Series number with ''Vol.'' or without?

Newbie question!
I am about to add a release in this here series:
Complete Mozart Edition
There are already 2 releases there.
Both have their series numbers added with ''Vol.'' in front.
One of them has been voted correct.
The following quote from the guidelines seem to suggest otherwise, but I find the wording ambiguous:
''If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field. Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release.''
''Only the number'' versus ''as it appears on the release''
What is correct?
Thanks...

See nik's answer in this thread:
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/338294

gboe
See nik's answer in this thread:

Thank you!
Unfortunately this does not make it any clearer to me.
I understand that the number itself should be added ''as per release'', but I do not see any indication whether or not ''Vol.'' should be included (this on the release too).
If ''Vol.'' should be omitted, then why is one of the entries with ''Vol.'' voted correct? Or is that a mistake?

Good question, and welcome to Discogs. This issue is mentioned in this recent thread: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/340614

When asked the question 4 months ago nik directly answered "Adding the additional text, such as "Vol." or "Part" is correct IMHO." See this post for his answer: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/334357#3126890

Then only a month after that (according to the Guidelines Changelog: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/198022#3143457 ) nik seemingly chages his mind and adds the following to the guideline 4.6.2:

nik
If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field. Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release.

I believe "only the number" means only the number, and not the additional text such as "Vol." or "Part" and since that guideline change a handful of series numbers have been changed back to just "only the numbers" removing the additional text.

As this is unclear to some s perhaps nik can clarify for us?

I've sent nik a message pointing him to this thread.

Electro-Magnetic
I've sent nik a message pointing him to this thread.

Big thanks! I will await the outcome.

If the question i up again I'd like to ask if the numbering could be entepreted like so many other things. As seen in this series
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/label/H%C3%B4tel+Costes
numbers can appear in unlike languages: 3, Quattre, XV

As the correct title appears in the title field, couldn't the numbering be allowed to be translated into the same language?

Electro-Magnetic
I believe "only the number" means only the number, and not the additional text such as "Vol." or "Part"

That would seem logical to me.

d_b
as it appears on the release

IMO that would suggest that the number must be entered as X, 10, Ten, Dix, Tio or whatever language or numerals are being used on the release.

d_b
If ''Vol.'' should be omitted, then why is one of the entries with ''Vol.'' voted correct?

If it I interpret the ''only the number'' correctly, then the vote seems to be in error.

If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field. Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release.

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_And_Company_Definitions

marcelrecords
IMO that would suggest that the number must be entered as X, 10, Ten, Dix, Tio or whatever language or numerals are being used on the release

I see the point in entering as on release for the titles field. But the whole idea of entering a series volume number serves AFAICS only the purpose of sorting by number. For that to work, the numerical languages, or what it's called, needs to be translated into arabian numbers, 1,2,3, etc. I don't even think romen numbers will sort correctly as IX would go before V if read as letters

Hi folks. Yes, good question indeed!

I am not sure of the source or reason for the "Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release" text, and as shown, that hasn't been my general opinion in the past. So I think we need to review this specific issue. I wonder what caused me to add that text? I'll have to research that, which may take some time. So in the interim, can anyone think of any problems with having the 'Vol' and suchlike as part of the number?

Thanks!

^What I would say, in respect of 'numbering', is that IMHO it should appear 'As on release'. Thus if prefixed by "Vol." then it needs to appear.
Surely the same as for a Company ref e.g. Bloggo Manufacturing Ltd > BLOG 4 - rather than '4'...?

What worries me about the given example: Complete Mozart Edition is that there is no visual evidence of numbering on front - and no further visual evidence supplied.
So, "Vol" or otherwise, one has to believe they are Series 11, 15 & 17 respectively.

swagski
Thus if prefixed by "Vol." then it needs to appear.

In my opinion that's never needed.
'4' in combination with a series name suggests it's the fourth release in the series. That would be correct.
'4' in combination with a label or company would suggest the catalog# is '4'. That's incorrect. It could also mean it's the fourth release on that label/by that company. That does not have to be true either.

swagski
What worries me about the given example: Complete Mozart Edition is that there is no visual evidence of numbering on front - and no further visual evidence supplied.
So, "Vol" or otherwise, one has to believe they are Series 11, 15 & 17 respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Mozart_Edition

swagski
What worries me about the given example: Complete Mozart Edition is that there is no visual evidence of numbering on front - and no further visual evidence supplied.

The ''Vol'' is on the spine of the box.

nik
So in the interim, can anyone think of any problems with having the 'Vol' and suchlike as part of the number?

I do not see any problem there :-)

nik
in the interim, can anyone think of any problems with having the 'Vol' and suchlike as part of the number?

Well yes.

Essentially it has to do with what kind of field that series vol.# field is.

Is it a documenting field - like the cat# field - then it has to be "as on release".

Is it a description field - like the field following the Matrix# field - then it's open to entering info interpreted.

Which of these it is - depends on the purpose of the field.

Again documenting could be the purpose - then it should be a documenting field. Some series have the vol# as part of the title and the vol# will already be documented in the title field. But others have not - and for those the vol# field could improve the documenting if the field ewas restricted to "as on release".

If the purpose is to produce sequentiel/chronological discography pages - then it should be a description field - allowing interpreted numbers for the purpose of correct listing.

Problems with current guideline can be seen in the Hôtel Costes series

jweijde
swagski
What worries me about the given example: Complete Mozart Edition is that there is no visual evidence of numbering on front - and no further visual evidence supplied.
So, "Vol" or otherwise, one has to believe they are Series 11, 15 & 17 respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Mozart_Edition

^Well, thanks for the ever-reliable wiki link, with the caveat at the head regarding "This article needs additional citations for verification..."
and within which I note the number column has "Vol" at the head... as I mentioned, visual printed evidence of actual item is always best

Edit: Just a scenario as food for thought...
ZippetyDoodah Series (40 in the series) some Rock some Easy Listening etc, sub numbered... e.g.

ZippetyDoodah Series Rock 01
ZippetyDoodah Series Rock 02
ZippetyDoodah Series Easy 01
ZippetyDoodah Series Easy 02
ZippetyDoodah Series Disco 01
ZippetyDoodah Series Clas 01
ZippetyDoodah Series Clas 02 etc

Then, don't do Rock 02 & renumber pecking order sequence as Easy 01, which is the UK version Easy 02....
only release 15 of the series & simply renumber them Vol 1 - Vol 15...

If you use Google a bit, you'll find plenty of references (including literature) listing the volume numbers of (some of) the releases in this series.

There are numerous reasons why any wording that goes with a series number should be included. For instance, how to enter the series numbers of these releases is only figures are allowed:

Various - 538 Dance Smash Hits Spring 2002

We need to be able to add anything to the field to uniquely identify a submission within the series.

^Note my earlier edit

Edit:

jweijde
If you use Google a bit, you'll find plenty of references (including literature) listing the volume numbers of (some of) the releases in this series.

Yes, but isn't it down to the subber to evidence things / provide links, rather than me having to hunt around?

swagski
Yes, but isn't it down to the subber to evidence things / provide links

definitely but:

d_b
The ''Vol'' is on the spine of the box.

seems adequate enough

As this matter hasn't been resolved yet, I'll ask some more questions to resurrect the discussion...

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/label/World+Of+Trance

Is it acceptable to add series numbers in the catalog number field (in the above example they are also added with prefixed zeros for some reason) even though the first release has no number present and none of the numbers on the release have prefixed zeros? Some of the releases also have written numbers - "Volume Three", "Volume Four" etc and the tenth volume also has a roman numeral "X". So, should the numbers be added exactly as they appear on the release or do we allow s to add them due to their personal preference (which seems to be happening quite a bit)?

Question 1:
In the past we tweaked catalog numbers to make them look neat and ordered on the label pages, so should we also tweak series numbers to our personal preference just to make them look neat?

Question 2:
If the first volume of the series does not have any number (which is common) should a series volume number be added in the catalog number field or should it be left blank?

Question 3:
If a release states "Volume Two" how should the series number be entered?:

02
2
Volume 2
Volume Two

At the moment, it seems anything goes.

my opinion on this:

Electro-Magnetic
should we also tweak series numbers to our personal preference just to make them look neat?

no.

Electro-Magnetic
If the first volume of the series does not have any number (which is common) should a series volume number be added in the catalog number field or should it be left blank?

blank. a release note should clarify.

Electro-Magnetic
If a release states "Volume Two" how should the series number be entered?

Volume Two.

I cannot see any reason to deviate from what's on the release. I do not feel that display issues should come into this.

gboe
Again documenting could be the purpose - then it should be a documenting field.

this has my preference.

I don't see any issue with changing 'Volume Two' into '2'.
The 'Title' field already displays how it is mentioned on the release. Besides, the field is called 'Catalog#' and series don't really have catalogue numbers. They only have volumes and the numbers indicate which volume the release is within the series.
It is pretty straightforward and should be easy to understand for anybody that a release with 'Series Name - 2' is the 2nd volume in a series called 'Series Name'.
Anyone will understand that a release with 'Volume XI' in the title is the 11th volume in a series, so there won't be any issues with entering '11' as catalog#, ehm volume#, for a series. As said, people can see how it is exactly mentioned on the release by checking the release title.

I believe the RSG does not need to be changed.

If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field. Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release.

jweijde
As said, people can see how it is exactly mentioned on the release by checking the release title.

certainly not always
Mozart* - Streichquintette
(which is the release the OS submitted)

jweijde
As said, people can see how it is exactly mentioned on the release by checking the release title.

marcelrecords
certainly not always
Mozart* - Streichquintette

Indeed not always, but I still don't think it makes a difference.

d_b
The ''Vol'' is on the spine of the box.

And what does this imply? That it is the 11th volume in the series. Just what the current contents of the Series section indicates. This should be sufficient.
"11" is just as much "as on release" as "Vol. 11" because the number in combination with the series already implies it's a volume. It makes no difference. I see no issue with the current guideline.

jweijde
Indeed not always, but I still don't think it makes a difference.

jweijde
"11" is just as much "as on release" as "Vol. 11" because the number in combination with the series already implies it's a volume.

Do I get you correctly that you would change ''Volume Eleven'' to ''11'', since this makes no difference?

marcelrecords
Do I get you correctly that you would change ''Volume Eleven'' to ''11'', since this makes no difference?

Yes I would. It makes no difference because on the release page and the Series, ehm label, page it would be obvious it is the 11th volume.
Besides that, the guidelines dictate it should be a number. 'Volume Eleven' is not a number. Even if the guidelines didn't mention that, I would still have no problem at all with people entering '11'. In the context of a series, it absolutely 100% means the same thing and makes no difference.

jweijde
I believe the RSG does not need to be changed.

It definitely needs to be clarified because s are interpreting the guideline in different ways causing the data to be entered inconsistently.

Currently if a release states "Volume Two" we have one bunch of s entering "Volume Two", some "Volume 2" and another bunch entering "2" (and some even entering "02" as can be seen in my example above), based on the same guideline.

One part of the guideline states "only the number should be added" - what type of number? A number can be represented a couple of ways - text, Arabic numerals, Roman numerals (with or without additional text such as "Vol." or "Part" which some people are thinking is part of the series number - and nik did state previously that in his opinion it is correct to enter the additional text as part of the series number).

The other part of the guideline states "as it appears on the release" - but, on those releases the Arabic numeral isn't present, it's written as a word "Volume Two" or Roman numeral "Volume II". The guideline at the moment doesn't state it's OK to simplify or transfer one type of number into another type based on personal preference (however it doesn't state it's not OK either).

It needs to be clarified and re-written, perhaps with an example written within the guideline.

Electro-Magnetic
The other part of the guideline states "as it appears on the release" - but, on those releases the Arabic numeral isn't present, it's written as a word "Volume Two" or Roman numeral "Volume II". The guideline at the moment doesn't state it's OK to simplify or transfer one type of number into another type based on personal preference (however it doesn't state it's not OK either).

That seems exactly the problem here. Therefore this seems a good idea:

Electro-Magnetic
It needs to be clarified and re-written, perhaps with an example written within the guideline.

whether we follow jweijde and only enter the sequence number or not.

Electro-Magnetic
It needs to be clarified

There are an awful lot of edits being done seemingly just to sequence a series page, by changing a spelled number into a numeral, despite the fact that it is then not "as it appears on the release" as per the guideline, apparently. Example: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/history?release=73253&diff=14 (the only other apparent edit change to the barcode there is probably just a bug, being discussed: http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/347840 ).

It seems to me hundreds or thousands of additions and changes to series number fields are incorrect, and could be so voted in good conscience (just making the point, I'm not about to embark on a crusade, so put the pitchforks away)..

jweijde
Besides that, the guidelines dictate it should be a number.

True.

jweijde
'Volume Eleven' is not a number.

If that's the case, then why have

jweijde
no problem at all with people entering '11'

if "eleven" is no number? By that reasoning the field must be left blank.

The options given by the current guideline can be interpreted variously, as noted, to result in entries for 1) "Eleven" or 2) empty field. It would seem 3) "11" isn't an option if the printed series designation on the release is a word, "eleven".

As to a decision, I can appreciate both points of view as expressed earlier by gboe, i.e. 'documenting' vs. 'description', and ultimately that is what needs to be made obvious in the guideline.

nik said he'd think about this and return. Probably been busy putting out the design-fire.

darkwaves
if "eleven" is no number? By that reasoning the field must be left blank.

It's the word "Eleven" vs the number "11".
The text "Volume Eleven" is not a number, "11" is.

Just use a bit of common sense, instead of strictly following 'as on release' at all costs.

jweijde
instead of strictly following 'as on release' at all costs.

''at all costs''? the problem is that the guidelines explicity state: ''as it appears on the release''.
substituting ''Volume Eleven'' with ''11'' does not follow that
that's why:

Electro-Magnetic
it definitely needs to be clarified because s are interpreting the guideline in different ways causing the data to be entered inconsistently.

As on release is the way we should do it, anything else leads to complications (see previous issues with catalog numbers).

The Greatest Hits (NL) is a great example... how do we catalog these as series numbers?

For example, Various - The Greatest Hits 1 - 1991 - 2

The Greatest Hits 1 - 1991 - 2
or
1 - 1991 - 2

I'd say the second one, so "don't repeat the series name in the series number".

So Various - The Greatest Hits '92 - Vol. 4 has "'92 - Vol. 4" etc...

So prefixes should be included ("Vol. etc), but not the entire series name.

nik
As on release is the way we should do it, anything else leads to complications

Don't necessarily agree. If you have a consistent guideline that would work perfectly aswell.

For example "year + volume" in numbers or "volume" as a number.
94-2
96-1
92-4
1991-2-1

It's all about consistency. Consistency makes things much clearer to submitters and in this case doesn't lead to data issues (as in: we're still entering the information that is given on the release - not changing it into something completely different or in existent).
The above is also perfectly in line with the current guideline:

Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release.

nik
So prefixes should be included ("Vol. etc), but not the entire series name.

If so - then the volume no field really becomes invalid as sorting by volume no essentially will become useless

How about http://discogs.cinepelis.org/label/Dancefloor+Jazz ?
They were numbered pretty inconsistently:
1) "unnumbered"
2) Vol. Two
3) Vol. Three
4) Volume Four
5) Volume Five
6) Volume Six
7) Volume 7
8) Volume 8
9) Volume 9
10) Vol. 10
11) Volume 11
12) 12
13) Volume 13

gboe
sorting by volume no essentially will become useless

+1

Even weirder will be "The Sound Of Funk" series, once it's compiled:
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/search?q=various+%22Sound+Of+Funk%22&type=all
Each volume has been reissued several times, with at least three different sleeve designs, in different numbering modes - words, numbers, Roman numerals - with or without "Volume"…

nik
I am not sure of the source or reason for the "Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release" text, and as shown, that hasn't been my general opinion in the past. So I think we need to review this specific issue. I wonder what caused me to add that text? I'll have to research that, which may take some time. So in the interim, can anyone think of any problems with having the 'Vol' and suchlike as part of the number?

Thanks!

Quite frankly, I do not see the point of adding anything at all in that field since volume #'s will already appear in the release title. I'd rather leave it blank so the release catalog number (which to me is way more crucial info, without having to click a link to see) instead appears on the left when you're looking at the series page.

loukash
Even weirder will be "The Sound Of Funk" series, once it's compiled:

or this one already a series: Hôtel Costes

nik
As on release is the way we should do it, anything else leads to complications

jweijde
Don't necessarily agree. If you have a consistent guideline that would work perfectly aswell.

For example "year + volume" in numbers or "volume" as a number.
94-2
96-1
92-4
1991-2-1

It's all about consistency. Consistency makes things much clearer to submitters and in this case doesn't lead to data issues (as in: we're still entering the information that is given on the release - not changing it into something completely different or in existent).

But we went through all of that with catalog numbers. We spent years entering them in 'adjusted' ways, so they would list in a neat manner on the artist page, then we spent years changing them back to 'as on release' so people could actually find what they were looking for.

If I have a series called "Volume Nine", surely I should be able to search the series number field for that? And if we have translated that to just "9", it won't match.

If we adjust them all just to use numbers, then it is really just a sort field, not a series number field.

nik
If I have a series called "Volume Nine", surely I should be able to search the series number field for that? And if we have translated that to just "9", it won't match.

You mean if you had a Series where one volume was called Volume 9 (or Nine). If the series itself was called 'Volume Nine' the search focus would be on series title.

nik

But we went through all of that with catalog numbers. We spent years entering them in 'adjusted' ways, so they would list in a neat manner on the artist page, then we spent years changing them back to 'as on release' so people could actually find what they were looking for.

This was a problem for catalogue numbers because catalogue numbers are only entered in the catalog# field and nowhere else. This meant information was lost when the catalogue numbers were adjusted to sort pages.
With volume numbers this is different. People will still be able to see how they are mentioned on a release because they're in the release title aswell. Everyone should be able to understand that if I enter "The Greatest Hits (NL)" - "96-1" as series, the item is vol. 1 in the Greatest Hits series from 1996. They will be able to see how it is mentioned on the release by checking the the Title field.
Compare this to a real life example I came across where the catalog# was changed. It was a Sony Music promo with a catalog# like SAMP 1233. The catalog# was changed to "SAM 1233 P" and the release was entered with WEA as label. The latter because the WEA page had several other items with a catalog# starting with "SAM". Most people will not be able to tell that that item was actually a Sony Music release with SAMP 1233 as catalog#. As a result, there also was an entry of this release in the database which had the correct label and catalog#. Obviously because the people having that in their collection couldn't find it because they searched "SAMP 1233" .
This won't happen when someone has Various - The Greatest Hits '93 Vol. 4 and this has been entered as "The Greatest Hits - 93-4" in the Series field. Someone searching "The Greatest HIts 93 Vol 4" will still be able to find that because it's in the title like that.

jweijde
Everyone should be able to understand that if I enter "The Greatest Hits (NL)" - "96-1" as series, the item is vol. 1 in the Greatest Hits series from 1996.

Sorry jweijde, I'm not convinced by that at all. We'd have to have a bunch of rules for the processing of series numbering into these adjusted ones, and I don't feel happy having things like that adjusted in such a manner.

Therefore, to bump this thread, I am proposing an amendment to the guidelines:

CURRENT:

If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field. Only the number should be added, as it appears on the release.

PROPOSED:

If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field ajacent to the series name. Enter the numbering as it appears on the release, for example, "Vol. One", "Part 6". When possible, don't repeat the series name in the series number, for example, "The Greatest Hits '92 - Vol. 4" would be entered as "'92 - Vol. 4" .

nik
Sorry jweijde, I'm not convinced by that at all.

People are not that stupid. If it's not obvious by looking at the Series field on the Release Page alone, it should absolutely become obvious when one looks to the Title field or additionally checks the series page.

nik
We'd have to have a bunch of rules for the processing of series numbering into these adjusted ones

Doesn't have to be like that. Just let people make sure the numbering is close to what's on the release and consistent with other items on the series page.

A rough draft, far from perfect but should cover most cases:

If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field ajacent to the series name. Only use Arab (?) numerals for this (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)
When the numbering appears in a different format, like in roman numbers, convert that into arab numbers, i.e. "Part IX" becomes "9", "Vol. III" becomes "3".
When the volume numbering has a combination of numbers used, like on Various - The Greatest Hits 3 - Part 1 enter only the numbers, separated with a hypen, e.g. "92-4" or "3-1".
For volumes including season names, like "Various - 538 Dance Smash Hits Autumn 2002, translate the season into a number. For Autumn, this would be "3", so enter the volume number as "2002-3". Make sure you always enter the year first.

The above would lead to good, consistent numbering.

It doesn't have to be 'as-on-release' because the Title field already shows that. In most cases it'll be only a number anyway.

nik
So prefixes should be included ("Vol. etc), but not the entire series name.

gboe
If so - then the volume no field really becomes invalid as sorting by volume no essentially will become useless

loukash
+1

I agree with gboe too.

jweijde
It doesn't have to be 'as-on-release' because the Title field already shows that.

You keep saying that, but the example the OS posted shows otherwise.

nik
If the releases in the series have a number associated with them, this can be entered into the 'catalog number' field ajacent to the series name. Enter the numbering as it appears on the release, for example, "Vol. One", "Part 6". When possible, don't repeat the series name in the series number, for example, "The Greatest Hits '92 - Vol. 4" would be entered as "'92 - Vol. 4" .

seems quite adequate to me.

jweijde
People are not that stupid.

Playing the devil's advocate, here I'd dare to disagree. The ever growing pile of Discogs Submission Crap™ seems to prove the opposite. ;)

nik
If we adjust them all just to use numbers, then it is really just a sort field, not a series number field.

And that's exactly what this field should be in the first place, because otherwise …

gboe
sorting by volume no. essentially will become useless

The verbatim string to display the numbering is not a crucial identifier like a catalog#. It's the actual value which matters in this case, not the exact form how it was printed.

I understand what you're up to, Nik. But the actual issue is that here we're "abusing" a field which was designed with something else in mind. For catalog#s, many of the old sorting issues were solved with the implementation of shadow numbers. But shadow numbers will hardly work in this case.

jweijde
The above would lead to good, consistent numbering.

That's quite a good proposal so far.
Just the "seasons" part is probably too complex (for many), as it also becomes a language issue.

jweijde
It doesn't have to be 'as-on-release' because the Title field already shows that.

marcelrecords
You keep saying that, but the example the OS posted shows otherwise.

I was focussing on the Greatest Hits compilations.
As for the example in the first post, I fail to see how anyone reading "Complete Mozart Edition – 11" can't figure out that this implies it is the 11th volume in the series. A few might not at the first try but definitely will after a little guidance.
The Complete Mozart Edition series apparently does not mention the volume number in the main title. Atleast the items on Discogs don't show a volume number on the images (yes, only front covers available). So I'm not sure how relevant that example is when it comes to adding or omitting things like "Vol." or "Volume".

loukash
But the actual issue is that here we're "abusing" a field which was designed with something else in mind.

That could very well be. It just should be decided whether it will be a ''sort'' field or a data field. I could certainly live with either, preference aside.

nik
We'd have to have a bunch of rules for the processing of series numbering into these adjusted ones.

That would certainly explain my preference being ''as on release'' in this case.

loukash
I understand what you're up to, Nik. But the actual issue is that here we're "abusing" a field which was designed with something else in mind. For catalog#s, many of the old sorting issues were solved with the implementation of shadow numbers. But shadow numbers will hardly work in this case.

The field isn't really being abused - it is intended that the cat# field attached to entities other than the label can be used for the numbering scheme pertinent to that entity... the cat# tag is just a holdover really.

I also do understand what yourself, jweijde, and others are looking for, and I get the arguments. However, I really don't feel we can peruse the manipulation of the data for sorting purposes here. As shown, the field is sometimes the only place this data will be entered, so it should be as on release. As for catalog numbers, systems could be developed to try to get examples sorting in a better manner. Ultimately, if we want a sort field for manual sorting, that is a different thing and would have to be separate (and is unlikely).

As such, I feel my previous guideline proposal is the one we should be adding to the database, and sort issues should be discussed and solutions found for examples as they come up, but without manipulating the data.

nik
the field is sometimes the only place this data will be entered

Is it so?
Either it's a part of the title anyway, and if not, there's the Release Notes.
Since there's no "LNV" (or here rather "SNV") yet (if ever), we'll need to resort to the notes every now and then for noting any possible Series Name Variations anyway.

More thoughts on this:
There are many series which don't use a specific numbering scheme consistently, even on the release itself. "Great Series Vol. Three" on cover, "Great Series No. 3"on spine, "Great Series III." on labels, etc. We will then need to pick one form over another. By which criteria then? It will cause inconsistency. Some contributors won't even note that there are variations in the numbering scheme. (E.g. what I'm always doing on Formace JQ - Mini Jazz Klub 27).

For series like The Complete Bob Marley & The Wailers 1967 To 1972, the "as on release" is the better way.

The first series combine roman (for the Vol.) & arabic numbers (for the N°) (Vol. II N°5 for example), the second consists of Parts and Volumes (Part I is a compilation of Volume 1 to 3 for example).

I started a thread about the Dance For Ever series : http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/350077 after a has removed all the 'N°' and 'Vol.' prefixes in this series, with the effect of having two different release sharing the number 1 (but were in fact Dance For Ever N°1 and Dance For Ever Vol.1)

Let's bump this again and see if we can come to anything definite.

nik
As such, I feel my previous guideline proposal is the one we should be adding to the database, and sort issues should be discussed and solutions found for examples as they come up, but without manipulating the data.

@ nik, do you stand by that, or do the counterarguments weigh enough to tip the balance?

This has now been codified in the guidelines - please see http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/356624?lock=1#3335852

Thanks to all for the discussion.

nik
Thanks to all for the discussion.

Is it over yet?

loukash
More thoughts on this:
There are many series which don't use a specific numbering scheme consistently, even on the release itself. "Great Series Vol. Three" on cover, "Great Series No. 3"on spine, "Great Series III." on labels, etc. We will then need to pick one form over another. By which criteria then? It will cause inconsistency. Some contributors won't even note that there are variations in the numbering scheme.