva
Can we change the common practice so that a URL is only entered as a PCN if (a) it is a significantly different name from other names used by that company, or (b) if it is the form primarily used by the company in its branding.

I'd go even a step further than that, but for now, yes to your proposal, of course.

Would be interesting to see how many 'URL-entries' are in the database and how many would be affected by the change proposed here.

obs
How about you quote the whole message instead of cherrypicking to suit your argument?
But let me rephrase: "We use what's on the logo unless evidence has proven otherwise."

You seem to have misunderstood my proposal and my response.

Yes, we will use what's on the release (usually not a logo in these cases, but a bare text URL). The point is that we shouldn't have two PCNs, one a company name and the other the same name in the form of a URL. If the company is *usually* credited using a URL, then that will be the PCN we use for them and enter the few credits to the company name in that URL PCN; if the usual form of credits is the company name, we would use that as the PCN and enter URL-credits into that PCN.

So there would no longer be, for instance, www.keyproduction.co.uk. We would choose the most appropriate one and enter all that company's credits using that PCN.

obs
edit// There should be not a blanket reversal of "URL = branding", but have open discussions on a case-by-case basis (same as with Label names ;-)).

Any mass-edit requires consensus, so of course each case would be discussed. This thread is about establishing a principle of how to handle company credits on releases in the form of URLs. If we get consensus not to consider every URL a separate 'brand', then we can proceed to discussing individual cases.

Showbiz_Kid
If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got.
In this case, that would be “a mess”.

Does that mean you're in favour of the proposal, or against? Or were you replying to the now-deleted comment above?

andrenafulva
Does that mean you're in favour of the proposal, or against? Or were you replying to the now-deleted comment above?

Yes, I was replying to jweijde’s deleted comment, and yes, I am in favor of the proposal.

If Discogs had introduced CNV like they promised 10 years or so ago, this wouldn't be a problem.

ultimathulerecords
If Discogs had introduced CNV like they promised 10 years or so ago, this wouldn't be a problem.

+1,000,000.

Showbiz_Kid
yes, I am in favor of the proposal.

Thanks. And I now that you already said that at the top of the discussion. Apologies.

andrenafulva
Yes, we will use what's on the release (usually not a logo in these cases, but a bare text URL). The point is that we shouldn't have two PCNs, one a company name and the other the same name in the form of a URL. If the company is *usually* credited using a URL, then that will be the PCN we use for them and enter the few credits to the company name in that URL PCN; if the usual form of credits is the company name, we would use that as the PCN and enter URL-credits into that PCN.

+1 to this. Seems like the best way to go until we have CNVs

andrenafulva
You seem to have misunderstood my proposal and my response.

Sorry!

Nothing more regarding the original topic, since I've said what I've had to say :-) .

jweijde
Would be interesting to see how many 'URL-entries' are in the database and how many would be affected by the change proposed here.

3500+ results (labels) when searching for www https://discogs.cinepelis.org/search/?q=www&type=label probly some incorrect matches

Silvermo
3500+ results (labels)

Just goes to show how well-established this practice is by now. It doesn't seem right to undo all this, just because some people have a weird feeling about it, or because some people at a particular company (Key Productions) made what look to be inconsistent decisions regarding their branding.

andrenafulva
If the company is *usually* credited using a URL, then that will be the PCN we use for them and enter the few credits to the company name in that URL PC

How do you determine "usually" ?
Take www.takt.com.pl are removed from the database ?

Edit: or take www.media-motion.nl - which seems to be used by a specific location - be merged into the generic Mediamotion entry ?

This feels like a step backwards.

jweijde
How do you determine "usually" ?

I use the everyday sense: 'most frequently'. That is, in a binary case, more that 50% of the time; in a case with more than two options, the most frequently used of the options.

jweijde
Are you proposing that www.takt.eu and www.takt.com.pl are removed from the database ?

Case-by-case basis. As I haven't looked into that case, I don't know.

This thread is about the principle that there being a variant in the form of a URL *necessarily* entails a separate PCN. Specific cases can be discussed once the principle has been decided one way or the other.

• www.gzvinyl.com = 3.5k entries
• www.takt.eu = 4.6k
• www.mediamotion.com = 3.9k
• www.keyproduction.co.uk = 2.1k
• www.HandleWithCare.de = 2.3k
• www.VDCGroup.com = 1.7k
• www.HOFA.de = 1.6k
• www.takt.com.pl = 1.4k
• www.imsgroup.it = 1.2k
• www.BellwetherMfg.com = 1.1k

Should be the major www
(counts subject to the random one entry listed multiple times on l pages bug/feature)

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/search/?sort=score%2Cdesc&q=www.&type=label&type=label
pretty much lists them per # of credits

jweijde
Just goes to show how well-established this practice is by now.

I was suprised it was so many.

Silvermo
3500+ results (labels) when searching for www

jweijde
Just goes to show how well-established this practice is by now.

_jules
Should be the major www

None of this is about the principle. In some cases, the most-used PCN might be a URL. In others, such as www.gzvinyl.com, agreeing that URLs aren't *necessarily* PCNs wouldn't change the situation, as there is no PCN 'GZ Vinyl', so it would almost certainly be considered a separate branding.

Please, for the time being, try to keep it in topic about the *principle* of 'URL = brand', otherwise this discussion will never be able to reach a conclusion.

I think it can be interesting to have an idea of the impact / implications when discussing the "principle".

And principles can become a bit clearer when they are illustrated with real database examples.

EzraZebra
+1, we should take the context into . I think cases where using an URL as a PCN is appropriate is probably more the exception than the rule.

+1, this mirrors my sentiment entirely.

_jules
I think it can be interesting to have an idea of the impact / implications when discussing the "principle".

The potential impact in of work is separate from the principle: it's always possible (although I don't think a good idea) that, if the agreed principle involves a change, that some cases will be considered too big to tackle. But I don't think that a possibly high level of work should be a reason not to consider whether or not the existing policy is a good one. That kind of inertia is one reason why here in the UK we have such crappy governance and socio-economic structures.

In any case, there have been decisions about individual labels and artists (classical composers, for the most part), approved by staff, which involved edits into the tens of thousands, so I think that there will be enough people willing to help implement a good decision that this shouldn't preclude deciding on the principle.

Anyway, hopefully this discussion about the principle won't get off track.

Seems like there's a strong consensus here. Probably best to handle case by case with threads for each though.

andrenafulva
This thread is about establishing a principle of how to handle company credits on releases in the form of URLs

There's already an established principle.

jweijde
Are you proposing that www.takt.eu and www.takt.com.pl are removed from the database ?

andrenafulva
Case-by-case basis

That's an easy cop out. It's pretty obvious that the Mediamotion and Takt examples are quite the same as Key Productions. So on what basis would we have a 'case-by-case' discussion for those with a different outcome ?

The case-by-case thing is questionable anyway. Seeing how some people are very eager to have this practice reverted, I'm pretty sure they'll take on the mass edits needed using this thread and Key Productions example as the precedent.

andrenafulva
Specific cases can be discussed once the principle has been decided one way or the other.

What will likely happen is that people will just refer to this thread and say "we reverted the practice so opposition is pointless". What will be left there to discuss ?

From apathy in the UK to taliban in 2 easy steps.
Way to elevate the discussion.

+1 for whatever works in principle on a case by case basis

sebfact
So, another proposal beaten to death by the as-on taliban...

It still looks full of life to me.

For the record, I the proposal. I was never a fan of the PCN entries "www.companyname.com" etc. As other people already argued, a URL is neither a brand nor a logo. It's comparable to a phone number or an address, i.e. a means of getting in touch with the company.

Today, when the matrix string contains both a Mediamotion logo and WWW.MEDIAMOTION.COM, people give glass master credit to both Depeche Mode - Speak & Spell. That makes no logical sense whatsoever, IMHO. It's the same company.

Today, when the matrix string contains both a Mediamotion logo and WWW.MEDIAMOTION.COM, people give glass master credit to both Mediamotion and www.mediamotion.com. Example: Depeche Mode - Speak & Spell. That makes no logical sense whatsoever, IMHO. It's the same company.

Miki242

IbLeo
Today, when the matrix string contains both a Mediamotion logo and WWW.MEDIAMOTION.COM,

To make a decision on this particular example, we'd need to look at other plants that have a logo and a name in the matrix and see how those are entered. I understand why both are entered at the moment.

Klass.Animal
IbLeoToday, when the matrix string contains both a Mediamotion logo and WWW.MEDIAMOTION.COM, people give glass master credit to both Mediamotion and www.mediamotion.com. Example: Depeche Mode - Speak & Spell. That makes no logical sense whatsoever, IMHO. It's the same company. Miki242

Mediamotion case is same as TAKT in which profile it states:
"If the TAKT logo is mentioned in the matrix along with the URL www.takt.eu or www.takt.com.pl, please add both entries to the LCCN section in separate fields."

But, I don't have anything against crediting only one label, not both (pressing company + URL).

I'd like to keep this thread to a single topic: whether or not we can get consensus to reverse the decision by nik many years ago that URLs have to be considered brands.

*If* we find that consensus, then it would be the time to start threads to discuss individual cases of companies to decide whether that particular company uses a URL as a brand.

But until then, there is no discussion to be had about these cases. And starting to discuss them here will just create noise and make it less likely for this discussion to stay on topic and therefore less likely for us to be able to find consensus on that topic.

Thanks in advance for helping with this.

andrenafulva
*If* we find that consensus

If I'm interpreting the replies correctly, it's 18 (including me) in favour of the proposal (78%), 2 against (9%) and 3 in-between/undecided (13%).
https://ibb.co/p8dh3
(Feel free to correct me.)

I'm in favour, didn't see the thread before.

1st_Of_A_Kind
If I'm interpreting the replies correctly, it's 18 (including me) in favour of the proposal (78%), 2 against (9%) and 3 in-between/undecided (13%).

I haven't counted but I don't doubt your maths. I'm not sure however that a total participation of 25 people can be considered a community consensus for something that would amount to a policy change. I'd like to get views from a wider population.

The proposal isn't fully clear to me. On the one hand you seem to request the general policy to be changed while on the other hand this seems to be only about Key Production.

Looking at Key Production I do believe some entries can be cleaned up already.
- Keyproduction.co.uk and www.keyproduction.co.uk can be seen as variants and can be merged. The 'www' bit is not akin to a legal ending for example.
- Based on the Wayback Machine, www.keyproductions.co.uk always redirected to www.keyproduction.co.uk, so I guess you could see that one as a variant of www.keyproduction.co.uk too. Not having entries with name differences this small also helps prevent incorrect crediting like on Grey Area.

These changes would be reasonable and acceptable. There only need to be two entries: Key Production and www.keyproduction.co.uk

jweijde
On the one hand you seem to request the general policy to be changed while on the other hand this seems to be only about Key Production.

I simply used Key Production as an *example* to illustrate what I'm asking for. The proposal is in no way only about that company.

jweijde
There only need to be two entries: Key Production and www.keyproduction.co.uk

That's not what I'm asking for. The proposal is (to use my example) that 'www.keyproduction.co.uk' would be merged into Key Production.

I'm sorry this was not clear; I thought it was. What could I do to make it more clear for you?

I'm on the fence....
What would happen with for instance two variants of one title where one version has www.gzvinyl.com in the deadwax and the other didn't - I know this sometimes happens and they're generally split due to the url 'branding' getting a credit on one version and not on the other.

Also some nik quotes to counterbalance this statement from the OP

andrenafulva
Looking into it now, however, it seems that he might not have said anything that should have entailed the situation we now have.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/188830#2377515
Surely for most all cases, a web address is just that, not an ANV and I beleive not even an Alias.

Lets say the web address was www.mbmastering.com or www.mathieuberthetmastering.com, would we still think it is an ANV or alias?

IMHO these cases should be treated like businesses, companies, or organisations. www.mathieuberthetmastering.com should be it's own entry, and Mathieu Berthet should be 'in groups'. I think anything else is stretching the ANV and Alias function out with their intended usage.

https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/345499#3246166
Regarding some of the manufacturers in the list at http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/338398 , I feel that some of them, especially the ones with URLs that are quite removed from the company name, should be entered directly as on the release, rather than 'interpreted'. These can be seen as brands of the companies involved. In the same way that we would not change a label branding, I don't think we should be changing these company branding either. For example:

www.cdipc.com is too far removed from Industrias Plásticas Catamarca S.A.
www.cdmanufacturing.ca is too far removed from SLI Manufacturing Inc.
www.iloveimprint.com is too far from Imprint Indie Printing

My basic feeling is 'as on release' keeps things straight forward. I understand there is a lot of interpretation for some things, for example cutting engineers, but these company URLS as credits on the release seem more straightforward than that, in that they are branding used by the company to represent their work.

So, where a manufacturer consistently (or the majority of the time) uses a URL to indicate their credit, please use that directly as the entry on Discogs.

Thanks!

andrenafulva
I'm not sure however that a total participation of 25 people can be considered a community consensus for something that would amount to a policy change.

Agreed.
Best thing I think would be to involve Diognes (don't think I saw him mentioned here, apologies if I'm mistaken).

andrenafulva
Statements I've found from him on the subject actually say that a URL should be used as a PCN ('primary company name') when either:

1. They differ too much from the company name to be a variation, or
2. When the company consistently uses a URL as its branding.

That may be the case, but concerning https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/373439?message_id=3465746#3466555
I pointed out that this is contrary to how we treat label or company names according to RSG §4.2.1, but never got an answer from nik.

In the particular case of TAKT, we had company documents that confirmed that they never considered www.takt.eu an imprint or brand of their company, but just their website address.

andrenafulva
Can we change the common practice so that a URL is only entered as a PCN if (a) it is a significantly different name from other names used by that company, or (b) if it is the form primarily used by the company in its branding.

So, yes we should.

andrenafulva
That's not what I'm asking for. The proposal is (to use my example) that 'www.keyproduction.co.uk' would be merged into Key Production.

Using the Key Production example, what would you propose for Key (5)? Genuine question, as I'm trying to understand where the line would be drawn at least in this case.

In general though, I'm against the merging. My reasoning is that we're never getting LNVs and label pages sortable by role like the artist profiles, so we might as well keep the url variants split.
I'm essentially 'as on release' as a contributor only because database functionality leaves so much to be desired. And because it's 2023 and the base just isn't active/interested enough in the minutiae.

I also think that while LNVs would definitely help sorting out the variants, they would only be a partial solution. Thinking of credits like 'Published by EMI', 'Published by BMG Music': what company pages should they be added under?

I don't see how www.companyname.com is not just an ANV of Company Name. It's pretty much the same thing, just with a prefix and suffix, which could happen with any name.

And the fact that there's no space in the name is also negligible. If a release had "DAVIDBOWIE" printed without space, we wouldn't even reflect that since it's mostly a design element and not even an ANV.

If a specific case like the www.gzvinyl.com should be kept separate for some reason, then that could be an exception if that difference is determined to be meaningful in some way. But I would handle that as a exception case (assuming that's the case there - I don't know specifics in that case at the moment).

One other point, if the url is completely different from the company name, I might also want to keep those separate, since technically that wouldn't really be an ANV (or LNV really). Like if the identifier was www.bestcdpressing.com as the web address for "ABC Company", then those could stay separate.

In the end, it sounds like the proposal here is to start with some examples to clean up, then work on a case by case basis. I see the benefit of cleaning this up.

andygrayrecords
Surely for most all cases, a web address is just that, not an ANV and I beleive not even an Alias.

Lets say the web address was www.mbmastering.com or www.mathieuberthetmastering.com, would we still think it is an ANV or alias?

IMHO these cases should be treated like businesses, companies, or organisations. www.mathieuberthetmastering.com should be it's own entry, and Mathieu Berthet should be 'in groups'. I think anything else is stretching the ANV and Alias function out with their intended usage.

That's a hypothetical that deals with artist, not company, entries. Nik states that www.mathieuberthet.com should be considered neither an ANV nor an alias of Mathieu Berthet; I assume he means by 'a web address is just that' that it could at most be noted in the release notes.

He then says that www.mbmastering.com or www.mathieuberthetmastering.com should be treated as companies as opposed to being treated as variations (ANV, alias, whatever) of the artist's name. In other words, if www.mbmastering.com or www.mathieuberthetmastering.com appear on the release, enter them into LCCN rather than artist credits. He doesn't say what should be done if there is also an entity MB Mastering or Mathieu Berthet Mastering in addition to the URLs, so it doesn't really touch on this proposal.

andygrayrecords
I feel that some of them, especially the ones with URLs that are quite removed from the company name, should be entered directly as on the release, rather than 'interpreted'. These can be seen as brands of the companies involved. In the same way that we would not change a label branding, I don't think we should be changing these company branding either. For example:

www.cdipc.com is too far removed from Industrias Plásticas Catamarca S.A.
www.cdmanufacturing.ca is too far removed from SLI Manufacturing Inc.
www.iloveimprint.com is too far from Imprint Indie Printing

I specifically said that there were exceptions, noted by nik, where the URL was too different from the company name to be considered a variant. I even noted www.cdmanufacturing.ca / SLI Manufacturing Inc. as one of his examples.

andygrayrecords
So, where a manufacturer consistently (or the majority of the time) uses a URL to indicate their credit, please use that directly as the entry on Discogs.

Again, I said that when the URL was used consistently, then it should be kept. From my first post:

andrenafulva
Statements I've found from him on the subject actually say that a URL should be used as a PCN ('primary company name') when either:

1. They differ too much from the company name to be a variation, or
2. When the company consistently uses a URL as its branding.

The proposal is where neither of these factors are the case. In other words, the URL appears sometimes, not consistently, and is also very similar to the company name as stored in the database. In other words, if it were an artist, it would be considered an ANV rather than an alias.

andygrayrecords
What would happen with for instance two variants of one title where one version has www.gzvinyl.com in the deadwax and the other didn't

www.gzvinyl.com was a separate brand used during a specific time period and always presented as a URL. It is rather different from GZ Digital Media and GZ Media, and was clearly an intentional brand.

andygrayrecords
I think would be to involve Diognes

I pinged him in the first post. You could ping him again if you want, as it could be useful to have his input.

+1 strongly agree.

www.bandcds.co.uk.
Should www.bandcds.co.uk, bandcds.co.uk, http://www.bandcds.co.uk, https://www.bandcds.co.uk, http://bandcds.co.uk, and https://bandcds.co.uk also be treated as entirely separate companies?

Strupp1
Should www.bandcds.co.uk, bandcds.co.uk, http://www.bandcds.co.uk, https://www.bandcds.co.uk, http://bandcds.co.uk, and https://bandcds.co.uk also be treated as entirely separate companies?

Probably not because we still have bandcds.co.uk already.

jweijde
Strupp1Should www.bandcds.co.uk, bandcds.co.uk, http://www.bandcds.co.uk, https://www.bandcds.co.uk, http://bandcds.co.uk, and https://bandcds.co.uk also be treated as entirely separate companies?

Probably not because we still have RSG §4.2.1. too. This means that all these variations can be entered under bandcds.co.uk (or whichever one is most common).
www.bandcds.co.uk should be merged with bandcds.co.uk already.

Right, but importantly, should bandcds.co.uk also be merged with Band CDs? (I say yes it should.)

baldorr

Right, but importantly, should bandcds.co.uk also be merged with Band CDs? (I say yes it should.)

I opened that can of worms here, which led me to this thread in the first place: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/1021524?page=1&utm_campaign=thread-notify&utm_source=relationship&utm_medium=pm&message_id=10482567#10482567

In general I would say +1 to just drop the adding of URL brandings and collect all under an official company name. Esp. when it comes to glass master IDs - that would help to identify if the release date makes sense (a reissue?), if it is really unique (I (in fog) 1-2 companies where we though tghe ID is unqiue but then 2 releases share the same IDs), etc.
For the companies complete overview this is a huge benefit in my opinion.

But
a) is there some (or quick submission) meta-info that is incl. in the URL branding reflected in the LCCN? For example, www.takt.eu and www.takt.com.pl , Europe vs Poland. Different time periods?
I cannot put that in feeling really in words but somehow there is something... that the URL branding includes some meta-info that gets lost when a release is just listed under one company profile.

b) Could we expect that an unexperienced , who has a "new" company with an URL branding on his release, is taking a look at the companies webpage to get the real official name? Who decides what the name of the non-URL branding / the new company profile is for the database. With Inc. or Ltd. like in the info on that webpage? Or just the most used name on the companies webpage?
But maybe the just did some abbreviation, because adding a new release should be done quickly and easy: 'Takt' - not all upper-case, just following the Discogs rules. Then new discussion might happen, release changes, etc. the URL branding makes is simple and clear.

I have no answer to these questions... or any feelings on them. They just came into my mind. Maybe no problem at all or only interesting for a minority...

But I am really interested in the opinion of nik as this was frequently discussed over the years. Maybe Nik has changed his opinion on the URL branding...

Bumping as this issue has just come up in another thread: https://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/1038088

+1 for merging URL company entries into proper company profiles.

somewhatdistantghost
+1 for merging URL company entries into proper company profiles.

This thread isn't proposing such a generic approach to things, or is it ?

autumnyears
a) is there some (or quick submission) meta-info that is incl. in the URL branding reflected in the LCCN? For example, www.takt.eu and www.takt.com.pl , Europe vs Poland. Different time periods?
I cannot put that in feeling really in words but somehow there is something... that the URL branding includes some meta-info that gets lost when a release is just listed under one company profile.

You're touching a good subject there. Indeed information will be lost.
Things like www.takt.com.pl and www.takt.eu should really remain as entries. Just like how we have separate entries for companies with a different legal form.
Things like 'www.takt.eu' and 'takt.eu' can be covered under one profile, as per RSG §4.2.1.

jweijde
This thread isn't proposing such a generic approach to things, or is it ?

Don't think I need to rehash every detail of the discussion to voice my approval of the overall idea being proposed here.
___

Also, the idea that information will be lost seems mostly unfounded to me (at least, for most cases). These URL 'companies' will still be present in the BaOI data, since they are all pulled from Matrix and runout entries, right? So, nothing lost, save for supposed companies that many have never thought were actual companies, anyway.

somewhatdistantghost
jweijdeThis thread isn't proposing such a generic approach to things, or is it ?

Don't think I need to rehash every detail of the discussion to voice my approval of the overall idea being proposed here.
___

Also, the idea that information will be lost seems mostly unfounded to me (at least, for most cases). These URL 'companies' will still be present in the BaOI data, since they are all pulled from Matrix and runout entries, right? So, nothing lost, save for supposed companies that many have never thought were actual companies, anyway.

If it's merely a chronological thing, this isn't much different from e.g. Foon having "Foon" starting in 1977 but only "F" before that. It's merely a different identifier for the same company, not a different company altogether. This information to distinguish releases can be captured in the profile, as we do with many other such cases of identifiers changing over time. Why should the URL form make an identifier anything special?

somewhatdistantghost
Also, the idea that information will be lost seems mostly unfounded to me (at least, for most cases).

"for most cases" - even one case for data precision is somehow important in my opinion. Otherwise you might even out data for "display / management / comfort" and have to do research again or what ever, could introduce mistakes, etc. A database should somehow be about details...

Also, if a company used an URL branding only for a fixed time period and then changed to a logo branding we cannot quickly if the release date might be wrong. Errors in the database will stay much longer, discovering them is more work.

Again, just some thoughts, nothing more! If that is all no problem in the future, all is okay :D

autumnyears
Also, if a company used an URL branding only for a fixed time period and then changed to a logo branding we cannot quickly if the release date might be wrong. Errors in the database will stay much longer, discovering them is more work.

Following this same logic we would need an extra profile F (9) next to Foon to more easily distinguish between releases before and after 1977? For a database with more detail...

rdvriese
Following this same logic we would need an extra profile F (9) next to Foon to more easily distinguish between releases before and after 1977? For a database with more detail...

Indeed.

I can see the point in arguments raised by jweijde, but I don't personally feel that that justifies the existence of URL profiles. URLs found in the disc matrix are easy branding for manufacturers, they are not unique companies or 'entities' or 'name variations'.

My big question in this matter is what to do about URLs that are significantly different from the true company name, e.g. Amtech. In this case, where both Analogue Media Technologies and Amtech are most likely different nicknames for the same company (Analogue Media Technologies, Inc.), what do we do when the URL is found in the matrix?

Myriad
My big question in this matter is what to do about URLs that are significantly different from the true company name, e.g. www.duplication.ca and Analogue Media Technologies AKA Amtech. In this case, where both Analogue Media Technologies and Amtech are most likely different nicknames for the same company (Analogue Media Technologies, Inc.), what do we do when the URL is found in the matrix?

I don't know, but it seems kind of silly to call this a company (as it does in the profile). The URL is just a description of what the company does, not a name in its own right, I would think.

Myriad
URLs found in the disc matrix are easy branding for manufacturers, they are not unique companies or 'entities' or 'name variations'.

URLs can also be found in other places. They don't only appear in matrix data.

EzraZebra
I don't know, but it seems kind of silly to call this a company (as it does in the profile).

Yeah, it's just branding. Just like labels.

autumnyears
"for most cases" - even one case

It seems possible that there may be a (probably very) small number of companies that actually are known as xxxxxxxx.com, and such cases would be dealt with on an individual basis, I would think.

autumnyears
Also, if a company used an URL branding only for a fixed time period and then changed to a logo

Well, that data would still be present in the BaOI of release pages, and as mentioned:

rdvriese
It's merely a different identifier for the same company, not a different company altogether. This information to distinguish releases can be captured in the profile, as we do with many other such cases of identifiers changing over time.

rdvriese
Why should the URL form make an identifier anything special?

Indeed.

jweijde
it's just branding.

I'm not sure that these URLs can even be considered Branding. I don't think it's any more than information, really.

somewhatdistantghost
It seems possible that there may be a (probably very) small number of companies that actually are known as xxxxxxxx.com,

There are plenty of companies that have a domain name as their name.

somewhatdistantghost
I'm not sure that these URLs can even be considered Branding.

It is a way of labelling your products, i.e. providing a way to identify your products.

I just noticed this one - has both Artist and Label profiles

57design.co.uk

Looking at their website - it should just be 57design

jweijde
It is a way of labelling your products, i.e. providing a way to identify your products.

Maybe.
Or maybe it's, "Need someone to press your next CD? us at xxxxx.com."

jweijde

somewhatdistantghost
It seems possible that there may be a (probably very) small number of companies that actually are known as xxxxxxxx.com,

There are plenty of companies that have a domain name as their name.

My proposal above is that: If the company name is usually presented in the form of a domain name, then that is an appropriate PCN because it is obviously being used as branding. It's only if the company name is the usual PCN and there are also credits to that same name in the form of a domain name that we should merge these into the one PCN.

jweijde

somewhatdistantghost
I'm not sure that these URLs can even be considered Branding.

It is a way of labelling your products, i.e. providing a way to identify your products.

In some cases it is. In others, it's more like info – a means of easily finding and being able to the company, in the same way that some companies used to add an address/phone number on releases. It's just that the info usually includes, in the case of a domain name, the company's name. But it is often not there as a separate brand from the company's name.

That's why there can't be a blanket ban on ever using a domain name as a PCN. Sometimes it is a valid brand name; other times it isn't. I propose that we agree that a domain name/URL doesn't need *always* to be entered as a separate PCN. I'm not proposing that a domain name should *never* be entered as a PCN.

andrenafulva
I propose that we agree that a domain name/URL doesn't need *always* to be entered as a separate PCN. I'm not proposing that a domain name should *never* be entered as a PCN.

This has been my understanding of your proposition, and what I gave my +1 to. I used simple language in my ive comment because I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that those involved in the discussion had a similar understanding of your ideas, thus I saw no need to reiterate the entirety of the discussion in order to express my .

jweijde
There are plenty of companies that have a domain name as their name.

Such as?

To be sure, I do think it can be considered in some way as branding. Often identifiers are a way of branding, otherwise we wouldn't have that fancy Sterling Sound has different forms of branding too: SS or the Sterling stamp. But we don't consider those separate entities either, for good reason. (If we did have something like LNVs, of course we could use them for that.)

Now if SS and Sterling are both to be considered references to one entity Sterling Sound, does it then make sense to consider dunkpressing.com a different entity from dunk!pressing?

Just coming back to this, am I right that there is enough agreement to drop nik's 'a URL must be considered a brand' policy to consider it a new consensus?

If so, I'll tag DTF and ask him if he's willing to update the guidelines to specify this.

Of course I think this should change.

Let's make the general case simple:

If a company interchangeably uses both a Name and a URL, and those both refer to the same entity, then they should be merged.

The only case-by-case that would need to be discussed is if the URL is somehow drastically different from the company name.

All the other examples above where there is (for example) a www.****.co.uk or a www.****.com address, and those indicate a known different branch or location of a company (or different era, etc), then those can stay separated.

Essentially, the TLDR is if the URL and Company Name are the same entity they should be merged. It's such an arbitrary distinction to make just because it's a URL, when it can effectively be an ANV (or LNV despite that not being a thing yet).

Thanks to julass for the link.

baldorr
If a company interchangeably uses both a Name and a URL, and those both refer to the same entity, then they should be merged.

I agree with most of that, but instead of merging, it's probably better to set the URL-profile to Do Not Use and refer to the profiles we want to be used? The URL-profiles were created for a reason and if they're merged. someone will likely create a new one.

rdvriese
It could still be handled on a case-by-case basis, possibly sometimes it might be beneficial to keep separate URL profiles, but when it's clear the URL is just there to identify the company, I'd say let's credit the company.

+1

baldorr
If a company interchangeably uses both a Name and a URL, and those both refer to the same entity, then they should be merged.

+1

dahlm
it's probably better to set the URL-profile to Do Not Use and refer to the profiles we want to be used?

That's essentially the process that I think baldorr meant by 'merging'. It's not possible to merge label or artist entries in the way it's possible to merge release submissions; what you have to do is to move all the credits to one of the labels/artists. Then, if the empty one is unlikely to be validly used for a different label/artist of the same name, to set it to 'do not use', which is what we'd do in this case.

baldorr
If a company interchangeably uses both a Name and a URL, and those both refer to the same entity, then they should be merged.

+1

Essentially a url should only be credited if a company explicitly uses the URL as a brand or logo. Not just when a company prints its URL. Especially not when it creates useless duplicate profiles. (It could be a LNV/CNV or ANV, but we don't have LNV/CNV.)

I'd go even further: only use URL if there is no known non-URL name for the same entity. If we have a release with a www.myawesomelabel.com logo/brand but we know the name is My Awesome Label (whether from other releases or from the website), then don't use the URL as name. If a release has Manufactured By www.cdmakingservice.com but we know the company is called Music Manufacturing Company, use Music Manufacturing Company.

That means editing ten of thousands entries...
Problem solved with LNV?
Url are easy to use. Appears on release, no interpretation.

How to handle release added years ago when it was common practice not to include url in matrix field and if url is credited in LCCN?
Just a few examples:
Various - The French Blues & Soul Magazine Soul Bag

How will you handle broker?
What ratio of appearance on release between real name (brand? legal name?) and url to annihilate url entry? 1/10? 1/100? 1/1000?

www.confliktarts.com identified by the url in matrix.
Presented as confliktarts.com during several years.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070117082629/http://www.confliktarts.com/catalog/index.php (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20111118033943/http://www.confliktarts.com/catalog/ (2011)
It takes time to finally found 1 entry where Confliktarts is credited as Confliktarts...
Lily Riposte - La Lune Et Ses Ombres

dahlm
I agree with most of that, but instead of merging, it's probably better to set the URL-profile to Do Not Use and refer to the profiles we want to be used? The URL-profiles were created for a reason and if they're merged. someone will likely create a new one.

andrenafulva
That's essentially the process that I think baldorr meant by 'merging'.

Exactly. Of course this is one of the few times when DNU might be warranted to remain once the URL profile is cleared. But we can combat that also by making sure to update the remaining profile to include the URL name variation (not just as a URL link, but literally written in the profile text to aide in searchability).

andrenafulva
set it to 'do not use', which is what we'd do in this case.

And see it reactivated or created with different spacing as we've seen with so many other companies.

Having said that, I'd moving www.companyname to a form of ANV, or Alias if not close enough to be ANV'd.

baldorr
If a company interchangeably uses both a Name and a URL, and those both refer to the same entity, then they should be merged.

"uses both a name and a URL" Where ? On releases I presume ?

If we're going to change this practice, there needs to be a simple way of dealing with this. We shouldn't require contributors to check external sources, including the Wayback Machine, before they're able to enter a credit.

jweijde
There are plenty of companies that have a domain name as their name.

Myriad
Such as?

Sorry, i don't maintain a list of them so here are a few from the top of my head:
Booking.com
Amazon.com
mp3.com
hotels.com
trip.com
trance.nu
bol.com (although they dropped the '.com' recently)

Here's more https://domainnamewire.com/2018/08/20/inc-5000/
There are definitely more. Especially in technology or online services. I also know some Dutch companies that use their .nl domain name as their brand.

I'm sure the rest of us are talking about labels and manufacturers within the music industry that we are likely to enter into the LCCN fields...

jweijde
Sorry, i don't maintain a list of them so here are a few from the top of my head:

We're talking about record companies in this thread, so bringing in other companies isn't helpful.

If you go back to my opening post in this thread, you'll see that my proposal rules out two cases:

andrenafulva
a URL should be used as a PCN ('primary company name') when either:

1. They differ too much from the company name to be a variation, or
2. When the company consistently uses a URL as its branding.

The matter under discussion is when a URL/domain containing the company name is *sometimes* found on releases but is not the company brand.

jweijde
"uses both a name and a URL" Where ? On releases I presume ?

If we're going to change this practice, there needs to be a simple way of dealing with this. We shouldn't require contributors to check external sources, including the Wayback Machine, before they're able to enter a credit.

I think you're overthinking this.

If we know "Company Name" is the same as "www.companyname.com", then why are those not ANVs?

We would know this because:
- We go to the URL and check.
- We see the URL is being used on the full name profile.
- On a single release they might have a logo followed by the web address, proving that link for us.

And even if we have to go to an archived version of the site... why is that a problem? We have to research things all the time in order to better understand them. This is a one time thing ultimately. Once it's determined they refer to the same entity, then the research is done.

For example - for physical studios, they might use different name variations. Sometimes at a glance it's not clear. So we do what we always do - we research it and find out if the different names refer to the same place.

Edit: I should also say that as soon as we find out that the URL (while similar enough to make us initially think they are the same) is different, then we can keep them separate and indicate that info on both pages (if appropriate).

And in the cases you've brought up earlier where the URLs are actually different in some way (indicating different locations of the same parent company, or similar) then we can keep those separate.

Since splitting Name and URL have been standard, I would propose the onus on merging has to be on determining they are the same thing. If we can't find any evidence the different URLs or Name vs. URL are intentionally used to indicate different elements of a company, then we should be fine to merge. (Meaning, we shouldn't blindly merge: we should do research for each one to be sure.)