WEA Manufacturing Inc. / WEA Manufacturing / WEA Mfg. Olyphant ???

We appear to have a company page (WEA Manufacturing Inc.) a pressing plant page (WEA Mfg. Olyphant) AND another page for the pressing plant which is named after the company (WEA Manufacturing) ???

What to do?

Three distinct ways in which the plant is credited on releases. I'm happy as they are. I see no reason to merge.

However the profiles need updating with a certain amount of instruction with advice regarding the Commerce and Olyphant pages.

WEA Manufacturing page is for releases which do not list a branch so the WEA Manufacturing page needs a warning to only use it where releases either credit just WEA Mfg or the contraction "WEA Manufacturing".

For company info based on printed 'made by' / 'manufactured by' WEA Manufacturing / WEA Manufacturing Inc., we should merge those to one company page: WEA Manufacturing Inc.

For pressing info based on Matrix/Runout logo we should use one page for the Olyphant pressing plant, either WEA Mfg. Olyphant or a new WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant page (being that there is another plant with the same logo/name in the different location.

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_And_Company_Naming_Conventions
4.3.4. Company branches that need to be differentiated, and consistently state their location, can be entered that way.

any thoughs on this?

Definitely not. They are distinct and should not be merged. If it was a matter of "inc.", "inc" and "incorporated" I'd agree. 4.2.1. b applies. this should not be touched.

It was discussed already here:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/300474

cvalda44
It was discussed already here:http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/300474

^right, and the last line of the wikipedia article that nik quoted is based on b.s.:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/300474#3031495
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WEA_Manufacturing
^and the (appearently virus/spyware infected) PDF file that was presented as source of the b.s. protion of the article has been deleted from the file host and removed as a wikipedia citation.

nik's post are true:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/300474#3031538

So this discussion needs to be renewed.

The matter was settled after that post you have quoted. The discussion is not required a second time.

nm

Must say it's surprising a Wikipedia article gets accepted as base of a conclusion here while in a certain other topic a similar article with good references gets dismissed as untrustworthy.

Anyways, there's a company registration in NY for WEA Manufacturing Inc.
It says this:
DEC 03, 2003 Actual CINRAM MANUFACTURING INC.
MAR 08, 1995 Actual WEA MANUFACTURING INC.

And the Department of State in California has this info:
Entity Name: WEA MANUFACTURING OF CALIFORNIA INC.
Entity Number: C1007891
Date Filed: 11/03/1980
Status: MERGED OUT
Jurisdiction: DELAWARE
Entity Address: 210 N VALLEY AVE
Entity City, State, Zip: OLYPHANT PA 18447
Agent for Service of Process: UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY
Agent Address: 2730 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 100
Agent City, State, Zip: SACRAMENTO CA 95833

Yes, that's fairly interesting that those are the registration details yet most WEA Manufacturing is still so prevalent.

I'm not accepting WIki at all. it can shovel cow-dirt. I'm going entirely by what is on the releases.

From the previous topic about this matter I gather that there are quite a few misplaced entries (on WEA Manufacturing instead of WEA Manufacturing Inc. and vise-versa).
I think it would be best to sort that out first.

Maybe WEA Manufacturing's profile info needs to be changed aswell based on the company registries.

Yes, three were my errors. I just fixed those, obviously should a merge occur, they'd be moved back. I'm not sure what relevance the company registries have on the topic at hand.

On the topic at hand, the only thing that is needed on the four profiles concerned is clear profile descriptions with advice on when they ought to be used, all linking back to WEA Manufacturing Inc.

WEA Manufacturing Inc. - Mainly found on the CD face. Examples:
- One
- Two
- Three
WEA Manufacturing - Often printed on the CD face. Examples:
- One
- Two
- Three
WEA Mfg. Commerce - Often credit in the matrix as "wea mfg. commerce" or "WEA mfg. / CA". The CA stands for California the state where commerce is situated.

The latter two specifically identified plants are entered as on release, I can't see any need for change.

I agree completely that that the issue is confusion with the profiles. Cleaning them up, linking each other with some explanations to guide subber would be relatively simply and straightforward to do. I'm more than happy to do this should there be agreement.

Edited: Thanks Jweijde.

Eviltoastman
I'm not sure what relevance the company registries have on the topic at hand.

Well, just trying to figure out if these really are not one and the same company so we do not have to go by some info from Wikipedia.

Eviltoastman
WEA Mfg. Commerce - Credited in the matrix ring as "wea mfg. OLYPHANT"
WEA Mfg. Olyphant - Often credit in the matrix as "wea mfg. commerce" or "WEA mfg. / CA". The CA stands for California the state where commerce is situated.

You probably need to switch these around

Done. Thanks for the spot, my bath started over flowing and I just hit post now.

relevant Billboard article : http://tinyurl.com/cswsccq

That is very insightful. I had always thought SRC and WEA Olyphant to be one and the same, a name change if you will. This is clearly incorrect. Nice find. Bookmarked.

Wasn't a name change until the WEA Manufacturing Inc.'s parent company restructured 1995 -> 1996.

Both Specialty Records Corporation and Allied Record Company were purchased by Warner Communications, Inc. in 1978 and 1979 respectively. The company formed to run both plants was WEA Manufacturing Inc. in 1979

In 1995 -> 1996 they restructured and re-ed WEA Manufacturing Inc. in 1995 during this time.

The entire time between 1979 -> 1996 the individual pressing plants remained under their original names (Specialty & Allied). Between 1996 -> 1999 the Specialty & Allied names were fazed out.

Company = WEA Manufactuing Inc. (based in Olyphant)
Pressing Plant 1 (1978 ~ 1997/98) = Specialty Records Corporation (Olyphant) (both the original facilities and the 'new' facility as built and named 'Specialty Records Corporation' by WEA Manufacturing Inc. under construction from 1979 to 1981)
Pressing Plant 1 (1996/97 ~ 2003) = WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant (WEA Mfg., Olyphant)

Pressing Plant 2 (1979 ~ 1997/99??) = Allied Record Company
Pressing Plant 2/3 (1997?? ~ 2003) = WEA Manufacturing, Commerce (WEA Mfg., Commerce)

----

Sources of some info:

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/324904?page=6#3180144

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/324904?page=6#3182136

http://madonnadiscography.pl/article/view/63/

1979 May: http://books.google.ca/books?id=iiQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT3&dq=Billboard+Warner+%22Allied+Record%22&hl=en&ei=Y7bMTs_4B4Hj0QHW-Zn0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTgU

Who Owns Whom 1986 Dun & Bradstreet, Ltd., Directories Division:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=37kVAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Allied+Record+Co.%22&dq=%22Allied+Record+Co.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ic36TtW0HYrn0QHXiaXBAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ

Warner Communications Inc. purchased Specialty Records in 1978 and Allied Records of Los Angeles in 1979, to form WEA Manufacturing. (from Billboard magazine Oct 27th 1979):
http://books.google.ca/books?id=xyQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT3&dq=Billboard+WEA+%22Specialty+Records%22+%22Allied%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9SatT6Caiy6QHD3ciVDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

1979 Oct: Construction begins on WEA's Olyphant PA Specialty Records Corporation pressing plant near to the old / existing Specialty Records plant:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=xyQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT3&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ

2002 Jan: WEA Manufacturing (Specialty Records) sells it's vinyl manufacturing assets to The Music Connection (TMC):
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1Q8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?label=Specialty+Records+Corporation#latest
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?label=Allied+Record+Company#latest

----------

Allied Record Manufacturing Company:
1933 or 1934? company is established.

1956 Feb: http://books.google.ca/books?id=0R4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA13&dq=Manufacturers+%22Allied+Record%22&hl=en&ei=9KTMTojgN4GisQKk_93JDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ
-was active in New York until mid-1954 operating the old 'Decca Records' plant in conjuction with "G. K. Smith".
-custom record manufacturing and 'transcription manufacturing'.
-'ed forces' with Bart Manufacturing Company, Belleville NJ. to form "American Sound Corporation", though the 'parent companies' (Allied & Bart) continued to operate indepently from one another in Hollywood & New Jersey respectively.
-was negotiating to purchase Urania Records?*
-"American Sound Corporation": an all-industry-incoming operation with: custom pressing, matrix, tape duplication, milling of all types of 'record biscuits' and materials. Operation to begin March 1st 1956.
*( http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/Urania ?? OR http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/Urania+Records+(3) ??)
-"American Sound Corporation" (Allied Record Manufacturing Company & Bart Manufacturing Company) operating through it's "Allied Record division" building a 'high capacity factory in Bellville N.J.

1961 Jun: http://books.google.ca/books?id=BiEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22Tops+Records+Buys+Allied%22&hl=en&ei=k7DTTvXYCIPf0QGK44Au&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA
Entire Allied company including both pressings plants sold to Tops Records parent company: Precision Radiation, Inc. (PRI)

Allied Record Company:
-formerly a part of "Allied Record Manufacturing Company".

1962 Aug: http://books.google.ca/books?id=KBcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=Manufacturers+%22Allied+Record%22&hl=en&ei=9KTMTojgN4GisQKk_93JDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg
-the 'Allied' name, the 57th St., Los Angeles pressing plant (*only) 'Allied Record Manufacturing' & 'Allied Record Sales' purchased by former owner Draken Broadhead from Precision Radiation Instruments (PRI) "Tops Records".
*the Belleville Allied pressing plant remained under PRI's ownership.

1979 May: http://books.google.ca/books?id=iiQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT3&dq=Billboard+Warner+%22Allied+Record%22&hl=en&ei=Y7bMTs_4B4Hj0QHW-Zn0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTgU
-purchased by Warner Communications Inc.

--------

1979 Oct: Construction begins on WEA's 2nd Specialty Records Olyphant PA pressing plant right near to their existing Specialty Records plant:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=xyQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT3&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ

1981 Nov:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=8iQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP9&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wJKoT-itBOnG6QHfwIWkBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAjgK

1982 Oct:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=5SMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT52&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw

1985 Feb:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=pCQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT38&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

1985 Oct:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=KSQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT3&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg

1986 May:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=0iQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA71-IA4&dq=Billboard+WEA+%22Specialty+Records+Corp.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-SStT8eNL4yd6AHP0MHnDA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg

1995 Sept:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=xw0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA92&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ

1995 Sept:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ag4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA107&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wJKoT-itBOnG6QHfwIWkBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAzgK

1995 Nov: Company restructured under newly formed WEA Inc.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Dw0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT81&dq=%22WEA+Manufacturing%22+1995+Billboard+restructured&hl=en&sa=X&ei=70CxT46kEIOpgwfPtdSKCQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Pw0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA78&dq=%22WEA+Inc.%22+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XT6xT7iOKoPqgQeKsdWeCQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAjgK

2002 Jan: WEA Manufacturing (Specialty Records) sells it's vinyl manufacturing assets to The Music Connection (TMC):
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1Q8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%22Specialty+Records%22+Olyphant+Billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g36oT6zXJMXf6QGqxMWxBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg

WEA Mfg. Olyphant likely needs to be renamed ( either as 'WEA Mfg., Olyphant' or as 'WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant' ) ?? Or is it fine without a comma ??

EDIT:
^and if WEA Mfg. Olyphant is not fine without the comma, then WEA Mfg. Commerce also needs to be renamed...
/EDIT

djindio
WEA Manufacturing needs to be divided up between WEA Manufacturing Inc. (the company) and WEA Mfg. Olyphant (the pressing plant).

Definitely not. As on release is perfectly fine. You've not provided any reason to do this.

djindio
WEA Mfg. Olyphant likely needs to be renamed ( either as 'WEA Mfg., Olyphant' or as 'WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant' ) ?? Or is it fine without a comma ??

The abbreviated form is how they print it on releases. It does not require expansion.

Comma is not needed where it's used consistently as part of the name and the same applies to Commerce. its not a case of the location being listed on the release, it's a case of the location being part of the given name.

Eviltoastman
it;s not a case of the location being displayed with the entity, it's part of the entity name on these releases.

I suppose you have a reference for this?

Eviltoastman
The abbreviated form is how they print it on releases. It does not require expansion.
Comma is not needed where it's used consistently as part of the name and the same applies to Commerce. its not a case of the location being listed on the release, it's a case of the location being part of the given name.

This is correct. Why should we suddenly "invent" and use name variant which does not appear on releases, while the best solution is already offered by releases themselves ?

Eviltoastman
You've not provided any reason to do this.

You haven't provided 1 single reason to keep 2 pages for 1 company.

Eviltoastman
You've not provided any reason to do this.

WEA Manufacturing (Inc.) is one company/entity

1978~1996 Specialty Records Corporation is one pressing plant under that one company.
1996~2003 WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant is one pressing plant under that one company.

1979~1996 Allied Record Company is a second pressing plant under that one company.
1996~2003 WEA Manufacturing, Commerce is a second pressing plant under that one company.

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/339842?page=1#3186404

I still don't see a reason for it. It;s far better to reflect the record. If we keep doing these merges, LNV will be screwed if and when it comes. Keep things separate and if L:NV comes in it's far easier to manipulate the data. I've quoted this before but it;'s very important:

nik
I think it is sometimes easy to get would up / upset trying to keep things 'neat' in the database. Obviously this is an important part of the database, and a lot of people spend much time and take much pleasure in doing that. However, in these 'messy' or imprecise cases, I think it is important to allow a little bit of slack, to represent things as they appear on the releases as much as possible, rather than try to tidy everything into one profile, when it is contentious and difficult to agree on, and also may make submitting harder.

that in the future, more functions are likely to be available for displaying two or more entities on a single page, and also to represent name variations for entities. By having the data split, it makes it possible to do all kinds of things with that information. If everything is thrown together, then we loose some of that information. Even though we may think the split is based on an imprecise usage by the entity, we can still catalog and explain that impreciseness in a way that in fact enriches things.

If a difference is that of an accronym verses a contraction or a matter of punctuation, I can see the value of a merge with the actual way its written placed in the notes, but with or sans "inc." and splitting things for external neatness and ignoring the truth of the record in your hands is difficult to mitigate and I will in most cases oppose.

cvalda44
This is correct. Why should we suddenly "invent" and use name variant which does not appear on releases, while the best solution is already offered by releases themselves ?

Precisely. in addition to this, using exactly what is on the release (besides the issue of punctuation and acronym or abbreviation) it is far simpler for real people, the everyday submitter to utilise and grasp.

4.2.1. Please check (using the search function) for slight variations in the name (for example with or without 'Records' on the end). For example; "EMI Records Ltd" and "EMI Records Limited" are the same company and should be listed on the same page, whereas EMI Music Australia Pty Ltd is a separate company and should be entered on its own page. Note that these companies will probably appear on a release along with the Label (brand) 'EMI', which should be added separately.

4.2.1.a. For smaller 'independent' labels and companies, such a variation is usually unintentional, so you can normally adjust the label name to match the existing Discogs entry. Please make a note of any adjustments in the release notes and the submission notes.

4.2.1.b. For larger 'major' labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These should be entered as on the release, unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company.

proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/339842?page=1#3186404

Eviltoastman
It;s far better to reflect the record.

Release notes work fine for that, verbatim text transcribed from the release.

I don't think you have though. You can't decide if it's meant to be the company or the plant and have suggested splitting the releases between the a plant (olyphant) and a company (inc), so in merging we lose valuable data which can be sorted by these profiles and kept distinct, should LNVs then come in, everything is in the right place and sorting and editing becomes far easier. These merges simply make life harder in the long run.

This then gets complicated and unhelpful. Even if this could be established, just because it can be done shouldn't mean it should be done. the benefits of keeping them separate outweigh the negatives of a merge.

This proposed merge which has already been rebuffed in an earlier thread would benefit no one at all. Can you think of a single positive?

djindio
Release notes work fine for that, verbatim text transcribed from the release.

Can't be sorted or parsed, renders the true information hard to locate, see nik's quote above.

besides which I think the database would be reflecting both methods in which WEA Manufacturing and WEA Manufacturing Inc. have been consistently used on releases. It's not a mistake, it's deliberate and should be retained as a distinct profile.

Eviltoastman
You can't decide if it's meant to be the company or the plant

The only time a WEA plant is designated is in the matrix/runout. Printed Made By & Manufactured By on the CD & inserts = company.

I don't think you have a strong case. The benefits of a merge are negligible and 4.2.1.b the separation as well as 1.1.2 and there's the consistent use of both profiles.

djindio
WEA Manufacturing needs to be divided up between WEA Manufacturing Inc. (the company) and WEA Mfg. Olyphant (the pressing plant).

djindio
You haven't provided 1 single reason to keep 2 pages for 1 company.

As per your own first quote, WEA Manufacturing is not really a "company", i.e. not a 100% duplicate of WEA Manufacturing Inc. entity. It is generic name (or trading name) which may refer to everything. http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/300474#3031858
Well, maybe, if you have a solid proof for this or that release on WEA Manufacturing page, you can update, but that doesn't mean the entire WEA Manufacturing page should be eliminated - it remains as this trading name page here. It is far simpler for everyday submitter and there are always will be unclear cases.

Eviltoastman
and 4.2.1.b the separation

quite obviously the opposite of what you say:

4.2.1.b. For larger 'major' labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These should be entered as on the release, unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company.

How can I take anything you say seriously, especially knowing your motivations.

cvalda44
As per your own first quote

what quote? I didn't participate in that discussion that you linked.

cvalda44
It is generic name (or trading name)

it's a company branch originally formed under Warner Communications Inc., and remained a single branch under every restructured Warner company that followed until it ceased to exist becoming Cinram in 2003

Take your time, go through the references:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/339842#3186404

1 entity.

WEA Manufacturing is used separately, distinctly and deliberately apart from WEA Manufacturing Inc.

There is nothing in your sources explaining why this is. It is clearly not an accident. It is deliberate and the separate profile is justified.

Your proposed merge will muddy things. There has been no explanation of what the benefits of such a merge would be. I see no reason a merge even if the question above is satisfied. If they can be merged, why should they be merged? They do not cause any problem.

Nik has advised in the quote above that keeping this kind of data in separate label/company profiles is beneficial to the database. The data is easily found, can be parsed and sorted and fairly represents the release. We should not seek to merge these profiles akin to puréeing food for babies, yes all the ingredients would still be there, but it would be a mess. Try separating them later and you will have an near impossible or extremely difficult task. The data may be retained by some in the the notes but most frequently it is not, as the retention or addition of the company name as on the release is not covered in the guidelines unless the data is already present in the notes and let us not forget that we should not be using notes when the data can be fairly and reasonably added to the appropriate fields elsewhere.

Mashing a rabbit would still leave you with a "rabbit" but it's not nice to pet or look at. It looks better arranged in it's natural configuration. We should be pinning the Donkey's tail to it's nose without a damned good reason. I'd consider it a bad idea.

There is no benefit and no rule says they should be merged even if what you are trying to say is correct. You have demonstrated that some people refer to WEA Manufacturing Inc. as WEA Manufacturing but this does not explain why the company made the conscious decision to run with both "WEA Manufacturing Inc." and then "WEA Manufacturing" (or vioce versa) on their manufactured CDs at various times. The inclusion or not of "inc." is consistent enough to be considered deliberate and this branding change is worthy of the current profile status.

Eviltoastman
WEA Manufacturing is used separately, distinctly and deliberately apart from WEA Manufacturing Inc.

I suppose you have a link proving this?

Why would you need a link. Look at the releases. Consistent usage determines that this is highly unlikely to be an accident. Again the proof is in the release. 1.1.2.

Unless olyphant is implicitly credited, it should not be used. That Topri Amos one doesn't seem to mention Olyphant, the face labels clearly state "WEA Manufacturing". That move is incorrect.

The other is unlikely to mention Olyphant and is probably incorrect too.

This one mentions Olyphant: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/1803692
However, two questions:
- is it Ok to use also WEA Mfg. Olyphant page ?
- is it safe to say "Test Pressing From WEA Manufacturing - WEA" logo and address below means the record was pressed by Olyphant plant ? Maybe that's just the generic company logo for test presses and company address (it is based in Olyphant too). It doesn't say "Made in Olyphant".

Eviltoastman
Nik has advised in the quote above that keeping this kind of data in separate label/company profiles is beneficial to the database. The data is easily found, can be parsed and sorted and fairly represents the release. We should not seek to merge these profiles akin to puréeing food for babies, yes all the ingredients would still be there, but it would be a mess. Try separating them later and you will have an near impossible or extremely difficult task. The data may be retained by some in the the notes but most frequently it is not, as the retention or addition of the company name as on the release is not covered in the guidelines unless the data is already present in the notes and let us not forget that we should not be using notes when the data can be fairly and reasonably added to the appropriate fields elsewhere.

djindio
For company info based on printed 'made by' / 'manufactured by' WEA Manufacturing / WEA Manufacturing Inc., we should merge those to one company page: WEA Manufacturing Inc.

Eviltoastman
You can't decide if it's meant to be the company or the plant

"WEA Manufacturing" printed on the CD obivously represents the company NOT a 'manufacturing/pressing plant', as demonstrated by this pressing that WEA Manufacturing contracted out to PDO here:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/image/R-2491263-1286926966.jpeg
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/2491263

Eviltoastman
The inclusion or not of "inc." is <i>consistent enough to be considered deliberate</i> and this <i>branding change</i> is worthy of the current profile status.

...both 'WEA Manufacturing' at the end of the statement printed on the left of the CD, 'WEA Manfacturing Inc.' printed along the bottom edge of the CD, obivously not some sort of 'branding change' as you'd like to call it:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/1160068

Eviltoastman
If a difference is that of an accronym verses a contraction or a matter of punctuation, I can see the value of a merge with the actual way its written placed in the notes

^Are you going to hold true to your word this time?:
WEA Mfg. Olyphant

Eviltoastman
Precisely. in addition to this, using exactly what is on the release (besides the issue of punctuation and acronym or abbreviation)

WEA Mfg. Olyphant

Eviltoastman
Mashing a rabbit would still leave you with a "rabbit" but it's not nice to pet or look at.

Here's your 'mashed rabbit': WEA Manufacturing

I'm kind of replying to the first half of the thread here...

djindio
the last line of the wikipedia article that nik quoted is based on b.s. [...] and the (appearently virus/spyware infected) PDF file that was presented as source of the b.s. protion of the article has been deleted from the file host and removed as a wikipedia citation.

I restored the citation, with a link to an archived copy (not infected as far as I can tell), because I have no reason to doubt it. Maybe you misunderstood what was being said in the article?

As we see on records, the name "WEA Manufacturing" or the corporation "WEA Manufacturing, Inc." was used in manufacturing credits in the early/mid 1980s. But (correct me if I'm wrong), on some records, the name (or brand, if you will) "Specialty Records" or "Specialty Records Corporation", plus the SRC logo-stamp in the dead wax, remained in use to refer specifically to the Olyphant plant for a while, despite the fact that the actual Specialty Records corporation didn't exist on paper after 1980.

That PDF was the only thing I could find which said exactly when the Olyphant plant finally stopped being called/branded Specialty Records, and it said 1986. Does this conflict with other sources? It's fine if it does, the article can be changed. It's just that I have have this one source, and no others, and no reason for doubt; it's not like the investors who put out the report would have anything to gain by lying about the 1986 name change of the Olyphant plant.

However, I agree that nik probably shouldn't have interpreted it to mean that the manufacturer-credit name "WEA Manufacturing" necessarily means something different than the company "WEA Manufacturing, Inc." or that the 1986 date is relevant in that determination. Rather, it seems to me that if the manufacturer is credited as "WEA Manufacturing" then it simply means the pressing was paid for by WEA Manufacturing, Inc., and it was very likely pressed at one of the plants they own. So essentially it is just a name variation. But even if it is meant to vaguely refer to one or both pressing plants, I'm not comfortable merging because it's not as clear-cut as "wea mfg. OLYPHANT" which, like the SRC logo, almost certainly means that specific plant.

So nowadays, especially for "lesser" entities like this (as opposed to artists and labels), generally I favor keeping them all separate, even if they seem to be equivalent. But since the guidelines encourage picking a canonical name for each company, I tend to merge when I'm certain it's a company reference (like "WEA Manufacturing Inc" without any punctuation, as a hypothetical example). On the other hand, if someone enters it differently, I wouldn't negatively vote or even change it. (Sorry, I know that's not very helpful if someone's already doing a bunch of merging.)

djindio
Wasn't a name change until the WEA Manufacturing Inc.'s parent company restructured 1995 -> 1996.

I glanced at your sources but I don't see what you're referring to.

jweijde
relevant Billboard article : http://tinyurl.com/cswsccq

...as referenced in the Wikipedia article. The other Billboard articles were also referenced. :)

mjb
Specialty Records corporation didn't exist on paper after 1980...(correct me if I'm wrong)

OK, I'll correct you:

"Specialty Records Corporation" on paper in 1995
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1676953

----------------

"Specialty Records Corporation" still exists on paper as late as 2006 (from the FCC government website):

AA 0002590061
04/28/2006
Assignor: SPECIALTY RECORDS CORPORATION
Assignee: CINRAM MANUFACTURING LLC

http://wireless.fcc.gov/weeklypn/2006/pn2500.pdf
http://wireless.fcc.gov/weeklypn/2006/DOC-265399A1.pdf

----------------

"Specialty Records Corporation" was a legally ed DBA (Doing Business As) of WEA Manufacturing Inc. (see PAD095363057 , from the EPA government website ofmpub.epa.gov):

WEA MFG INC DBA SPECIALTY RECORDS CORP

http://tinyurl.com/7zelnu5

----------------

The Specialty name was dropped by WEA Manufacturing Inc. in 1996:

Specialty Records is the former business name of an unincorporated operating division of WEA
Manufacturing, Inc. Jeffrey Raider Aff ¶ 103.WEA discontinued use of Specialty Records as a business name and
operating division in 1996. Id. ¶ 104. No motion has been made to remove Specialty Records and it remains a named
party in the lawsuit.

^(from the US Courts government website):
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/munley/01v1998.pdf

----------------
----------------
----------------

from the PDF sited as a source on wikipedia, hosted at some .org in a '/' folder, unknown who ed it, unknown if the doc is at all unaltered in any way...
(besides, no one is arguing that the company was taken over by Warner Communications Inc. and renamed WEA Manufacturing (Inc.) in 1978~1980 at all):
http://web.archive.org/web/20060724014030/http://www.21fund.org/s/PennTechFormationReport.pdf

HOW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE

CINRAM INTERNATIONAL INC.

Specialty Records, based in Olyphant, Lackawanna County, was a dominant player in the vinyl
record and cassette tape market when it approached the Ben Franklin Technology Partners
in 1986 for help in developing and implementing new processes for the manufacturing of
CD-ROMs and music CDs. The company had recently been acquired by Warner Brothers
and renamed WEA Manufacturing. They recognized that the nascent CD technology would
soon dominate the marketplace and virtually obsolete vinyl records. Ben Franklin
Technology Partners helped to assemble a team of experts in physics, electrical engineering
and thin film technology from the University of Scranton and Lehigh University to develop
and implement several key manufacturing processes. Ben Franklin invested $247,000 in this
effort, which was matched by an equal amount of cash by the company. As a result, WEA
became the first company to come on stream world-wide with a complete CD manufacturing
facility, resulting in the creation of over 800 jobs.

Recognizing the need to continually reinvent itself, the company’s DVD division, WEA
Advanced Media Operations, helped design the original high-density format used in DVDs.
The first DVD discs ever molded were molded in Olyphant. In recent years, WEA has
worked with the Northeastern PA Industrial Resource Center on implementation of ISO
9000. WEA was purchased in October 2003 by Cinram International Inc., the largest
maker of DVDs and CDs in the world. They are the largest employer in Lackawanna
County with more than 2,300 people in the Olyphant plant.

I see:

1. Specialty Records ... approached the Ben Franklin Technology Partners in 1986 for help in developing and implementing new processes for the manufacturing of
CD-ROMs and music CDs. (true)
2. The company was aquired by Warner Brothers (actually it was Warner Communications Inc., but true enough)
3. The company was renamed WEA Manfacturing (actually it was WEA Manfacturing Inc., but true enough)

The company had recently been acquired by Warner Brothers and renamed WEA Manufacturing.

^How is that even a citable source for this quite incorrect sentence in the wikipedia article: "The Specialty Records Corporation name was dropped in 1986 in favor of WEA Manufacturing"? I don't see a reference to 1986 in relation to the company being renamed in that PDF.

(edit:hopefully done with the typos)

jweijde
Anyways, there's a company registration in NY for WEA Manufacturing Inc.
It says this:
DEC 03, 2003 Actual CINRAM MANUFACTURING INC.
MAR 08, 1995 Actual WEA MANUFACTURING INC.

And the Department of State in California has this info:
Entity Name: WEA MANUFACTURING OF CALIFORNIA INC.
Entity Number: C1007891
Date Filed: 11/03/1980
Status: MERGED OUT
Jurisdiction: DELAWARE
Entity Address: 210 N VALLEY AVE
Entity City, State, Zip: OLYPHANT PA 18447
Agent for Service of Process: UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY
Agent Address: 2730 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 100
Agent City, State, Zip: SACRAMENTO CA 95833

djindio
Wasn't a name change until the WEA Manufacturing Inc.'s parent company restructured 1995 -> 1996.

mjb
I glanced at your sources but I don't see what you're referring to.

It might also be helpful to note that the info posted by jweijde is incomplete, the re-ation on MAR 08, 1995 of WEA Manufacturing Inc. in NY was part of the restructuring which preceded the official 'dropping' of the Specialty name in 1996, as mentioned here:

djindio
1995 Nov: Company restructured under newly formed WEA Inc.http://books.google.ca/books?id=Dw0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT81&dq=%22WEA+Manufacturing%22+1995+Billboard+restructured&hl=en&sa=X&ei=70CxT46kEIOpgwfPtdSKCQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw

The original filing of WEA Manufacturing Inc. in 1979~1980 in the state of PA is not available on the internet at this time.

djindio
The Specialty name was dropped by WEA Manufacturing Inc. in 1996:

In a related note (Feb 10 1996), I suspect that Richard C. Marquardt, Sr., son of the founder of Specialty Records Corp., stepping down as president & CEO of WEA Manufacturing Inc. had something to do with the renaming of the plant from Specialty Records Corporation to WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant in 1996, as read here in Billboard:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Dg8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&dq=Billboard+%22Specialty+Records%22+%22promoted%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h4W3T5HELMncgQeXrpjTCg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

^but that is just speculation & conjecture...

.

mjb
if someone's already doing a bunch of merging

I didn't do any 'merging', I added pressing plant info to several vinyl releases, in accordance with every guideline listed on discogs, as well as taking into the rudely unlinked quote from Eviltoastman

See for your self (and quit taking the word of s with ulterior motives):
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/WEA+Manufacturing%2C+Olyphant

djindio
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/WEA+Manufacturing%2C+Olyphant

is it a duplicate of WEA Mfg. Olyphant plant page ? or is it something with unclear status ?

ok i see now you treat them as duplicates.
so you have created a duplicate page with "made-up name" based on an unclear connection between company name and address on some test pressings and without agreement from other s.
while we already have agreed WEA Mfg. Olyphant page named as per plant logo.
not to say the number of test pressings you use to fill "your" page is incomparable to the number of releases with WEA Mfg. Olyphant logo.

and now you are writing profiles like this: WEA Mfg. Olyphant.
great!

WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant may be used as "company branch" page for those test pressings, but the way you are doing things is totally unacceptable. many of your edits are based on guessing.

You have also completely eliminated WEA Manufacturing, Commerce while it was little discussed and no single agreement from other s was received. A direct violation of rules from both mass-edits and consensus points.

cvalda44
page named as per plant logo.

Who you tryin' to b.s.:

1. The plant name is 'WEA Manufacturing': (1) (2)
2. The plant 'logo' is just 'WEA': (1) (2)
3. The plant location is 'Olyphant': (1) (2)

Yet you go on trying to b.s. me when it's right in front for all of us to see?

djindio
I didn't make up anything.

you have constructed the name (which never appears on releases) using their office address from test pressings.
At the same time you are trying to eliminate names which actually appear on vast majority of releases.

cvalda44
you have constructed the name (which never appears on releases) using their office address

Which is exactly what the guidelines say to do when 2 plants 'company branches' with the same name need to be differenciated. The vinyl test pressings have debunked the false assertion that olyphant is somehow part of the plants name, a false assertion which you and others have been pushing.

djindio
Which is exactly what the guidelines say to do when 2 plants with the same name need to be differenciated.

These plants already had their distinct pages with location mentioned - named exactly as per variant on vast majority of releases. The variant you offer is no more "real" plant name nor appears on releases. Why not just to get agreement to your proposal and perform the updates then ? You are doing exactly the opposite.

It is required to separate the added location with a comma being that the location is NOT part of the company branch name as you and your friend have previously tried to assert so adamantly, that myth has now been debunked for the falsehood that it is:

4.3.2. For generically named locations such as "Parish Church", or for companies which share the same name, and where the location is usually listed on the release, list the location as part of the name to differentiate them. For example, "Parish Church, Portland". Generally, the town or city is enough to add to the name.

WEA Mfg. Olyphant imprint is already distinct, the comma is needed when name and location are separated on release

Again:

djindio
The vinyl test pressings have debunked the false assertion that olyphant is somehow part of the plants name, a false assertion which you and others have been pushing.

^as such, 4.3.2. now applies, now that your misrepresentation based on assumption has been debunked.

djindio
Which is exactly what the guidelines say to do when 2 plants 'company branches' with the same name need to be differenciated. The vinyl test pressings have debunked the false assertion that olyphant is somehow part of the plants name, a false assertion which you and others have been pushing.

The profile you've created for Olyphant needs to be purged and merged with the existing one using the far more prevalent name which appears on nearly every CD they manufactured. The profile you created appears on a handful of test pressings. It's immaterial what it's called in real life, we should be respecting what is on the release and then the different is a matter of punctuation or an abbreviation, we should avoid duplicates of the sort you have recently created and stick to what is most common.

I understand frustration, but editing profiles on the database to say "only exists because Eviltoastman insists" is quite tawdry.

Please reinstate the WEA Manufacturing, Commerce (this new profile uses a name you have invented, it does not appear on any releases in this format).
Please merge releases from your recently created page at WEA Mfg. Olyphant. The page you have created contains a name seen only on test pressings, the original profile is what the majority of commercial releases use.

You've completely disregarded precedent, guideline and consensus on this one.

Eviltoastman
consensus

2 s intentionally and maliciously trying to shut down a discussion based on new data does not = 'consensus'.

Eviltoastman
completely disregarded precedent, guideline

That's exactly what "WEA Mfg. Olyphant" does, skirting around 4.3.2. under the false pretense that Olyphant is somehow part of the company branch name, which it is not.

Malicious? I think you may need a sit down. You're making mass changes whilst a discussion is ongoing which is against 14.3.3. Three people have calmly disagreed with you and you've done your gasket. It's not very constructive and defeats what MJB, Jweijde, Cvalda and myself are trying to do, which is discuss things properly.

djindio
That's exactly what "WEA Mfg. Olyphant" does, under the false pretense that Olyphant is somehow part of the company branch name, which it is not.

Entering precisely what is on the vast majority of releases which bears the branch's name is disregarding precedent? I disagree on the strongest possible.

Consider 14.3.3 and your recent updates and additions to the db in spite of this thread are very poor form and show a lack of respect to the database.

You speak of agenda, please advise what agenda you feel Cvalda and I are trying to pursue? From my perspective, it's to maintain data as on the release as much as possible and to in this particular case to avoid the inventions of the kind that you have employed in spite of an ongoing discussion (14.3.3) that you have started to employ such as the glass mastering credit advice which has been added to some of those profiles without citation or discussion and with absolutely no indicators on the releases themselves. s are following the advices on these new profiles you've written with them adding a "plucked from the ether" glass mastering credit. You many not have started a merge, but you deliberately taken action which corrupt how others will enter data.

djindio
That's exactly what "WEA Mfg. Olyphant" does, skirting around 4.3.2. under the false pretense that Olyphant is somehow part of the company branch name, which it is not.

It doesn't have to be part of the company name.
Neither is New York City, Sydney or London in these:
Sony Music Studios, London
They are added because:
4.3.4. Company branches that need to be differentiated, and consistently state their location, can be entered that way.

anssisal
It doesn't have to be part of the company name.

If it's not a part of the company then it requires a comma before the location.

4.3.2. For generically named locations such as "Parish Church", or for companies which share the same name, and where the location is usually listed on the release, list the location as part of the name to differentiate them. For example, "Parish Church, Portland". Generally, the town or city is enough to add to the name.

Eviltoastman
You're making mass changes

Again with false accusations, where are these socalled 'mass changes'?

None of these are 'mass changes' I simply added the pressing plant in accordence with the guidelines:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/WEA%20Manufacturing%2C%20Olyphant

^On top of that, taking into your advice:

Eviltoastman
Nik has advised in the quote above that keeping this kind of data in separate label/company profiles is beneficial to the database. The data is easily found, can be parsed and sorted and fairly represents the release. We should not seek to merge these profiles akin to puréeing food for babies, yes all the ingredients would still be there, but it would be a mess. Try separating them later and you will have an near impossible or extremely difficult task. The data may be retained by some in the the notes but most frequently it is not, as the retention or addition of the company name as on the release is not covered in the guidelines unless the data is already present in the notes and let us not forget that we should not be using notes when the data can be fairly and reasonably added to the appropriate fields elsewhere.

Besides that, the guidelines DO NOT tell us to use an incorrectly entered company page simply because it's there already.

djindio
If it's not a part of the company then it requires a comma before the location.

So would the correct names be WEA Mfg., Olyphant and WEA Mfg., Commerce?

That's exactly what I'm trying to discuss (along with other things) but appearently only Eviltoastman has the power to say what is correct and what isn't...

anssisal
So would the correct names be WEA Mfg., Olyphant and WEA Mfg., Commerce?

I think only if location would not be already printed as part of the name. If it would say "Made in Olyphant by WEA Mfg.", the correct name would be "WEA Mfg., Olyphant" with comma, like Universal M & L, . But the plant imprint says "WEA Mfg. Olyphant" already, so i believe the comma is not needed, as on release principle prevails.

cvalda44
I think only if location would not be already printed as part of the name. If it would say "Made in Olyphant by WEA Mfg.", the correct name would be "WEA Mfg., Olyphant" with comma, like Universal M & L, . But the plant imprint says "WEA Mfg. Olyphant" already, so i believe the comma is not needed, as on release principle prevails.

Ok. Sounds reasonable.

So WEA Mfg. Olyphant and WEA Mfg. Commerce then?

Because at least I don't see no point lengthening the "Mfg." abbreviations into "Manufacturing", since they're almost never credited that way.

cvalda44
I think only if location would not be already printed as part of the name.

It's not printed as part of the name on either the vinyl test pressings OR in the matrix of CD's.

On the matrix of CD's is listed as "WEA Mfg.", with the location printed under the company/plant name.

On vinyl test pressings it listed as "WEA Manufacturing".

anssisal
So WEA Mfg. Olyphant and WEA Mfg. Commerce then?

That would be incorrect based on the current guidelines.

djindio
On the matrix of CD's is listed as "WEA Mfg.", with the location printed under the company/plant name.

I don't think it does matter if the location is printed under, over, before or after the WEA Mfg., because it's only a logo design choice.

djindio
None of these are 'mass changes' I simply added the pressing plant in accordence with the guidelines:

Any edits made to more than a single release, in my view, constitutes "mass" editing. Besides, even single release edits deserve any, and all, references. Not linking to relevant discussions isn't helping those who come along later and are trying to understand why things aren't as they are on their copy of a particular release. Forum linking should be endemic here at Discogs, sadly, it's almost unknown. This has made it much harder to understand why things are the way they are here.

As well, there's no real rush, perhaps a few days from now, the issue won't seem so unresolvable and immediate. Myself, I'd prefer to see edits, if made, done so with all due consideration, only after a clear consensus and with a measure of patience thrown in to allow for late comers and second thoughts. There's a lot of info here and it's going to take time for others to follow your points carefully and respond appropriately.

It's not quite a logo:
http://s.dsimg.com/image/L-291934-1325134292.png

anssisal
because it's only a logo design choice.

Look again, the only actual 'logo' here is "WEA":
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/image/L-393839-1337349618-1646.jpeg
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/image/L-393839-1337349847-4230.png

The logo 'WEA' is simply incorporated into the name WEA Manufacturing (WEA Mfg.) in the matrix of the CD's pressed their.

2tec
Any edits made to more than a single release, in my view, constitutes "mass" editing.

'mass edits' = moving releases in 'mass' from one page to another. I did not 'mass' 'move' anything yet.

2tec
Not linking to relevant discussions isn't helping those who come along later

Show me the relevent, valid discussion for these updates:

cvalda44
djindio is on the mission on moving releases to this page: WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant
Is where any conclusion on it ?
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/3556584
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/3099051

You can't, because there isn't one. The edits falsely reported as "djindio on the mission on moving releases to this page" by cvalda44 in this thread are obivously corrections outside the scope of this discussion:

Here I added Pressed By info and removed a ficticious 'Made By' credit:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?release=3556584&diff=4

Here I corrected the Label and added Pressed By info:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?release=3099051#latest

-----------

PLUS, I strictly abided by the advice given to me in this thread, simply to see if that would actually make any sort of difference what so ever with these two who appeared to be on a mission to intentionally de-rail any chance at actually discussing this issue with the new revelations in mind:

Eviltoastman
Nik has advised in the quote above that keeping this kind of data in separate label/company profiles is beneficial to the database. The data is easily found, can be parsed and sorted and fairly represents the release. We should not seek to merge these profiles akin to puréeing food for babies, yes all the ingredients would still be there, but it would be a mess. Try separating them later and you will have an near impossible or extremely difficult task. The data may be retained by some in the the notes but most frequently it is not, as the retention or addition of the company name as on the release is not covered in the guidelines unless the data is already present in the notes and let us not forget that we should not be using notes when the data can be fairly and reasonably added to the appropriate fields elsewhere.

^It obivously didn't make any sort of difference what so ever, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt anyway.

After that I went ahead with a mini 'mass' edit of 5 releases here because the previously chosen name was based on false precident:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/WEA+Manufacturing%2C+Commerce

djindio
'mass edits' = moving releases in 'mass' from one page to another. I did not 'mass' 'move' anything yet.

Edits / moves; both requiring discussion and links is how I read the following guideline.

14.1.2. If you want to do the same type of edit over many releases, post a message in the Adding & Updating forum stating your intentions. This will ensure your updates are acceptable before you do them, and may help you get votes faster. Link to the discussion on each of your edits, so other voters can read what is discussed.

djindio
Show me the relevent, valid discussion for these updates:

Isn't that the point, that there should be relevant discussions, and consensus, before any edits are made?

I think it's best if you leave the knife, Djindio and ask nik to visit the thread for his opinion, because you appear to have suspended reason in favour what appears to be rantings and paranoid allegations of agendas and so forth. Things couldn't be further from the truth.

2tec
14.1.2. If you want to do the same type of edit over many releases, post a message in the Adding & Updating forum stating your intentions. This will ensure your updates are acceptable before you do them, and may help you get votes faster. Link to the discussion on each of your edits, so other voters can read what is discussed.

I'll keep that in mind.

Eviltoastman
It's not quite a logo:
http://s.dsimg.com/image/L-291934-1325134292.png

Well maybe not, but my point was that you can't exclude it(Olyphant) from the company name just because it appears under (and not after) the WEA Mfg. text. Like djindio here seems to think:

djindio
It's not printed as part of the name on either the vinyl test pressings OR in the matrix of CD's.
On the matrix of CD's is listed as "WEA Mfg.", with the location printed under the company/plant name.

Eviltoastman
and ask nik to visit the thread for his opinion

I already asked him 2 days ago on 18-May-12 at 09:54 AM, but go ahead and bother him again if you feel the need to do so.

Eviltoastman
Things couldn't be further from the truth.

Prove it.

Here we have you again trying to sabotage a discussion before it even beings:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/340411#3190757

with "paranoid allegations".

2tec
that there should be relevant discussions, and consensus, before any edits are made?

Where does it state that s are required to ask permission in the forums before making each and every edit?

anssisal
but my point was that you can't exclude it(Olyphant)

No one ever said they were going to buddy.

djindio
No one ever said they were going to buddy.

You did :D

djindio
It's not printed as part of the name on either the vinyl test pressings OR in the matrix of CD's.

My point was that it can be part of the company name, be it under or after the WEA Mfg. text.

anssisal
You did :D

No I didn't, I said it's not a part of the actual company name. There's a difference.

80-90% of companies at discogs are not presented by actual names, but by their variations, trading names or imprints - usually by the most common version found on releases. Polydor Ltd., Sony Music Entertainment, Universal M & L, PMDC, EDC etc. - none of these are actual names. Actual name, if known, is profile material. It doesn't really matter if Olyphant is a part of the actual plant name or not - it matters it appears as part of the name on releases.

That doesn't exclude it from needing the required comma.

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/339842?page=1#3190779

djindio
4.3.2. For generically named locations such as "Parish Church", or for companies which share the same name, and where the location is usually listed on the release, list the location as part of the name to differentiate them. For example, "Parish Church, Portland". Generally, the town or city is enough to add to the name.

But again you gonna play like you don't hear me though, cause you on a mission, right?

djindio
1. The plant name is 'WEA Manufacturing': (1) (2)
2. The plant 'logo' is just 'WEA': (1) (2)
3. The plant location is 'Olyphant': (1) (2)

But you don't hear me though.

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/339842?page=1#3190732
But you don't hear me though.

All this is so beyond my scope of understanding, but it's so fascinating nonethess. I have nothing to contribute here, other than a hearty "way to go!" & good-natured "that'll show 'em!!" ... plus, this is so quote-worthy:

Eviltoastman
We should not seek to merge these profiles akin to puréeing food for babies, yes all the ingredients would still be there, but it would be a mess.

It's great to have this forum to hash these matters out ... to the few, respectable who care.

[edit to quote properly]

djindio
Where does it state that s are required to ask permission in the forums before making each and every edit?

Sigh. Begging your pardon but I'm going to slightly amend your statement for you, to illustrate my original point since you seem to have missed it.

Where does it state that s are required to ask permission in the forums before making each and every mass edit?

Clearly 14.1.2 does, as was pointed out. I really thought we'd gotten past arguing over whether these types of efforts constitute mass changes as per the RSG. Clearly the changes you're discussing would affect more than just a couple of releases now, not to mention in the future. Are you really going to take the position that this particular effort doesn't specifically constitute a mass edit as referred to in the guidelines?

just curious

hatfulofelt
It's great to have this forum to hash these matters out ... to the few, respectable who care.

Yes, it sure is. Where the forums comes undone, in my view, is when people have a personal agenda, are in a rush or make the conversation, and take the conversation, far too personal. It's a shame texting is so darn impersonal and remote; I'd bet that if we were all in the same room, the tone would be far more civil.

hatfulofelt
this is so quote-worthy

Then you should make sure you're quoting the correct .

Let's stick to what we find on the release.
IMHO, we need
WEA Mfg. Olyphant for all Glass Mastered CDs bearing that logo.
WEA Mfg. Commerce (that has now disappeared) for Glass Mastered CDs bearing that logo.
WEA Manufacturing Inc. for all releases stating exactly that.

I could also live with WEA Mfg., Olyphant or WEA Mfg., Commerce.
But I don't think we need WEA Manufacturing, Commerce.
These names aren't featured as such on any release, AFAICS. The test pressing labels read "Test Pressing From WEA Manufacturing". The location is found elsewhere, hence isn't part of the name. Also, I don't see confusion as there obviously was only one vinyl plant carrying that name.

We can't say for sure why WEA Manufacturing was used on 1 release but WEA Manufacturing Inc. on another. It isn't of interest anyway, the fact that there are two versions speaks for itself.

sebfact
Let's stick to what we find on the release.IMHO, we need WEA Mfg. Olyphant for all Glass Mastered CDs bearing that logo. WEA Mfg. Commerce (that has now disappeared) for Glass Mastered CDs bearing that logo.WEA Manufacturing for all releases stating exactly that AND also for the test pressings now gathered under WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant.WEA Manufacturing Inc. for all releases stating exactly that.

Summed up nicely.

2tec
there's no real rush, perhaps a few days from now, the issue won't seem so unresolvable and immediate. Myself, I'd prefer to see edits, if made, done so with all due consideration, only after a clear consensus and with a measure of patience thrown in to allow for late comers and second thoughts.

I agree. A lot of the time, issues such as this tend to go into 'pressure cooker' mode and become highly charged, often IMHO for little good reason. If something like this takes weeks, moths, or heck even years to sort out, that is fine. In the meantime, we can;

sebfact
stick to what we find on the release.

So, for companies, it goes like this:

1. Enter what is on the release.
2. IF it is a variation of a company name that is unquestionably proven AND agreed upon, then enter it with the adjusted name, ELSE goto 1.

djindio
it requires a comma before the location.

The comma is not explicitly required, and it is not very important. Where the name / location is commonly listed without a comma, it doesn't need one IMHO.

djindio

1. The plant name is 'WEA Manufacturing': (1) (2)
2. The plant 'logo' is just 'WEA': (1) (2)
3. The plant location is 'Olyphant': (1) (2)

WEA Manufacturing is generic reference to company and plant, "WEA" is not the specific plant logo but generic Warner Elektra Atlantic logo. The plant "logo" is WEA Mfg. Olyphant. How the company office address on test presses disables a half of plant imprint on CDs i will never understand. There are thousands of subsidiaries at discogs with generic brand logo and division name below.

djindio
That doesn't exclude it from needing the required comma.

The guideline doesn't say the comma is required...

.. i break writing my reply here: just spotted nik's answer above

cvalda44
WEA Manufacturing is generic reference to company and plant

You don't know that. Could be true could be wrong. Could be either or. Besides you don't have to b.s. anymore, decision has been made.

cvalda44
WEA" is ... generic Warner Elektra Atlantic logo.

No s##t, really?! (sarcasm)

cvalda44
There are thousands of subsidiaries at discogs with generic brand logo and division name below.

^and yet you still say:

cvalda44
"WEA" is ... generic Warner Elektra Atlantic logo.

Obivously.

cvalda44
The plant "logo" is WEA Mfg. Olyphant.

Eviltoastman
It's not quite a logo:
http://s.dsimg.com/image/L-291934-1325134292.png

djindio
1. The plant name is 'WEA Manufacturing': (1) (2)
2. The plant 'logo' is just 'WEA': (1) (2)
3. The plant location is 'Olyphant': (1) (2)

But you don't hear me though.

Besides you don't have to b.s. anymore, decision has already been made.

14.1.2. If you want to do the same type of edit over many releases, post a message in the Adding & Updating forum stating your intentions. This will ensure your updates are acceptable before you do them, and may help you get votes faster. Link to the discussion on each of your edits, so other voters can read what is discussed.

2tec
Where does it state that s are required to ask permission in the forums before making each and every mass edit?

Well clearly you haven't properly defined the use of the word 'many'.

Does 'many' = more than 1 or 2? No, I think the guideline would say 'more than 1' if so.

Does 'many' = a half a page full of releases?

Does 'many' = a page full of releases?

Does 'many' = more than a page full of releases?

I personally do not classify 5 ~ 10 or even 15 releases to be 'many'. If 'many' means 'more than one', then it should say 'more than one'.

2tec
just curious

djindio - seriously, please chill out or I will have to give you a time-out.

'Many' is 3 or more to me, if I needed to put a number on it. Also, the guideline should be taken as meaning 'if you are initiating an edit that has repercussions over many releases...'

Still, any of this type of controversial change is better to discuss no matter how many releases it affects.

Could you please reinstate the Commerce profile as it was if not done so already.

sebfact
We can't say for sure why WEA Manufacturing was used on 1 release but WEA Manufacturing Inc. on another.

well let's not forget that both name variations appear many releases:

djindio
...both 'WEA Manufacturing' at the end of the statement printed on the left of the CD, 'WEA Manfacturing Inc.' printed along the bottom edge of the CD:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/1160068

http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-1160068-1197247528.jpeg
^'WEA Manfacturing Inc.' is almost invisible on most because the images are scans not photos.

nik
'Many' is 3 or more to me

Then it will be for me as well.

nik
please chill out or I will have to give you a time-out.

Have I not been 'chill'?

nik
Still, any of this type of controversial change is better to discuss no matter how many releases it affects.

6 days ago:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/339842?page=1#msg3191212

Eviltoastman
Nik has advised in the quote above that keeping this kind of data in separate label/company profiles is beneficial to the database. The data is easily found, can be parsed and sorted and fairly represents the release. We should not seek to merge these profiles akin to puréeing food for babies, yes all the ingredients would still be there, but it would be a mess. Try separating them later and you will have an near impossible or extremely difficult task. The data may be retained by some in the the notes but most frequently it is not, as the retention or addition of the company name as on the release is not covered in the guidelines unless the data is already present in the notes and let us not forget that we should not be using notes when the data can be fairly and reasonably added to the appropriate fields elsewhere.

Well clearly Eviltoastman had succeeded in convincing me that "keeping this kind of data in separate label/company profiles is beneficial to the database" was new mantra of discogs, and that there would be not sort of controversy with these updates:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/WEA+Manufacturing%2C+Olyphant
^only to turn around and use it against me. I didn't realize that there was a double standard between pages created by me an pages crated by others.

But that doesn't matter, these sort of things are now approved I guess.

I'm an old man, I've been here a long time, I don't keep up with all the changes and I actually expect to get honest answers from these kids but that's just my mistake, this isn't the same world I grew up in...

Eviltoastman
Could you please reinstate the Commerce profile as it was if not done so already.

You do what you want. I accomplished my main goal anyway, and voters will no longer be able to get away with EI votes and harassment when I or others add a Specialty Records Corporation pressed CD to the Specialty Records Corporation page, EI votes and harassment based on obivous misinterpretations added to a bulls##t! wikipedia article (which is not partially fixed, but sadly the change from the b.s. 1986 to 1996 is actually hardly noticable. :-D )

You do whatever you want with WEA Manufacturing in Commerce and WEA Manufacturing in Olyphant, as I would have to start a discuss any changes I plant to make being that every thing I do on this site is now classified as 'mass' or 'many', because I don't just add releases I also correct other releases in the same MR, label, or artist pages at the same time...