I also had this happening to one of my subs. http://discogs.cinepelis.org/history?release=3724400#latest
Also, this stated "cb4" in the submission notes while my sub was fairly new and had not been voted on before. I'm 99.9 % sure, otherwise I should be able to find an "a correct vote" vote mail in my mailbox.
I will revert this as I also had some doubts.
IMO these ULP numbers are just matrix numbers.
All these edits seem to be voted correct by MoonleeRecords by the way.
And looking at his edits doomood seems to put "cb4" in the submission notes of every sub he edited. I highly doubt that all subs were already voted on, but as they are all voted correct now it's impossible to tell. Whether they were actually correct is irrelevant.
By the way, can anybody find a clear statement about this case cat#s and pressingplants, so it won't end up in some edit war?
4.7.2.A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n). For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a catalog number that relates directly to the company.
There are also several forum topics regarding this subject.
wrongdoze
4.7.2.A catalog number is required for every label entered. Where no catalog number exists, you must enter "none" into the catalog number field (note the lower case n). For other companies on the release, leave the catalog number field blank, unless there is a catalog number that relates directly to the company.
Thanks!
I can imagine though, that some (s) may find that it actually is a cat# that relates directly to the company.
I'm not here to offend anyone, but according to what I understand, the majority seems to misinterpret the guidelines. As someone also pointed out here, this is a number that relates directly to the company - and it's not a cat# - so there's nothing wrong with this according to guidelines. It's not a matrix#, although it is a part of it, together with cutting date and the initials of the cutting engineer. This number, which is neither a matrix#, catalog#, or label/distribution code, is printed on every label of each record that Jugoton pressed for others - it starts with ULP, ULS, USD, maybe some other combination. ("U" meaning "uslužni" in Croatian, translated as "service", so it is service LP, service single etc.)
Except in 4.7.2. where this is discussed, there's no other guideline that I could find, that would say anything against putting this number next to Pressed by. I've seen numerous times when a problem was raised, that the main argument was "because nik said so" - nik, please update the guidelines if you think something is wrong, but let's decide where do we take the rules from - guidelines or forum posts. I can't understad why is the majority enforcing something that is not forbidden by guidelines. This further expands the database and helps while browsing the label page. Data is now more visible and Jugoton label page is more complete - showing everything they did with records - publishing, releasing, pressing etc. If I'm wrong, please tell me how to interpret this guideline differently, maybe it's the language barrier, I don't know..
As far as editing and voting goes, I was on an editing spree (about 350 releases), the majority of these releases were correct before, it was late and I may have messed up a couple - I'm very sorry about that. Moonleerecords is a friend of mine who follows me with votes - as I do for other people, and many of you do for your friends as well.
I read something about new label page layouts that should be coming soon - I hope this will further clarify each aspect of the label, like with credits on artist pages. Please, don't revert anything, it's according to guidelines, how can it be wrong? I'm devoted to ex-yugoslav discographies, I think by now I can very well distinguish between their catalog, matrix and other markings on the records.
Thanks for reading, I really hope we can sort this out peacefully once for all..
doomood
Except in 4.7.2. where this is discussed, there's no other guideline that I could find, that would say anything against putting this number next to Pressed by
Do you need more than 1 guideline to tell you what not to do?
Matrix info goes to baoi, not catalog# field, it's actually quite clear and simple.
doomood
Moonleerecords is a friend of mine who follows me with votes
wrongdoze
Do you need more than 1 guideline to tell you what not to do?
Matrix info goes to baoi, not catalog# field, it's actually quite clear and simple.
No, because neither this guideline tells me not to do it - it says it's permitted, because this is neither a catalog# or solely the matrix info.
5.3. Matrix / Run-Out information is often stamped in the run out grooves of records, or in the inner ring of CDs. Vinyl run out etchings can also contain mastering engineer / mastering studio / pressing plant information (often as initials), and extra text. This information can all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.
The guideline should be updated - ...unless there is a number that relates... - I think that's the source of confusion here. Yes, this number is entered in the catalog# field here, but that only doesn't make it a cat# number, because it wasn't meant as a cat# originally, it's something completely different.
5.3. - I can't see how is that relevant to this. It only says that the runout data can be entered in one Matrix/runout string, instead of using one matrix/runout line for each of those - engineer initials, date etc. This ULP/ULS number is also found printed on the label, not only as a part of the matrix#.
No problem! Yes, it's printed, on every record pressed by Jugoton - and when it can be seen on Jugoton label page, it really helps distinguish Jugoton operating years, pressing history etc. Otherwise, we have unindexed and hidden data - which is not really helpful if not visible. BAOI really gives us great options - let's be reasonable and use them!
doomood
Yes, it's printed, on every record pressed by Jugoton - and when it can be seen on Jugoton label page, it really helps distinguish Jugoton operating years, pressing history etc.
Then I agree with this:
doomood
The guideline should be updated - ...unless there is a number that relates...
wrongdoze thanks for understanding! I see some s agree with everything you think, I hope this makes others change their minds as well :)
The guideline should be updated, but "catalog number" maybe should be changed to "marking" or something like that, somewhere else it may be a letter or some other combination, not only a number..
I'm not totally against the outcome of listing this ULP number# in the cat# field as a majority considers this to be some sort of cat#.
If indeed the guideline would be like this:
doomood
...unless there is a number that relates...
There would not be that much against it I guess.
The reason however why I didn't add this in the cat# field is because I saw this number as some (short) form of the matrixnumber, as matrixnumbers also get printed on labels, though often shorter than the actual one in the runout section.
doomood
No, because neither this guideline tells me not to do it - it says it's permitted, because this is neither a catalog# or solely the matrix info.
This pretends half the BAOI on Matrix/Runout doesn't exist.
The Matrix/Runout section is not just for the matrix so the guideline doesn't really need changing.
doomood
This ULP/ULS number is also found printed on the label, not only as a part of the matrix#.
It is part of the matrix. The matrix also is often printed on the labels as well as the runout and again belongs in the BAOI under Matrix/Runout.
5.3. Matrix / Run-Out information is often stamped in the run out grooves of records, or in the inner ring of CDs. Vinyl run out etchings can also contain mastering engineer / mastering studio / pressing plant information (often as initials), and extra text. This information can all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.
Matrix Numbers and other run out information can also be extracted from the whole run out inscription, and added as further 'Matrix Number' fields with descriptions and / or expanded upon in the notes as the submitter sees fit.
Matrix numbers can also be found printed on the label, often without the stamper version etc, this can be added in a separate field if desired.
There can be large gaps between different sections of a releases run out inscriptions. Please only use a space to denote such gaps, as using other separators may cause problems for people searching for a specific data string.
One edition of a release may have many different matrix numbers on individual copies - especially for major label releases. These are considered manufacturing variations for the purposes of cataloguing on Discogs, and not unique releases, so one Discogs 'release' may contain multiple variations in matrix numbers etc. For smaller releases, or in special cases, the matrix variation may indicate a unique release / edition, so please ask in the Adding & Updating forum if in doubt.
- The BAOI guidelines on Matrix/Runout.
Soon catalogue numbers will be decoupled from the company and label fields and moved to the baoi so any talk of fixing working rules can really be set aside.
Again, it's part of the matrix, the matrix is normally determined by the plant, it is not a catalogue number. The guidelines are clear and specific.
I understand what both of you are saying about matrix numbers, and the bolded section of 5.3. may be on to something here, although not directly related - but let's be honest and say that the main guideline concerning this (4.7.2.) just isn't clear enough - and needs to be slightly changed and clarified.
Eviltoastman, why don't you understand that this designation, althought it's a part of the matrix number, doesn't really derive from it? In fact, matrix# derives from this designation - first they would look in their documentation to see what was the next available number for the service pressing, then they would assign it to the record and the last step was stamping the matrices with the same number, together with other information. Doesn't that make sense? Look at their regular releases, any other label's releases in fact - first you assign an available number to something, then you press it in the matrix, right? To make handling and cataloguing the record easier, of course they printed the same number on the label - not everybody is really interested in checking and understanding the info from matrix numbers, or has the time to check the matrix of thousands of records when packing them in the factory etc... The fact is, this number is printed on the label and needs to be entered in the submission somehow. It's not only in the matrix, and that's not where I'm taking the number from when entering it next to Pressed by field. I'm just looking what's printed on the label - although on some submissions without pictures but with matrix# entered, it's clear to understand what's the number for. But it's wrong to say that this is just the crippled matrix# - it's not, it had/has it's purpose, and the fact that it can be found in matrix only suggests that Jugoton had a simple and efficient way of keeping track of their output - thousands of own releases and thousand of service pressings - together with cutting date and the name of engineer, which is something I didn't come across many times on non-Yugoslav records.
Eviltoastman
Soon catalogue numbers will be decoupled from the company and label fields and moved to the baoi so any talk of fixing working rules can really be set aside.
I'm really looking forward to this - until then, or until the working rules are fixed and clarified, I think I haven't really done anything wrong. I'm giving my best to try to explain this, really..
doomood
Soon catalogue numbers will be decoupled from the company and label fields and moved to the baoi so any talk of fixing working rules can really be set aside.
Oh and, I forgot to say - this also means that with this change, even the catalog and series numbers will be allowed in BAOI fields, so there's no need now to remove something that will anyway remain there (or be allowed, if it's unclear now!) sometime later.
doomood
Oh and, I forgot to say - this also means that with this change, even the catalog and series numbers will be allowed in BAOI fields, so there's no need now to remove something that will anyway remain there (or be allowed, if it's unclear now!) sometime later.
no, we work to the current guidelines or to exceptions, granted by nik in the forums and as voters we work to these guidelines until they are changed or unless we can included a link to a forum precedent explaining or proving the exception to the rule.
Eviltoastman
no, we work to the current guidelines or to exceptions, granted by nik in the forums and as voters we work to these guidelines until they are changed or unless we can included a link to a forum precedent explaining or proving the exception to the rule.
Not everyone has the time or will to follow dozens of multi-page threads on the forum, as these often go in the direction we're taking this thread now - endless discussion, calling names, majority silencing one or two guys etc... That's why the guidelines should be extremely clear, because they're the first thing you point new s to, and usually the source of quotes when a problem like this arises. If this issue has been discussed before, it clearly wasn't discussed to the point where things became clear - otherwise, conclusions would have entered the guidelines by now. I the similar thread started by atlashunt, about adding "none" next to pressed by field - althought that "none" also had some sense in certain situations, the guidelines say it's not allowed, and many submissions were corrected according to that. But this problem obviously isn't emphasized enough and now is the chance to solve it, either by leaving everything as it is, because with the new design these differences clearly won't matter anymore, either by changing the guideline to conform one of the few possible interpretations. I don't want to insult anyone, but isn't following common sense better than blindly following the rules and exceptions to the rules that someone, who has a thousand other database issues on mind, briefly posted in some thread? Yes, nik is the main guy here, but unless he is an omniscient robot, which I doubt he is, he can't immediately know what rule is the best and what repercussions a certain rule will have in the further expansion of the database abilities. That's why the s are here, and I guess that's what built and improved this site over the time.
This ULP ... is a custom pressing number that relates directly to the Jugoton custom pressing division. So I voted correct as in many other submissions before.
Well - I guess the needs to get involved - some changes have been voted "Needs Minor Changes" and other have been voted "Correct" for the same change, so it leaves it as a confusing matter at this point.
doomood
I the similar thread started by atlashunt, about adding "none" next to pressed by field - althought that "none" also had some sense in certain situations,
Actually AFAIR his primary argument was that it messed up pretty pages to have numbers from other entities listed on label and pressing plant pages, and the arguments he used there were completely contrary to the guidelines as they existed and Nik's instruction.
He also made it clear he had little interest in adhering to these guidelines and that we were "stupid" in asking him to do so.
narcisco
The reason however why I didn't add this in the cat# field is because I saw this number as some (short) form of the matrixnumber, as matrixnumbers also get printed on labels, though often shorter than the actual one in the runout section.
The Matrix on the label is complete. It is specific to a volume of recorded work, aka the Master audio. Anything you see on a runout (no 'groove' just a flat surface) is expanded upon that coding - i.e. coded info regarding how that Master got on there to the playing surface.
Engineer marks, press data, etc., along with the Matrix used... the rest of it is matrix data (note I used upper & lower-case for describing the 'Matrix' and the 'matrix data'.
[A matrix is a die used for stamping])
So, what is on the Label isn't "shortened", as you put it.
Check out the Matrix on a vinyl single - both Labels - as an example
swagski
he Matrix on the label is complete. It is specific to a volume of recorded work, aka the Master audio. Anything you see on a runout (no 'groove' just a flat surface) is expanded upon that coding - i.e. coded info regarding how that Master got on there to the playing surface.
Engineer marks, press data, etc., along with the Matrix used... the rest of it is matrix data (note I used upper & lower-case for describing the 'Matrix' and the 'matrix data'.
[A matrix is a die used for stamping])
So, what is on the Label isn't "shortened", as you put it.
Check out the Matrix on a vinyl single - both Labels - as an example
Ok, thanks. So it's actually the other way around, though still, the matrix# on the label is shorter (not shortened :) ) than the info that's presented in the runout. Mabe it was not the best way to put it. :)
We do agree that this is a matrix#, would you say my motivation of not adding this number in the cat# field is therefore right, or do you think that doomood does have a point of adding it after all, as it directs to the pressing company?
Opdiner
Actually AFAIR his primary argument was that it messed up pretty pages to have numbers from other entities listed on label and pressing plant pages, and the arguments he used there were completely contrary to the guidelines as they existed and Nik's instruction.
He also made it clear he had little interest in adhering to these guidelines and that we were "stupid" in asking him to do so.
Not sure any of that is defined as "sense".
It had sense because some of the numbers that appeared on certain label pages were not originally meant to be assigned with those labels, and the database did it by itself - but he took it all a bit too far. I think this is a bit of a problem, but as I said, I don't agree with his disregard of the guidelines, and that's why I edited some of the submissions and voted on a dozen of your edits of the same.
doomood
let's decide where do we take the rules from - guidelines or forum posts.
Disregarding the term "rules": We follow the guidelines to the best of our ability. They will never be crystal clear. When we are uncertain, or wonder how to interpret them, we rely on the discernment of management. Hence, we all follow the "rules" from both places.
doomood
Not everyone has the time or will to follow dozens of multi-page threads on the forum
This is understandable, but does not excuse anyone from ignoring the information once informed.
doomood
BAOI really gives us great options - let's be reasonable and use them!
Eviltoast, great tutorial on this subject which brings my question.. I have been entering Baoi info using the dropdowns;(e.g.)
Matrix/Runout ST-A- etc etc A Side Etched
Other ST-A-etc etc MO A Side Center Label
Does it matter if i use Other with description for the center label or should i use the matrix/runout drop downdown?
thanks
Eviltoastman
Again, it's part of the matrix, the matrix is normally determined by the plant, it is not a catalogue number. The guidelines are clear and specific.
