Lyntone becomes Lyntone Recordings Ltd.

This has developed pretty clandestine:
The vinyl plating and pressing company Lyntone Recordings Ltd.. Quite correctly and an indisputable matter.
However, and just to avoid dozens of edits with discussions, I'd like to have something being clarified here:
Every Lyntone release carries a "LYN + figures" number.
And here it gets hairy....
Sometimes the LYN numbers are clearly present on the release's labels, like http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=12169
Sometimes the LYN numbers are only present in the runouts but not elsewhere, like Various - Mell Square Musick
And sometimes the LYN numbers are only present in the runouts but as part of an overall matrix, like New Order - Ceremony.

What do we do with these numbers?
Should they be considered cat ##, regardless their appearance?
Shouldn't they at all?
Cat# yes but only when explicitly mentioned on the labels?

Opinions please.

I'm pretty sure this was discussed before, when the LCCN was first introduced, and it was agreed it was ok, hence the amount of submissions with the plant number submitted, but for some reason this has back tracked, without further discussion (I may be proved wrong), and I don't understand why.
IMO If a pressing plant has a numbering system, that is present on the releases it's pressed, then I believe it should be recorded so it's visible on the pressing plant page.

ChrisCrass
I'm pretty sure this was discussed before, when the LCCN was first introduced, and it was agreed it was ok,

Indeed, it has been discussed. But as far as I this wasn't ok as such. On the contrary, it has been ruled by Nik that numbers extracted from a matrix shouldn't be used as cat##. Only numbers explictly stated on the centre labels are allowed.
So, the basic question is: Are we treating manufacturing numbers (of a company) as catalogue numbers (of a label) or not - regardless if extracted from a matrix or featured as only identifier? Maybe companies like Sonopresse (2) are exceptional...

sebfact
Indeed, it has been discussed. But as far as I this wasn't ok as such. On the contrary, it has been ruled by Nik that numbers extracted from a matrix shouldn't be used as cat##. Only numbers explictly stated on the centre labels are allowed.

'We' started up the Lyntone page, using the Lyn runouts as a 2nd format ID.
(Primary/ Releasing label - if present- came first)
This concession had a primary aim - to log all flexidiscs into one page. (Which happened to be a plant, not a Label)
When it was begun, it was discussed at length and OK'd by nik as a concession.

Now that the LCCN has been introduced - and there is greater awareness of runout data - the division of the flexible (and a few vinyl) recordings can now follow the route as other recordings.

Trust that makes sense.

Edit: I think the 'rule' that Client takes precedent over Lyn cat# should be maintained. i.e. Brand / Lyn or Private Eye/Lyn
But not needed if it's an acknowledged Label i.e. Mute
Edit 2: To clarify that - Label/s will have audio 'ready to go'.
Most 'Clients' are likely to have used Lyntone for entire exercise... (I know that is a bit 'subjective' - but a case by case thing, if credits are present).

All-Vinyl-Experience is THE MAN on this subject of flexis

Just food for thought...
The Lyntone runout/cat#s are extremely useful in a singular listing for dating flexi releases.
It occurred to me that it might be a better idea to log all flexis as "Lyntone Flexi-series"? (a faux title, of course, and simply an 'umbrella')
Then use the Lyn code as cat# for them.
Only ever put Lyntone in as a Label when it truly (and rarely) is a label

sebfact
Indeed, it has been discussed. But as far as I this wasn't ok as such. On the contrary, it has been ruled by Nik that numbers extracted from a matrix shouldn't be used as cat##. Only numbers explictly stated on the centre labels are allowed.

Indeed it was discussed and Nik has repeatedly said no to this. It's mostly clearly enunciated here:

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/274154#2969745

What Nik did allow elsewhere - and this is what has caused the confusion I think - was the inclusion of printed Lyntone numbers as catalogue numbers, which seems reasonable.

The problem with extracting a number from the matrix is that they are not catalogue numbers, they are matrix numbers and we have a field for that.

If we do that for these, why are we not moving the mould SID codes to the cat # fields? They are unique identifiers assigned to a release after all.

That said, there is still a valued in finding a place where these Lyn numbers can be listed but at the moment a list seems to be the most obvious. We don't have a place for a work number yet (which is what they essentially are - almost every CD has one too so it's hardly a Lyntone exclusive issue - it's database wide and it's incorrect I think to say this is just a Lyntone or a flexi question).

sebfact
This has developed pretty clandestine:

Sorry, it developed out of this http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/345660 and then several s and I applied the normal rules dividing company and branded labels (which swagski raised in the Lyntone profile earlier - correctly) and entered as release.

Clearly the label is not the company and the company was Lyntone Recordings Ltd. (although some appear on the labels as just Lyntone and some as Lyntone London - those I've left until they could be discussed).

sebfact
Cat# yes but only when explicitly mentioned on the labels?

That's the way Nik wanted it to be and I agree - otherwise we turn all works numbers derived from every matrix in the database into a catalogue number for display purposes.

And every Mould SID Code.

Edit: Nik also yesterday ed a SR I made about other works numbers being extracted and turned into cat#s so I think that position still stands.

sebfact
Indeed, it has been discussed. But as far as I this wasn't ok as such. On the contrary, it has been ruled by Nik that numbers extracted from a matrix shouldn't be used as cat##. Only numbers explictly stated on the centre labels are allowed.

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/332406#3107235
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/275306#3035062
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/275306#2975442

Am I reading these wrong then?
It seem to me that it was given the thumbs up from Nik for Various - Flex Your Head as discussed in the middle topic.

ChrisCrass
Am I reading these wrong then?

I think you are. Those are all for printed numbers, not part of a matrix.

And the assertion in http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/332406#3106766 that:

"Lyntone is slightly different in that they often have their own unique numbering"

really isn't correct. Many, many manufacturers have a work or plant number. In the CD age they almost all do.

So do we, as a matter of course, now extract all these and convert them to fake cat# status?

And there is still http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/274154#2969745 :

nik
I'd advise leaving matrix in the matrix/runout field. I think it will complicate things too much to try associating them with manufacturer (Pressing plant? Printer? Overseeing record company?.

That seems pretty clear to me.

Opdiner
Sorry, it developed out of this http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/345660 and then several s and I applied the normal rules dividing company and branded labels (which  swagski raised in the Lyntone profile earlier - correctly) and entered as release.

I am glad it did, Lyntone always seemed wrong to me in the first place.

Opdiner
Edit: Nik also yesterday ed a SR I made about other works numbers being extracted and turned into cat#s so I think that position still stands.

Which will make howl all the flexi collectors of Sonopresse, Lyntone etc. And I can understand them, having all the numbers present on one page is a neat thing.
But:

Opdiner
That's the way Nik wanted it to be and I agree - otherwise we turn all works numbers derived from every matrix in the database into a catalogue number for display purposes.

which I .

So what do we have then:
1. If the LYN numbers are printed on the release, the cat# is allowed. But a company credit is used (usually "Pressed By" or "Made By" or whatever is found on the release), not a second label. This is the same proceeding as with, e.g., EFA.
2. If the LYN # is part of a matrix, it stays in the BAOI section.

But what if the LYN number IS the matrix, e.g. "LYN-1234 A" - could that, too, be considered a cat# for the company credit?

sebfact
But what if the LYN number IS the matrix, e.g. "LYN-1234 A" - could that, too, be considered a cat# for the company credit?

I think mostly I'd view that as just the matrix.

However I do think there is a need or a place to gather all these sorts of numbers on a manufacturer's page in the future. These essentially are factory identifiers, as is also a mould SID, and it would be cool if somehow these could be entered in a way that they could be displayed. It's useful information and it seems lost in just the matrix field.

That said, it may be too much of an ask right now to get the programmers to create some sort of field which allows this to be displayed on a factory's page - they have new colour schema to deal with at the mo' :)

Such a field might be introduced though when the new label / company pages arrive allowing breakdown into entity roles.

sebfact
Indeed, it has been discussed. But as far as I this wasn't ok as such. On the contrary, it has been ruled by Nik that numbers extracted from a matrix shouldn't be used as cat##.

I believe you are correct here.

sebfact
So, the basic question is: Are we treating manufacturing numbers (of a company) as catalogue numbers (of a label) or not - regardless if extracted from a matrix or featured as only identifier?

If they are extracted from the matrix we are not treating them as catalog numbers. In the thread you are referring to nik made clear that they would go into the baoi information as part of the matrix only.

swagski
Now that the LCCN has been introduced - and there is greater awareness of runout data - the division of the flexible (and a few vinyl) recordings can now follow the route as other recordings.

Trust that makes sense.

It does.

Opdiner
Indeed it was discussed and Nik has repeatedly said no to this. It's mostly clearly enunciated here:

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/274154#2969745

What Nik did allow elsewhere - and this is what has caused the confusion I think - was the inclusion of printed Lyntone numbers as catalogue numbers, which seems reasonable.

Thanks for the link. That does make things clear, doesn't it?

Opdiner
And there is still http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/274154#2969745 :

nik

I'd advise leaving matrix in the matrix/runout field. I think it will complicate things too much to try associating them with manufacturer (Pressing plant? Printer? Overseeing record company?.

Opdiner
That seems pretty clear to me.

Crystal clear, in fact.

sebfact
But what if the LYN number IS the matrix, e.g. "LYN-1234 A" - could that, too, be considered a cat# for the company credit?

Opdiner
I think mostly I'd view that as just the matrix.

That's how I see it as well.

Opdiner
I think you are. Those are all for printed numbers, not part of a matrix.

It is on the example I submitted, the one that Various - Flex Your Head (See BAOI). It isn't anywhere else on the release.
Again not trying to be awkward here, I'm really not, but some wires have been crossed somewhere.

ChrisCrass
It is on the example I submitted, the one that  Nik said was fine

Yeah I see what you mean. I think - and I might be wrong - that given Nik's pretty clear contradictory instruction around the same time to do otherwise, he may not have realised that the number was just part of the matrix and didn't appear on the release - it was a pretty confused and full on thread.

But the only person that knows that is Nik I guess.

What ever the reason, it's caused total confusion and needs to be rectified one way or the other.

timetogo
Crystal clear, in fact.

Not so much anymore?

ChrisCrass
Not so much anymore?

No I still think it is - Nik has dealt with a couple of SRs recently too which indicate his thinking is as that link I provided.

I'm pretty sure he thought that factory number was printed on the release, otherwise he'd be opening the doors for literally millions of factory numbers to be converted from part of the matrix into catalogue numbers and I doubt that was the case.

Of course I could be wrong... :)

One of the things I was attempting to touch on, was that 'Major Labels/labels' on Lyntone flexis would have supplied Master audio.
Lyntone had recording, mastering & pressing facilities - so, the more 'geeky stuff' - and releases for folk with no access to a studio - would have doubtless been implemented by Lyntone. Fan clubs, Private Eye messages, etc.
Now, with the LCCN all this gets / can get clearer.
For info: Here's a few links to the original topic & concession from nik (no longer required)
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/211649#2629503
Which headed onward to this from nik;
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/211649#2632428
etc
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/211649#2632815
there's a whole bunch of 'rule-thinking' in there & to-and-fro that may help.
It all made sense at the time & the resultant 'column of dates' was extremely useful as a guide to other non-flexi releases that were questionable.

As mentioned http://discogs.cinepelis.org//All-Vinyl-Experience
could be really helpful on the flexis

Raising this again. I guess there is agreement that Lyntone is the label and Lyntone Recordings Ltd. is the factory/company, however not all releases say Manufactured by Lyntone Recordings Ltd. Some credit Lyntone London and others just say Manufactured by Lyntone, which is short for Lyntone Recordings Ltd. I imagine.

With those last ones (the ones that say "Manufactured by Lyntone"), do they stay on the Lyntone page or go to the company page?

Opinions?

bump

Opdiner
however not all releases say Manufactured by Lyntone Recordings Ltd.

Surely, common sense dictates that a "Lyn"(+bumph) stamped in the runout indicates the item was
at least "Pressed By -Lyntone Recordings Ltd."?
----
A "Lyn XXX" on a label is most likely the audio matrix (usually repeated in runout).
A major label cat# (or audio matrix) may be present on labels of some of their flexis.
So, IMHO, the majority of these 'Lyn flexis' will fall under the Company page.

swagski
Surely, common sense dictates that a "Lyn"(+bumph) stamped in the runout indicates the item was
at least "Pressed By -Lyntone Recordings Ltd."?

I'd agree with that, and have been treating it that way. There a couple at least that just say Manufactured by Lyntone - no runout at all.

I'm inclined to treat "Manufactured by Lyntone" as "Manufactured by Lyntone Recordings Ltd." but don't want anyone getting upset about that.

Sorry, I was editing my post as you posted - I'll repeat the bit;
A "Lyn XXX" on a label is most likely the audio matrix (usually repeated in runout).
A major label cat# (or audio matrix) may be present on labels of some of their flexis.
So, IMHO, the majority of these 'Lyn flexis' will fall under the Company page.

okay. Makes sense and I'll carry on doing a few a day if nobody is horrendously upset by all this :)

Opdiner
I'm inclined to treat "Manufactured by Lyntone" as "Manufactured by Lyntone Recordings Ltd."

Sorry for being late - I fully agree

Have to jump in again:
How to handle this beauty: New Order - Merry Xmas From The Haçienda And Factory Records ?
It clearly has LYN-12696 on the centre label.
More likewise examples exist, too (e.g. The Cure - Lament), so a general approach is needed.
Add Lyntone London as 2nd label with LYN-12696 as cat#?
Add LYN-12696 as cat# to the company Lyntone London?

I don't think Lyntone Recordings Ltd. with the variation in the notes.

The We Wish You A Merry Christmas!

why are legitimate Lyntone numbers being removed from the companies field?
Hold Tight / Time To Play

This is a dangerous habit to get into - those numbers were given to the releases by Lyntone and, as discussed, they are important in determining the chronology of the companies output. All Lyntone Recordings Ltd. manufacturing tags should have the corresponding Lyntone number - 2 if applicable.

boogaloo123
I don't think Lyntone London should even exist - it's just another way of phrasing made by Lyntone. They should be attributed to Lyntone Recordings Ltd. with the variation in the notes.

I do agree. But there's there's always the eventuality that someone will come and add Lyntone London again because it's "as on". Moreover, Nik has repeatedly stated that we should simply use what's found on the release, unless there is solid proof that the stated name is just another name, abbreviation etc. Lyntone London is something of a borderline case where a compromise could be found though.

boogaloo123
The Lyntone page is now a mess.

Thy Lyntone page always was a mess, because company and label have been lumped under the label. This is being corrected steadily. I have corrected the Factory and Mute entries and a few others.

boogaloo123
why are legitimate Lyntone numbers being removed from the companies field?

Because they were already allocated to the label Pow! (2) and don't have to be duplicated for the companies.

boogaloo123
All Lyntone Recordings Ltd. manufacturing tags should have the corresponding Lyntone number - 2 if applicable.

Basically, they are work numbers. And as Opdiner has pointed out:

Opdiner
We don't have a place for a work number yet

But maybe the handling of these cases needs to be discussed too, beside my above question starting with

sebfact
Have to jump in again:

sebfact
Basically, they are work numbers. And as  Opdiner has pointed out:

 Opdiner
We don't have a place for a work number yet

Using that argument, are we not shoehorning work numbers into catalogue# fileds? If the Lyntone number is all that exists on a release I think we use it for label and company.

An interesting comment in the sub notes of strummin, which I repeat here (I hope he'll participate, too):

strummin
catalog number should be 'none' here. LYN 2475 and LYN 2476 are obviously matrix numbers, as each side has its own number. Associating those numbers with the label makes no sense whatsoever. Associating them with Lyntone Recordings Ltd. makes a little more sense, but even in that case only one number is going to show up at the Lyntone page.

So, if considered matrix numbers, the two LYN numbers would be moved into the BAOI section.

For me any sequential numbering system used by whoever creates it is a useful catag system to document and view collective output.

One often repeated forum mantra is that the catalog number belongs to the release. However, because they are really matrix numbers, those Lyntone numbers belong to one side of the release only. This is not so obvious for most of the flexidiscs, because of them being single sided.
If those matrix numbers are treated as catalog numbers, I really don't see why matrix numbers issued by other pressing plants shouldn't.

The more I ponder over it, the more I think the best solution here is indeed to use the primary label with cat# = none (if there is a LYN number only) and add the LYN number from the centre label(s) (but not from the run-outs !) to the Made By company credit for Lyntone Recordings Ltd. That at least works fine for 1-sided flexis and is consistent with the handling of specific distribution numbers used by SPV or Rough Trade being added to the company credits.

Question remains though, what to do with double-sided vinyl?
Add two Made By credits with each label's LYN number (being consistent with adding the single number), or add to the BAOI only (raising the question why 1 LYN number is allowed but 2 LYN numbers aren't).

Taking my examples from further up:
New Order - Merry Xmas From The Haçienda And Factory Records: Would have
Label = Factory with cat# = FAC 51B and
company Made By - Lyntone Recordings Ltd. with cat# LYN-12696.

Ronnie Sebastian - Hold Tight / Time To Play: Would have
Label = Pow! (2) with cat# = none
and company Made By - Lyntone Recordings Ltd. with cat# LYN 2475
and company Made By - Lyntone Recordings Ltd. with cat# LYN 2476
OR
would have Label = Pow! (2) with cat# = none
and company Made By - Lyntone Recordings Ltd. without cat#
and BAOI Matrix/Runout Side A = LYN 2475 // BAOI Matrix/Runout Side B = LYN 2476.

Personally, I prefer the company variant (even with two companies added). By this we would satisfy the people wanting to see the LYN numbers in their respective Lyntone context and we wouldn't mingle LYN numbers with all kind of labels. And a massive data redundancy shouldn't be expected either.
Is that approach acceptable for everybody?

Additionally, I would allocate Lyntone Recordings Ltd., stating in the profile of the latter the different names found on the releases. I think we can be 100% sure that Made by Lyntone and Made by Lyntone London always means Made by Lyntone Recordings Ltd.
Does that migration sound acceptable to everybody, too?

sebfact
Personally, I prefer the company variant (even with two companies added)

I'd go with that...

sebfact
Additionally, I would allocate Lyntone London releases to Lyntone Recordings Ltd.

and that too.

Guys I've been following this topic for a while, and I really think we're missing a trick if we decide to *not* enter the pressing plant (or whatever) matrix number into the catalogue number field.

See for example here:
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/label/Goldisc+Recording+Products%2C+Inc.

Without all the K-xxxx numbers being entered into that field, Goldisc becomes a mess, and it makes it much harder to date any of the undated releases by their matrix numbers (as I have done with the Ebonite library albums).
Imagine how amazing and flexible the whole database would be if pressing plant's matrix numbers were stored in this way. Suddenly the pages for pressing plants such as "Monarch Record Mfg. Co." become these incredibly detailed resources for record collectors, rather than a messy list.

I strongly disagree with nik on this.

I personally have no problem with adding the Lyntone number(s) to the catalogue field if no other exists on the release. I can see the argument against if there is no printed number and just a matrix.

With regards to using none. I disagree. If there's a barcode use that. if there's not barcode use the matrix.
The "lyntone" number should only be used as a catalogue number adjacent to a "label" field, not a company field. In cases where the release has a cat# not associated with the lyntone number, it belongs in the baoi section as advised by nik here in a similar discussion about matrix numbers in the company cat# fields, this issue was also discussed quite recently here.

sebfact
Additionally, I would allocate Lyntone London releases to Lyntone Recordings Ltd.,

I think this would be incorrect. It's fine as a separate entry and mitigates it by it's existence on releases this way. If it were to merge with anything, it should be the main Lyntone page which should not bear any marks of prescription along artificial lines of label / company. This sentence "This page is for the label, for the company please use Lyntone Recordings Ltd." is something Nik has forbidden recently, I will find the ing link.

Eviltoastman
With regards to using none. I disagree. If there's a barcode use that. if there's not barcode use the matrix

Fully agree with ETM on this. The catalogue number is the number of the release and goes next to the label.

Eviltoastman
I think this would be incorrect.

Same. Nik has said we enter as release and Lyntone has at some stage decided that's how they would refer to themselves. It was during a defined period and we should enter it to reflect that IMO.

Also Damont Audio took them over in the eighties. It's quite likely that the Lyntone Recordings Ltd. company was then folded as is often the case and Lytone London was a division. Do we know for sure that was not the case?

disco-funk
I strongly disagree with  nik on this.

So do you intend to extract all factory/works numbers from all matrices found here and convert these extracts to catalogue numbers? There are literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of these. Or is Lyntone (and a few other factories) a special case? How about IFPI moulds?

strummin
If those matrix numbers are treated as catalog numbers, I really don't see why matrix numbers issued by other pressing plants shouldn't.

That's the question, I agree.

boogaloo123
The Lyntone page is now a mess.

It was a complete mess, with anything that mentioned Lyntone in any way rammed together. Now, as Sebfact says, it's a work in progress to fix.

Eviltoastman
The "lyntone" number should only be used as a catalogue number adjacent to a "label" field, not a company field.

Why not? It is the company's sequential numbering system. It is allocated by the company for all releases manufactured by the company. It also provides a good indication for dating releases.

Opdiner
it's a work in progress to fix.

As far as I can see, the Lyntone label page will be left with 1 release. Everything else will eventually be in the company page.

boogaloo123
Why not? It is the company's sequential numbering system. It is allocated by the company for all releases manufactured by the company. It also provides a good indication for dating releases.

It flows down anyway, so what is the issue?

However if it's a matrix, we enter it in the matrix field. There are literally millions of matrix numbers on releases in the database that indicate sequence and dating. Why are these not entered as catalogue numbers too?

How about the thousands of MXxxxxxxx matrix numbers on Australian pressings of the 60s-80s? These indicate factory and date and do exactly same thing the LYN numbers do. Are these all catalogue numbers now? And if not, why not?

boogaloo123
As far as I can see, the Lyntone label page will be left with 1 release. Everything else will eventually be in the company page.

Not sure that's a problem if it's correct.

Opdiner
However if it's a matrix, we enter it in the matrix field.

Those Lyntone numbers are not, strictly speaking, matrix numbers.
"Matrix numbers are alphanumeric codes (and on occasion, other symbols) stamped or hand written (or a combination of the two) into the run-out groove area of a gramophone record."
That's seems to be the grey area here. I can see no reason why these numbers cannot be attached to the company field.

Opdiner
So do you intend to extract all factory/works numbers from all matrices found here and convert these extracts to catalogue numbers? There are literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of these.

Yes absolutely. This is a terrific idea, sure it will take years, but it will be the most incredible music database in history when it's completed.

boogaloo123
Why not? It is the company's sequential numbering system. It is allocated by the company for all releases manufactured by the company. It also provides a good indication for dating releases.

+1

boogaloo123
Those Lyntone numbers are not, strictly speaking, matrix numbers.

Of course they are matrix numbers. That is their purpose.

4.9.1. A matrix number (sometimes derived from the catalog number) is used during manufacturing to keep track of the process, for example to mark the sides of a record. Usually, the matrix number is inscribed in the run out groove of a record, or in the center of a CD.

And from that same wiki:

Matrix numbers are intended for the internal use of the record manufacturing plant, but they are also studied and documented by record collectors, as they can sometimes provide useful information about the edition of the record.

There are two parts of the matrix number to be considered: the main number, which is usually printed on the label as well, and extra information which can include a cut or take number. Matrix numbers can refer to any of these elements, or all of them combined. The inscription area may also contain record plant codes or logos, the initials or signature of the disc cutting engineer, and cutting or copyright dates, among other things.

The matrix number printed on the label should not be confused with the catalogue number, which is usually in larger type, and will typically be the same number on both sides of the record. Matrix numbers will be different on each side, and are sometimes printed upside down on the label to prevent them from being mistaken for the catalogue number.

There is no way that is not a Lyntone matrix number.

Opdiner
However if it's a matrix, we enter it in the matrix field.

The problem with this is that the list of matrix numbers doesn't appear on the Companies page. So that information essentially disappears unless you visit the release page itself, or do an exact search in the search box.

When the number is entered in the Company Catalogue number box, it shows on the main Companies page as a sequentially numbered and dated list, making it undeniably far more useful than stuffing it away in the BAOI.

disco-funk
When the number is entered in the Company Catalogue number box, it shows on the main Companies page as a sequentially numbered and dated list, making it undeniably far more useful than stuffing it away in the BAOI.

So, ask Nik to change the rules and move the matrixes to the a new field in the LCCN.

As we've said above, there is a an argument that there could perhaps be a factory number field, but it's not a catalogue number. I also find catalogue numbers from the labels pretty useful on factory pages so, really, I'm not keen to lose that, and I'm really not sure why we should since the field is made to exhibit those, not matrices or part of matrices.

Eviltoastman
With regards to using none. I disagree. If there's a barcode use that. if there's not barcode use the matrix.

That's not true. The matrix should only be used to derive a catalog number from it, if the matrix actually contains a catalog number.

4.7.10. Often the matrix number will be the catalog number followed by a side identifier, for example ABC-001-A and ABC-001-B, where the catalog number is ABC-001. Catalog numbers can be derived from the matrix numbers in these cases provided there is good evidence for it being correct - for example, the extracted catalog number matches the catalog number format on the label's other releases.

In the Lyntone case the matrix numbers are clearly just that - numbers issued by the manufacturer for each side of the record.
And if the matrix number appears printed on the inner label too (which is not uncommon for many record companies), it doesn't magically convert to a catalog number either.

strummin
In the Lyntone case the matrix numbers are clearly just that - numbers issued by the manufacturer for each side of the record.
And if the matrix number appears printed on the inner label too (which is not uncommon for many record companies), it doesn't magically convert to a catalog number eithe

I took my eye off this thread for a while...
Yes, I agree with the above.
IMHO, Lyntone simply had an 'audio'/'project' numbering system.
That is their 'Matrix'. It gets stamped into their runouts. It may, like normal releases, also appear on a label from a Major for whom they have produced a flexi - thus sharing a possible audio or cat# ref with that Major on the label.
IMHO, when Lyntone DO release an item as a Label (on behalf of a simple Client, or as their own 'project'), then that Matrix ALSO becomes a cat# for that respective work.
--------
Edit; Two hypothetical examples:

1) Number issued on Monday = LYN 1234
Flexi = "A Christmas Message From Bloggs Wallpapers"
Cat# = LYN 1234 - Runout (Single-sided) LYN 1234

2) Number issued on Tuesday = LYN 1235
Flexi = Covermount for the Screaming Abdabs on Mute M345
Flexi = "Abdabbing"
Cat# = Mute 345
Runout (Single-sided) LYN 1235
Label matrix = LYN 1235

Opdiner
So, ask Nik to change the rules and move the matrixes to the a new field in the LCCN.

Nik, can we consider changing the rules please?

Yep, so on The Gingerbread Man / Over In The Meadow the two numbers currently listed under Lyntone are matrix numbers IMO.

disco-funk
Nik, can we consider changing the rules please?

It's going to take quite a bit more than that I think. You will need a new field tagged Factory Number or Order Number and a place to put it on the company page.

Opdiner
It's going to take quite a bit more than that I think. You will need a new field tagged Factory Number or Order Number and a place to put it on the company page.

Yes it was a bit whimsical, wasn't it :)

It will be really hard to get a consensus to change this in of functionality. And hard to see a need for it, when there's already a Catalogue number field that does exactly what many of us want it to do if a Matrix number is entered in there.

Far easier to change the guidelines:

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 or matrix number that relates directly to the company.

^ there's a starting point for discussion.

Opdiner
Yep, so on The Gingerbread Man / Over In The Meadow the two numbers currently listed under Lyntone are matrix numbers IMO.

 disco-funk
Nik, can we consider changing the rules please?

It's going to take quite a bit more than that I think. You will need a new field tagged Factory Number or Order Number and a place to put it on the company page.

Per my examples; http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/345856#msg3258888

Per your query s Horovitz / Marvin Hayes - The Gingerbread Man / Over In The Meadow - which is...
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=3834138
The Cat# is SR 1007
The Label Matrices are
A-side LYN 2700 & B-side LYN 2701
I don't see the problem. Everything goes where it's always gone.
"Made By" should be Lyntone Recordings Ltd.
It is a Scholastic Label!!

Edit: As I said, if it had been a Lyntone Label, then they would be cat#s (and no Major Label would have a cat#, which would have taken precedence)

strummin
That's not true. The matrix should only be used to derive a catalog number from it, if the matrix actually contains a catalog number.

nik
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. By 'associated' I mean tied to. If an entity doesn't have any cat# associated with it, it will take the first catalog number associated with any entity on the release. If there is no cat#, then the barcode. If no barcode, the matrix etc etc.

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/275306#msg3028052

Eviltoastman
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/275306#msg3028052

If I understood nik correctly, that comment was referring to the way available numbers from the release are (supposed to be) selected for display at an entity's page with no explicit catalog number provided for it. I can hardly imagine it was meant as a statement to overrule existing guidelines.

Opdiner
Yep, so on The Gingerbread Man / Over In The Meadow the two numbers currently listed under Lyntone are matrix numbers IMO.

They are Lyntone's company allocated numbers - they belong to Lyntone. That entry of mine needs updating to Made by: Lyntone Recordings Ltd. but I still think the company numbers should stay.

I have now updated company to Lyntone Recordings Ltd.

Further examples, using actual items in Ogs:
Here's a simple one Depeche Mode - Stripped (Highland Mix)
Lyntone pressed this. Their ref does not even appear on the Labels
But you can be sure of their consecutive 'project' numbering LYN-17098 & LYN-17099 in the runouts (as being their Matrix refs)

Here's a Client (Who doesn't have a 'Label') Private Eye (5) - Private Eye's Rites Of Spring
The Label becomes Lyntone as the Client is the 'commissioner' of the work.
The Secondary Label (as the releasing label) is Lyntone = cat# LYN 783
(This also happens to be the audio matrix ref as well, as it is a Lyntone Recordings Ltd. product)

Those Private Eye releases look wrong to me. Private Eye isn't an artist. It correctly becomes the label and Lyntone Recordings Ltd. should be the manufacturer. The one you cited has wrongly (in my opinion) credited Lyntone as a secondary label. The artist for those release should be Unknown unless credited to someone.

edit... Just read the profile properly!! If they did use the moniker Private Eye as the collective name for Barry Fantoni, Ian Hislop, Richard Ingrams and William Rushton then they obviously are an artist.

Lyntone is still not the label but the manufacturer.

disco-funk
 boogaloo123
Why not? It is the company's sequential numbering system. It is allocated by the company for all releases manufactured by the company. It also provides a good indication for dating releases.

+1

Sorry I'm late to the party... traffic and all that...

I shall also +1 this suggestion.

boogaloo123
Why not?

Read the links embedded within the post from which you quoted me.

Eviltoastman
Read the links embedded within the post from which you quoted me.

:
"nik Discogs Staff about 1 year ago
I'd advise leaving matrix in the matrix/runout field. I think it will complicate things too much to try associating them with manufacturer (Pressing plant? Printer? Overseeing record company?."

This thread related to CD matrix numbers. I would suggest that Lyntone is a somewhat different case. They have a very simple numbering structure that, more often than not, is the only one printed on a release. It is their numbering system and not simply a matrix #.

IMO, when distinct distribution numbers are allowed to be entered to the company fields for SPV, RTD, EfA, etc., why not LYN numbers found on the centre labels?
The Runout/Matrix is LYN-1234-IS, the label shows LYN-1234.
The first number clearly belongs to the BAOI, the second could be added to the company. What speaks against it?
Additionally, if there is a label present but without a proper cat#, then why should the LYN number serve as cat#? Just because it's there but no other number? That's pretty contradictory. If we want to add the LYN number to the company it's called Work Number here and should be forbidden. But if there is no cat#, that very Work Number will become, o wonder, a cat# to be added to a label? I don't think that's intuitive.

I'm still convinced that the LYN numbers should be added to the company.
Where's the problem with that? It works for distributors, why not this manufacturer with a distinct way of presenting these numbers. The same applies to other flexi manufacturers, BTW (where relevant). I agree though that we shouldn't generalise this, e.g. that suddenly all label matrix numbers become company numbers (like the MXxxxxx numbers of CBS Australia). And yet, I see the problematic here, allowing it for Lyntone but not for CBS. But, hey, no rule without exception :-)

sebfact
It works for distributors

No it doesn't:
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/325338#msg3128397

boogaloo123
This thread related to CD matrix numbers. I would suggest that Lyntone is a somewhat different case. They have a very simple numbering structure that, more often than not, is the only one printed on a release. It is their numbering system and not simply a matrix #.

Most pressplants do. Lyntone are not special.

Eviltoastman
The "lyntone" number should only be used as a catalogue number adjacent to a "label" field, not a company field.

Because the lyntone number is a matrix number and not a catalog number, it should not be used adjacent to a label field. Not according to current guidelines at least.
Guidelines 4.9.1. and 4.9.2. are applicable to releases without catalog#, but with a matrix number.

Opdiner
It's going to take quite a bit more than that I think. You will need a new field tagged Factory Number or Order Number and a place to put it on the company page.

I don't think it will require new fields for this. Instead of having the empty fields defaulting to "Catalog Number" in the submission form, it could be "Catalog/Factory/Order Number" instead. More importantly, guideline sections 4.7.2., 4.7.10., 4.9.1., 4.9.2 would have to be altered accordingly. That's all it takes really.

The leading number displayed at any given company page, i.e. what currently is the catalog#, should be the most useful number in the context of that company's output. For pressing plants this will invariably be the matrix number, which may or may not coincide with another catalog number from the release.

sebfact
Is that approach acceptable for everybody?

Makes sense to me. I just wouldn't limit this to matrix numbers printed on center labels. Provided management can be bothered to update the guidelines accordingly.

Eviltoastman
Most pressplants do. Lyntone are not special.

If other pressplants have a recognised and distinct code, that should go with the company too. It's the company's number.

boogaloo123
If other pressplants have a recognised and distinct code, that should go with the company too. It's the company's number.

It belongs in the matrix unless the rules and nik's advice changes. A distinct code is not a catalogue number, otherwise we would call it the catalogue number and not the matrix and as such it does not belong in the catalogue number field. However this "distinct code" IS a matrix number so it belong in the matrix./runout field.

strummin
ecause the lyntone number is a matrix number and not a catalog number, it should not be used adjacent to a label field. Not according to current guidelines at least.Guidelines 4.9.1. and 4.9.2. are applicable to releases without catalog#, but with a matrix number.

Nik's has decided that it belongs in the matrix not the cat# field as they are not catalogue numbers but internal company numbers not used to catalogue the release but to reference the stampers. It is not a catalogue number, it belongs in the matrix # field unless we have no catalogue number, at this point we can use it as a catalogue number. All links to these judgement are available above.

They're not rules... they're guidelines. The only reason those numbers appear on the releases is because Lyntone added them, chronologically, as their numbering system.

I see no problem in giving the company it's own corresponding number. I understand about not using the Lyntone number as a catalogue number if another exists.

Eviltoastman
unless we have no catalogue number, at this point we can use it as a catalogue number.

No we can't. That would be contradicting various guidelines I already quoted above. Especially this one

4.9.2. If there is no apparent catalog number on the release, please enter the matrix number/s, barcode, or other identifiers in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section. Information on Jamaican matrix numbers can be found in the post at http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/131564

Even if those guidelines were different, I would strongly advocate not to enter the matrix number(s) in the label catalog# field, but in the catalog# field adjacent to the manufacturer's name. As it should be done for any number that directly relates to a particular company (see guidelines).

boogaloo123
They're not rules... they're guidelines. The only reason those numbers appear on the releases is because Lyntone added them, chronologically, as their numbering system.

You mean like nearly all pressplants do with their matrices? :D

This thread began on the discussion of Lyntone Recordings Ltd.
(Not any other flexi/vinyl label company)... Also bear in mind, the RSG was written in respect of mainstream releases. Certain cases need consideration on their merits. Here's my ten cents again...
------
This Lyntone Recordings Ltd.
------
Here is a Lyntone label issue
The cat# is PSL.103 - the label Matrices are LYN 1127 & LYN 1128 respectively.
It is not entered, nor fully readable, but the runout in the lower image is LYN 1128 LY....??? unknown data.
This is the trouble when this aspect is a half-hearted submitted string of data...
-----
This is a "Look-in Magazine" issue The Jets - Crush On You. The cat# is MCAFD 1048
It says "Made in Britain by Lyntone" BUT in the Companies it should read "Made By" (or pressed by) Lyntone
-----
This is a Lyntone Recordings Ltd. ) It IS ON A LABEL.
The cat# is LYN 357 - It was made by Lyntone
------
Watneys Brewery isn't a record company. They do not have a record label. As a Client they used Lyntone as a Label to issue this http://discogs.cinepelis.org/viewimages?release=1979235
The Client 'Label' is Watneys Brewery = cat# LYN 776 - the Label issuer is Lyntone cat# LYN 776
Pressed/manufactured by Lyntone Recordings Ltd.
------
"Audio Plastics Ltd" CAN be another page for the earlier Lyntone Recordings Ltd - but it is simpler to encom it into the Profile of Lyntone Recordings Ltd.

I still do not see how there is a problem in handling this data.
I cannot see how "No Label" is an answer for a product that clearly has an identity in every instance.
The identity of a major Label
The identity of a Client (primary), who has commissioned Lyntone (secondary)
The identity of Lyntone as an issuer of the work

AUDIO is the prime factor of Lyntone Recordings. Their business is specialized in flexi-cutting. Thus, they apply a work number, that happens to be a Matrix - that is what they deal in. It is then no surprise that, in the instances where a 'reference' is needed for a Client's release, a work number is used.
I see the Lyntone ref as not being 'mutually exclusive' - it can be a cat# AND a Matrix (In the same manner that Compilation can live with Album)

Do have a read
http://www.allvinylexperience.com/ALL_VINYL_EXPERIENCE/Lyntone.html
And also This interesting list

boogaloo123
They are Lyntone's company allocated numbers - they belong to Lyntone.

They are still matrix numbers. So why are they listed as catalogue numbers, which they are not?

swagski
I see the Lyntone ref as not being 'mutually exclusive' - it can be a cat# AND a Matrix

So all matrix numbers are now treated as catalogue numbers? That seems to be the logical extension of that argument. In other words, as above, why are all the Australian MXxxxxxx numbers not cat#s? They are exactly the same in purpose and are displayed on labels as are the Lyntone matrices.

And other alpha-numeric sequenced matrices that appear on releases. There are many hundreds of thousands of these in the database.

Why do the rules (and we may call them guidelines but they have the force of rules) on that and the normal matrix submission page placing that applies to all those NOT apply to this plant (and a couple of others).

And why do we allow the entry of matrices as 'catalogue numbers' to remove the marked catalogue numbers on releases from the defined catalogue number column on the company page?

That's entering incorrect data in a field and removing valid data from correct display by doing so.

Eviltoastman
You mean like nearly all pressplants do with their matrices? :D

Precisely. So once again, why are these Lyntone matrices any different? What is it about these apart from some sentimental attachment to this particular plant that makes Lyntone's matrices somehow convert into 'catalogue numbers' - especially when the release already has a catalogue number.

Perhaps boogaloo123 or one of those who +1-ed above can explain?

On another thread there is a discussion about improving the lists functionality so expand their use.

I'd argue that such a listing of matrices and works numbers might be perfect for that. Certainly I don't think works numbers / matrices should be allowed to subvert the catalogue number fields as they do on Lyntone pages.

Opdiner
So once again, why are these Lyntone matrices any different? What is it about these apart from some sentimental attachment to this particular plant that makes Lyntone's matrices somehow convert into 'catalogue numbers' - especially when the release already has a catalogue number.

In my examples they don't

Opdiner
why are these Lyntone matrices any different? What is it about these apart from some sentimental attachment to this particular plant that makes Lyntone's matrices somehow convert into 'catalogue numbers' - especially when the release already has a catalogue number.

I am not suggesting they are catalogue numbers - they are however company numbers and I see no problem with having them in the company field.

Adding them as catalogue numbers to the label when no other exists is debatable.

boogaloo123
I am not suggesting they are catalogue numbers

So they don't go in a field for catalogue numbers surely. That field is designed to display those.

We have a matrix field too and that's exactly what those are.

I understand you want to list these somewhere and I think it's really worthy, but the advanced lists Nik is talking about here might be a good start.

I still don't quite get why you think Lyntone's matrices are different from other companies that have similar numbers?

Opdiner
So they don't go in a field for catalogue numbers surely. That field is designed to display those.

We are asking for the guidelines to be changed so that we can.
We are asking for a Company Number to be allowed to be entered in the field next to the Company Name.

Goldisc Recording Products, Inc.

Look at the list of K-xxxx numbers.
Can't you see how useful this is?

Opdiner
We have a matrix field too and that's exactly what those are.

Not quite correct.
E.g. on example:
Le Pamplemousse - Get Your Boom, Boom (Around The Room)

Matrix / Runout (A-Side Runout): AVID-12-136-A Az [flower] K-7950 GOL
Matrix / Runout (B-Side Runout): AVID-12-136-B-RE Az [flower] K-7958 GOL

Pressed By – Goldisc Recording Products, Inc. – K-7950
Pressed By – Goldisc Recording Products, Inc. – K-7958

So in this case the Goldisc Company number is extracted from the Matrix, but is not the entire Maxtrix number.

disco-funk
So in this case the Goldisc Company number is extracted from the Matrix, but is not the entire Maxtrix number.

So it is PART of the matrix number. It is NOT a catalogue number and is entered that way there in direct contradiction to Nik's ruling as above. A Needs Changes or incorrect vote would be the correct vote there.

Once again, why don't you think this applies to you? That page is a mess because you are hiding the real catalogue number. Instead you've created fake catalogue numbers from part of matrixes and tried to justify it by using a catalogue number guideline.

The correct cat on that example above is AVID-12-136. That is what should be displayed in the catalogue number column on that company.

disco-funk
We are asking for the guidelines to be changed so that we can.
We are asking for a Company Number to be allowed to be entered in the field next to the Company Name.

Ask for place to add these numbers - a list or a works number field - but please don't enter things into the catalogue number field that is not a catalogue number or intended as one.

Look at this item I just added:

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/Rose-Royce-Car-Wash/release/3854657

This has a works number of 1123-700 and one of 1124-700. These are exactly the same as the numbers you are extracting to invent catalogue numbers. So do I move these to a catalogue number field? If not, why not?

I'm a firm believer in only catalogue numbers in catalogue numbers fields, not whatever someone decides is useful.

And nobody is saying it is not useful, it is simply in the wrong place.

In case you've forgotten it:

nik
I'd advise leaving matrix in the matrix/runout field. I think it will complicate things too much to try associating them with manufacturer (Pressing plant? Printer? Overseeing record company?

Opdiner
I still don't quite get why you think Lyntone's matrices are different from other companies that have similar numbers?

I don't think they are. Any recognisable and distinct company number should go next to the company name field.

Opdiner
This has a works number of 1123-700 and one of 1124-700. These are exactly the same as the numbers you are extracting to invent catalogue numbers. So do I move these to a catalogue number field? If not, why not?

If it is a proven numbering system for the company I see no problem in adding it as a company number.

Going back to Lyntone. It is a slightly different case in that many of the flexis manufactured have no other recognisable code/numbers on them. Rightly or wrongly the Lyntone LYNxxxx is used as a catalogue number on many artists discographies elsewhere and collectors also use these as identifiable catalogue numbers.

I do recognise that an advanced list system would help the site but I still feel these numbers are too important, and company specific, to be lost to the BAOI field.

Opdiner
So it is PART of the matrix number. It is NOT a catalogue number and is entered that way there in direct contradiction to Nik's ruling as above. A Needs Changes or incorrect vote would be the correct vote there.

We are asking for Nik to reconsider this and we are discussing changing the guidelines.

Opdiner
That page is a mess because you are hiding the real catalogue number.

"Goldisc Recording Products, Inc." is a company not a label and as such never has a "real catalogue number". The "Real Catalogue Number" is not hidden. It's recorded against the "AVI Records" label page.

Opdiner
The correct cat on that example above is AVID-12-136. That is what should be displayed in the catalogue number column on that company.

AVID-12-136 is the AVI Records label catalogue number, and as such is recorded on the AVI Records label page.

Opdiner
Ask for place to add these numbers - a list or a works number field - but please don't enter things into the catalogue number field that is not a catalogue number or intended as one.

The functionality is already present and already works. So there's no need to ask for a new field. All we need to do is ask for the guidelines to be changed so that we can enter company numbers against the companies, just as we enter label catalogue numbers against the labels. That's what most of the discussion above is about.

Opdiner
This has a works number of 1123-700 and one of 1124-700. These are exactly the same as the numbers you are extracting to invent catalogue numbers. So do I move these to a catalogue number field? If not, why not?

I can't comment on that as I don't know anything about New Zealand pressing plants and their matrix numbers. I generally only look at improving and changing releases I own.

disco-funk
We are asking for Nik to reconsider this and we are discussing changing the guidelines.

The problem is Nik said from from day one of the new companies field that we only enter catalogue number in this field.

There is nothing in the rules that allows you to take part of a matrix and turn it into a catalogue number, in fact Nik has said not to do it:

nik

I'd advise leaving matrix in the matrix/runout field. I think it will complicate things too much to try associating them with manufacturer (Pressing plant? Printer? Overseeing record company?

That is pretty clear and it applies to the database as a whole as far as I can see.

disco-funk
Goldisc Recording Products, Inc." is a company not a label and as such never has a "real catalogue number". The "Real Catalogue Number" is not hidden. It's recorded against the "AVI Records" label page.

It is the number of the release. This is a core principal we apply to catalogue numbers database wide and has been discussed over and over.

disco-funk
AVID-12-136 is the AVI Records label catalogue number, and as such is recorded on the AVI Records label page.

it is the catalogue number of the release. We left behind catalogue numbers "belonging" to labels or companies long ago. As such it need to be correctly displayed in the catalogue number field. You've blocked that by inventing catalogue numbers and that is not correct.

disco-funk
The functionality is already present and already works.

The functionality is there to enter catalogue number, not to extract parts of matrices and pretend they are which is exactly what you've done.

Ask for a list.

disco-funk
I can't comment on that as I don't know anything about New Zealand pressing plants and their matrix numbers. I generally only look at improving and changing releases I own.

In other words you're saying that your edits exist outside the rules and conventions of the database and beyond Nik's rulings. Whether these are from New Zealand or Transylvania is utterly irrelevant, the same rules and rulings apply.

Unless you can explain why they don't?

boogaloo123
I do recognise that an advanced list system would help the site but I still feel these numbers are too important, and company specific, to be lost to the BAOI field.

I agree, but pretending they are catalogue numbers is very much not the way.

boogaloo123
I don't think they are. Any recognisable and distinct company number should go next to the company name field.

So all matrix numbers that have a factory code (and SID mould codes) are converted to catalogue numbers? That's about five guidelines you now want changed to allow matrix numbers to appear in a field not specified for them.

Why not ask for such a field?

nik
I think it will complicate things too much to try associating them with manufacturer (Pressing plant? Printer? Overseeing record company?

In the case above, the company number K-xxxx is indisputably associated with the pressing plant Goldisc Recording Products, Inc.

disco-funk
In the case above, the company number K-xxxx is indisputably associated with the pressing plant Goldisc Recording Products, Inc.

It's a matrix number! You are not allowed to do this. In doing so you have removed the legitimate catalogue number of the release from display and your edits were absolutely incorrect.

If somebody were to go through and remove those matrices from the catalogue number fields their edits would be correct.

Opdiner
No YOU are. And regardless of that you've simply made it up as you went along. Nik said from from day one of the new companies field that we only enter catalogue number in this field. You somehow seemed to think that didn't apply to you.

Quite a few s above are asking for something similar, it's not just me.

I didn't think it didn't apply to me, you are suggesting that I entered the data in a malicious way, knowing I was wrong and still blasting ahead. I read the guideline and applied it in the way I understood it at the time.

I'm interested in continuing the discussion to get some other s's viewpoints. If we get a consensus that is opposed to my own I will happily revert changes I have made. However I don't believe that consensus has yet been reached, as I noted there are a number of s above whose views agree with my own, and I would kindly ask Nik to revisit this topic now it has been discussed further.

disco-funk
the company number K-xxxx is indisputably associated with the pressing plant Goldisc Recording Products, Inc.

Opdiner
not to extract parts of matrices

I don't know about that specific company. The K-xxxx appears on the release, not as a stand alone number, but combined as an integeral part of a larger matrix #. That is a bit of a leap from the simplicity of the Lyntone system.

Opdiner
It's a matrix number!

hey Opdiner, and I when you were asylumXX (was the XX a catalogue number or matrix number?), hopefully I'm just participating in a healthy discussion here and I'm not blundering on in a stubborn and mindless way to be difficult for the sake of it.

I have a lot of respect for you, I've learnt a lot over the years from you, all I'm doing at this point is disagreeing and having a discussion about it.... so i'm gonna chill out for a bit now, maybe listen to an El Coco record or something, and come back to it later :)

disco-funk
I didn't think it didn't apply to me, you are suggesting that I entered the data in a malicious way, knowing I was wrong and still blasting ahead. I read the guideline and applied it in the way I understood it at the time.

Sorry if I got a bit heated - I accept that you were not doing it maliciously and I'm sorry I implied that.

My problem is that it is important data but it's not a catalogue number.

As said though, you are not just asking for a guideline change but a very substantial and much broader change where all factory numbers (and such identifiers) are converted to catalogue numbers because they are, as you put it, useful.

IMO these are far more useful if they are captured in a special field for factory numbers derived from matrices, and do not clog up the current catalogue number field.

Mostly I would like to see these recorded as much as you.

Eviltoastman
No it doesn't:
http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/325338#msg3128397

Outdated. This also has been vividly discussed and there was a decision to allow distribution numbers specifically used for a release to be entered to the company (can't find the thread ATM though) because they serve as sort of cat#, too. This was also laid out in a wiki. The generic numbers, like NR340, AE179, PM230, are still not allowed though. See Dead Can Dance - Aion for live examples of dist./cat. ##.

As evidently no solution can be found, I will ask Nik to this discussion.

Nik Nik where are you?

sebfact
See Hypnos - Hypnos, Tuxedomoon - Ship Of Fools, Dead Can Dance - Aion for live examples of dist./cat. ##.

Those looks like perfectly sensible allocations. That's exactly how the Lyntone company numbers should be - next to the company name.

sebfact
I will ask Nik to this discussion.

Whether these Lyntone numbers can also be used as a label catalogue number when no other exists is where we need some management decision.

boogaloo123
Those looks like perfectly sensible allocations. That's exactly how the Lyntone company numbers should be - next to the company name.

I'm guessing you are also putting your hand up to change the hundreds of thousands of other matrices like this in the database into pretend catalogue numbers too, or does this bit of sensibleness only apply to this pet company and not to all the others with like factory numbers in the matrices?

Edit: sorry to be so snarky but it seems to me there is an attempt to hijack the catalogue number field for whatever we think is handy information and that simply defeats its purpose.

By all reasons find a way to record these, but not by shoehorning these into the wrong field because it's easy.

Opdiner
I'm guessing you are also putting your hand up to change the hundreds of thousands of other matrices like this in the database

I'd be happy to make a start on this, I think it would be an invaluable task. I'm sure many s would in to start doing this, just like we did with LCCN, and BAOI back in the day. Just because it's a big task doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Imagine if all the Delta numbers were in the database on the Monarch Record Mfg. Co. page:

http://www.45rpmrecords.com/date_monarch.php

What an amazing resource that would be for collectors. Why add another field, when the Catalogue Number field already does exactly what we want it to? Rhetorical question, I already know what your reply will be:

Opdiner
By all reasons find a way to record these, but not by shoehorning these into the wrong field because it's easy.

You have a great way with words, and you made me smile when I read that. I think we're agreeing to differ on this at the moment. I'm not sure there's anything I can say to change your mind, or that you can say to change my mind. But it's all cool. Let's see what Nik says

Opdiner
By all reasons find a way to record these, but not by shoehorning these into the wrong field because it's easy.

There are two issues here. The use of a matrix/company number as a label catalogue number and the use of that number with the associated company.

I would argue for the inclusion of these numbers with the company, it's their numbering system. Regarding also being used as a catalogue number... I'm not sure, could open a huge can of worms!

Opdiner
sorry to be so snarky

No offence taken... I don't take things like this personally ; )

boogaloo123
There are two issues here. The use of a matrix/company number as a label catalogue number and the use of that number with the associated company.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the plans to divorce catalogue numbers from lccns completely but this whole argument about the cat# and things belonging to Lyntone will soon become moot.

Eviltoastman
I'm not sure if you are aware of the plans to divorce catalogue numbers from lccns completely but this whole argument about the cat# and things belonging to Lyntone will soon become moot.

reading that a while ago but can't find the link... have you got one handy? cheers

Eviltoastman
I'm not sure if you are aware of the plans to divorce catalogue numbers from lccns completely

I wasn't aware of that... as disco-funk asks... do you have a link?

Sure, but re-reading it it isn't that relevant as it's talking specifically about catalogue numbers which are do not clearly belong to the label in question.

nik
Having cat#s tied to labels all the time on a 1:1 relationship is a problem. The site has developed this was because it seemed obvious to do this back in the day before we had examples of where it breaks down. The easyest way forward is to divorce cat#s from labels, and have them in another part of the data - the Barcode And Other Identifiers section - and only tie them to labels where it is clear that they should be. In all other cases, the cat# applies to the release itself, and we don't need to tie it to all labels (in the same way as we use the cat# now for companies, wiithout needing to state it).

http://discogs.cinepelis.org/help/forums/topic/336378#msg3165511

Anyway, back to the main topic, the fact remains that the Lyntone numbers are matrix numbers not catalogue numbers and do not belong in the LCCNS. There's no matrix field in the LCCN section.

nik
in the same way as we use the cat# now for companies

Eviltoastman
the fact remains that the Lyntone numbers are matrix numbers not catalogue numbers

It's a bit of a play on semantics - those Lyntone numbers could equally be called company numbers and, as such, justifiably be placed with Lyntone Recordings Ltd.