Mass Edit -- Guideline and Protocol

Hi all,

Our staff have recently seen an uptick in concerns regarding editing mass edits not being conducted properly, and wanted to provide a reminder about guidelines relating to mass edits, as well as a little protocol to follow in such cases.

From RSG §14.1.2: "If you want to do the same type of edit over many releases, post a message in the Database 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."

We strongly encourage a waiting period of at least 24 hours before proceeding with edits after opening the forum thread and discussion has started; longer is preferrable. There shouldn't be a rush to mass edit data, particularly in the case of relatively minor changes.

Refer also to RSG §14.1.3 and RSG §14.1.4 regarding documenting your case for any changes on the release history. As has recently been discussed else where in the forums, personal knowledge is not sufficient justification for a mass edit, without additional evidence to back it up. It should not be considered acceptable to initiate a mass edit based on hearsay from a record label manager, for example, or due to the sense that a personal resource has specific knowledge that is broadly applicable. If an edit can be sourced to information available on an image or a trusted third-party source that can be linked directly into the release history, that's a good starting place.

General advice when encountering a mass edit lacking in evidence:

* Start a thread about it, advising other community you see a problem, that there is no citation or clear evidence for the edit, and make it clear, in polite language, that this evidence does need to be provided.
* Leave a note on the submission to the effect that you have started a thread, and would like their input.
* If no response or evidence are provided within a couple of days, it is acceptable to leave a couple of EI votes along with a reminder that there is an open forum thread discussing the concern, and evidence is still lacking.
* It's a good idea to update the forums at this time to indicate votes have been placed.
* If there are no further responses or sufficient evidence at this point, EI votes can be placed on each edit.

Thank you!

Sounds promising, but there should also be some guidance about how to proceed when one opens a thread to discuss a proposed change, and gets no response. After, say, several bumps over several days with no input, should one just file an SR? Wait longer? Go ahead with the edits?

Thanks. I would like to please ask that the serial culprits of these types of edits get proper consequences for this. Another one where company number has been added en masse, again the usual suspects, some of which have already been on CIP and banned for similar practices, s need to know this can not keep happening again and again without more severe consequences. And those constantly voting these correct also need their voting right revoked. Most of it is blind buddy voting anyway, you know the groups.

Nm

drivebybird
* Leave a note on the submission to the effect that you have started a thread, and would like their input.

I'd like to put some emphasis on this. Not only regarding mass edits. Often there's a thread started about some edits but the offender isn't notified and then you get an unnecessary conflict when the negative votes and comments lands on that . That could have been avoided if the offender had been invited to the forum thread about the case.

ChampionJames
After, say, several bumps over several days with no input, should one just file an SR? Wait longer? Go ahead with the edits?

Go ahead IMO.

drivebybird
* If there are no further responses or sufficient evidence at this point, EI votes can be placed on each edit.

So just to be clear: this would apply to edits done for example referred to here? http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/53f0d9804c5e2e5763ec30d1
Many of those were never backed up (many voted correct), and still have not been reverted where there is no run-out info/images or other info to these edits.

I am just going to post them here because I am not opening a thread for every one I come across:
www.dgrinc.com, usual suspects adding company number with no discussion/source provided.
And DGR Inc., had already brought this up then in the history http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?label=DGR+Inc.#latest

drivebybird
Link to the discussion on each of your edits, so other voters can read what is discussed."

This is IMO 100% imperative. Should be a NMiC offence without it, even if the edit is otherwise correct

I am tempted to announce a couple of ongoing mass edits in the forums, that really should come to the attention of management. For example there are s still involved in updating index tracks to the recently introduced syntax. Other s have repeatedly been caught in the act of repairing broken html links in release notes. Also, I'd like to point out that there are s around who, instead of opening ten forum threads a day, fix obvious mistakes in the db (legacy labels, wrongly assigned artists, tracklists etc.) in accordance with existing guidelines. Many of which may affect ten or more releases (or whatever the threshold for a so called mass edit might be). Some of them never participate in the forums at all. And I doubt that their voluntary work continues, if they are forced to do so.

Iirc, a recent forum statement by nik was "Discogs should be fun". It is difficult to have fun in an environment increasingly governed by bureaucracy, distrust and defamatory tones. I also wonder what the voting system is really there for ? If someone thinks that something is not done correctly, appropriate votes can be used. If someone else thinks differently, different votes can be used to counter this.

drivebybird
* If there are no further responses or sufficient evidence at this point, EI votes can be placed on each edit.

Imho, EI votes should only be used in the context of existing guidelines. RSG §20.2.6 states that "If the edit contains correct information and can be improved and made more correct by editing, do not use this vote, use 'Needs Major Changes' instead." I don't think that recommeding the blanket use of EI votes is a good idea, as these votes cannot be countered by other voters.

strummin
I am tempted to announce a couple of ongoing mass edits in the forums, that really should come to the attention of management. For example there are s still involved in updating index tracks to the recently introduced syntax. Other s have repeatedly been caught in the act of repairing broken html links in release notes.

The guidelines are there to guide us. If the edits are correct, and very general, then they shouldn't bother us, no?

strummin
I'd like to point out that there are s around who, instead of opening ten forum threads a day, fix obvious mistakes in the db (legacy labels, wrongly assigned artists, tracklists etc.) in accordance with existing guidelines. Many of which may affect ten or more releases (or whatever the threshold for a so called mass edit might be). Some of them never participate in the forums at all. And I doubt that their voluntary work continues, if they are forced to do so.

That is a fair point. Again, though, if the edits themselves are correct and evidence given, then there is no problem, correct?

drivebybird
If there are no further responses or sufficient evidence at this point, EI votes can be placed on each edit.

strummin
EI votes should only be used in the context of existing guidelines.

Correct, so if we can't tell if the edit was correct, no ing evidence was given, and no communication entered into (IOW we have tried our best), what is left to do?

strummin
a recent forum statement by nik was "Discogs should be fun". It is difficult to have fun in an environment increasingly governed by bureaucracy, distrust and defamatory tones.

100% agree. Likewise, it is difficult to have fun if people don't provide proof for their edits, and change things in a questionable manner.

This is a large website with a lot of s and a lot of data. We need to communicate with each other, and expect to provide evidence for a specific edit, be that one edit, or 100. If the person doesn't want to communicate, and doesn't want to provide evidence, what are we left with?

Amsreddevil
I am just going to post them here

Please don't, a separate thread for any issues is much appreciated, thanks.

ChampionJames
there should also be some guidance about how to proceed when one opens a thread to discuss a proposed change, and gets no response. After, say, several bumps over several days with no input, should one just file an SR? Wait longer? Go ahead with the edits?

I'd say go ahead, as long as you are convinced yourself that the edits are fine.

nik
The guidelines are there to guide us. If the edits are correct, and very general, then they shouldn't bother us, no?

Unless they become "mass edits" in the eyes of some. In which case we should have a discussion for a discussions sake, according to the above.

nik
Likewise, it is difficult to have fun if people don't provide proof for their edits, and change things in a questionable manner.

But is that a special concern with so called mass edits? On the contrary, the more releases are affected the higher the likelihood that someone takes notice of such edits. The higher the likelihood that votes are being cast and forum threads are being opened. I see RSG §14.1.2 as a recommendation to those that would like to garner as much as possible for their "mass edit". See http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/54391aad2ec4b3074cb9ae93 for a recent example (with repercussions of this thread already contained within). RSG §14.1.2 shouldn't become a bureaucratic hurdle to take before things can be fixed or improved at all.

nik
Correct, so if we can't tell if the edit was correct, no ing evidence was given, and no communication entered into (IOW we have tried our best), what is left to do?

If the edit could be correct, but is badly justified, it requires a Needs Major Changes, not an EI, if I read RSG §20.2.6 correctly. Afaik it is also the logic that the voting systems inflicts on EI votes following previous other votes, because the edit isn't reverted in that case. And it is btw the same logic that discogs applies to websubs.

The thing about mass edits is they are not all created equal. If someone is just going through and correcting a bunch of releases where "Leadbelly" was wrongly ANV'd to "Huddie Ledbetter," then there's no problem. But if someone is merging two companies they think are the same, that's a serious problem.

There should *always* be discussion if the mass edit is going to result in the deletion of a company or artist profile.

strummin
On the contrary, the more releases are affected the higher the likelihood that someone takes notice of such edits.

In most cases they will not say anything though as these are s who do this all the time and others even vote these correct without question, they think it is ok what others are doing because they don't seem to know better.

strummin
If the edit could be correct,

How would you or I know this if there has been no source/back-up given for these edits, if there is nothing in a company profile about this. The recent example of Americ Disc / Disc Amerique shows how s think something is correct, do mass edits, vote it correct when it is not. To me at first glance these numbers seemed fine, until somebody else pointed out they were not. It is always the same core bunch, and they get it wrong quite a few times so far. So yes, every single one needs proper discussion, as these self-elected 'experts' do not know what they are doing half of the time.

But what is "mass edits"? How much? 2? 10? 15? 100?

reinholdritter57, was ist der Zweck dieser Übersetzungen?

English please, there is a German forum if you want to discuss in German reinhold. http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/groups/42
And yes, I do follow what is said there.

nik
if the edits themselves are correct and evidence given,

There's the rub, there would be no problem if these edits were backed up properly. But they aren't.

I don't know if he wants to discuss... he's just translating seemingly random posts in the thread for a purpose that eludes me.

ChampionJames
he's just translating seemingly random posts in the thread for a purpose that eludes me

Lol, that's what I thought.

strummin
there are s around who, instead of opening ten forum threads a day, fix obvious mistakes in the db

I suppose there's a fine line here. I've been hauled up for fixing what I think are obvious mistakes and then get asked what thread gave consensus for the change. However, I'm often dismayed by the lack of response when I bring proposed changes to the forum. Sometimes, it's easier to just get on with the job of fixing obvious mistakes; we'd never get anywhere if we have to seek approval for every edit made.

ChampionJames
There should *always* be discussion if the mass edit is going to result in the deletion of a company or artist profile.

Really? Even if the created company or artist profile is a mistake / typo, or somebody hasn't bothered to check if there's already a very similar entry on the db? I think the new "Lookup" facility is excellent and will surely help to eliminate some duplication, but sometimes a new company is created just because the submitter enters the info verbatim; XXX Ltd. when there is already XXX Ltd and XXX Limited purely because that's how it appears on the release.

This is the biggest area of conflict I encounter for edits, between those (like me) that think related labels and companies should be collated under one entry with clearly defined profiles (and list of the variations) and those that think it should be recorded exactly as it appears. I refer to the mess we'd have without ANV's if this same principle was applied to artists. Speaking of which, there has been previous talk of Label / Company Name Variations, is this still on the cards nik?

devonites
I've been hauled up for fixing what I think are obvious mistakes and then get asked what thread gave consensus for the change.

hmm ...
Wait a minute.
There's a recent example I've noticed. This one:
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?release=122211

The thing is you ignored:

RSG §14.1.3. Even if it seems obvious, always try to explain your update fully using the submission notes. This will always be appreciated by other s, and is vital when we need to look back over the submission data's history.

No source for your edit provided no explanation - nothing.
And your edit was far away to be "self-explanatory".
Eg. You've added a series number not as on release - It's legitimate to ask for a source in cases like this IMHO.

Willow.the.Wisp
It's legitimate to ask for a source in cases like this

Yep, you did and I gave one, but I don't think it's an example of what I was referring to as obvious mistakes.

Willow.the.Wisp
your edit was far away to be "self-explanatory"

I agree, I should have linked to the thread in the submission notes at the time of the edit, I hold my hands up to that.

The point I am really trying to discuss is:

devonites
those (like me) that think related labels and companies should be collated under one entry with clearly defined profiles (and list of the variations) and those that think it should be recorded exactly as it appears.

This exact point has just come up in another thread: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/53beeff02ec4b32a56986838

jvaahtera
Andisongs is the correct way to spell. I think those Andysong, Andy Song etc variations are just incorrect spelling.
I wouldn't really mark anything as "Don't Use". Would be better to keep everything as on release, IMHO. All may have been valid names at the time of their release

Exactly why

devonites
I refer to the mess we'd have without ANV's if this same principle was applied to artists.

nik
I'd say go ahead, as long as you are convinced yourself that the edits are fine.

I have a specific approach to authoring these threads. I frame them in a way which means that if there is no response within a given time that I will be proceeding as planned with the given action. I have an internal rule. I don't include weekends in the 24 hour window.

So I might frame the thread wording in the following way:
"Jade Inc. does not feature on any releases and is frequently used instead of the correct Jade (10). As such all releases incorrectly using Jade Inc. as a label will need moving across to Jade (10). I intend to merge the release to the correct label. If there is no opposition or no response I will start this process in 48 hours time."
A link to that thread is then posted in both profile submission histories, as a bulletin and for posterity.

This way multiple bumping can be kept to a minimum and the process is a little more efficient. A link to that thread is then used in every edit made subsequent to the end of the discussion/.consultation period (in the fake example I;ve used, the releases themselves provide the evidence).

Eviltoastman
I have a specific approach to authoring these threads. I frame them in a way which means that if there is no response within a given time that I will be proceeding as planned with the given action

Great idea, I'm going to adopt that, thanks.

Some artists / labels are blocked in the database with a warning sign. 'Don't Use' this name but use 'corrected Artist / label ').......
Then we must conclude there was a forum for this change and a mass update will be no problem?

RetroCorner
Then we must conclude there was a forum for this change and a mass update will be no problem?

Don't conclude anything without making sure. If it is an obvious typo or incorrect combination of artists or similar things that are just blatantly incorrect, should be no problem. For other things, would expect a comment/link in the sub notes of the profile referring to a source/discussion I would think.

A mass edit after 4 opinions? Is that enough?
e.g. http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/403752

kraftberg
A mass edit after 4 opinions? Is that enough?
e.g. http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/403752

It can be if backed up properly, I don't see that having happened in this instance though.

drivebybird
General advice when encountering a mass edit lacking in evidence:

* Start a thread about it, advising other community you see a problem, that there is no citation or clear evidence for the edit, and make it clear, in polite language, that this evidence does need to be provided.
* Leave a note on the submission to the effect that you have started a thread, and would like their input.
* If no response or evidence are provided within a couple of days, it is acceptable to leave a couple of EI votes along with a reminder that there is an open forum thread discussing the concern, and evidence is still lacking.
* It's a good idea to update the forums at this time to indicate votes have been placed.
* If there are no further responses or sufficient evidence at this point, EI votes can be placed on each edit.

There is nothing here about anyone actually checking if edits are correct, why is this?

Reverting edits that could easily be correct en masse because there was no discussion is silly and often counter-productive.

Presumably if you see a mass edit and go to the forum with it someone is going to do the research at some point yes? Presumably youd need to do the research to check the edit was correct anyway yes? The above implies the discussion implies that s are going taking these things to the forum to check whether a discussion is taking place or has taken place.

The only edits that should be reverted are ones proven to be incorrect or it cant be worked out one way or the other like some of the more complex label issues.

ChampionJames
Sounds promising, but there should also be some guidance about how to proceed when one opens a thread to discuss a proposed change, and gets no response. After, say, several bumps over several days with no input, should one just file an SR? Wait longer? Go ahead with the edits?

This is my concern. I have a thread I've bumped several times about all the permutations of Village Music. We have a studio, three labels and two publishing companies by that name or some variation of it. All of the pages are a mixed up mess, with the same entities appearing on multiple pages. It's a complex set of edits and I'd like some input. I'll probably get some after raising the issue here, but.. what if there wasn't any input? Go ahead with a complex set of edits on my own?
http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/403789

I've posted numerous threads over my time here asking about merging artists or companies. I've gotten replies on far less than the ones that have gone unnoticed. And so those issues are still lurking out there in the database. I think I will adopt Toast's approach myself. I will need to go back through my forum history and look for these forgotten topics.

Excuse me, but what is:
an SR?
EI Vote?
being on CIP?
a NMiC offence?

Woe-Is-Uh-Me-Bop
Excuse me, but what is:
an SR?
EI Vote?
being on CIP?
a NMiC offence?

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/groups/topic/384490

Hope it Helps. :)

I think I need your help. I edit some releases and now I'm lost. Both have the DADC Austria as Glass Mastered at. Now 1 say I need to include this in the Matrix as well like DADC Austria 6567992 12 B1, and on other is saying I need to add it like this [DADC Austria Logo] 6567992 12 B1. But do I really need to include it as it is clear it's mastered at DADC Austria, and the Matrix is only text or digits right? So for my future entries what do I need to do?

SuzieQNL
But do I really need to include it as it is clear it's mastered at DADC Austria,

Not the correct thread, but yes, you need to. When you extrapolate a credit from a matrix or run-out, it should be included so a) others can see where you got it from and b) to see if it was extrapolated correctly.

Thank you for your reply. What is the thread I need to ask this kind of question in the future?

Hi, jdusza1 is mass editing ading a Cat# to company "Pressed By" for LDA: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/437805-Laser-Disc-Argentina (Which seems ok after reading company profile), but he's also doing that for http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/462022-Megadisc-3
and matrix numbers are not so uniform ie: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?release=5662075#latest has MD7384 and others have only a number (no MD) like http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/Flema-Caretofobia-II/release/4985190
Any ideas?

^ I think someone should edit the Megadisc (3) label profile to explain this. Apologies for whatever inconvenience this has caused anybody (Yes, I was wrong, I'm sorry, won't happen again, blah blah...), but the MD#### seems so painfully obvious that I think the profile SHOULD, in all fairness, spell it out either way. I've found no site/resource anywhere to explain the cat # methodology, and for something this obvious I think Discogs would be a good candidate for such a resource. I don't want to be the one to make the edit though because I think my fanny is red enough as it is.

nik
perlatorI am tempted to announce a couple of ongoing mass edits in the forums, that really should come to the attention of management. For example there are s still involved in updating index tracks to the recently introduced syntax. Other s have repeatedly been caught in the act of repairing broken html links in release notes.

The guidelines are there to guide us. If the edits are correct, and very general, then they shouldn't bother us, no?

perlatorI'd like to point out that there are s around who, instead of opening ten forum threads a day, fix obvious mistakes in the db (legacy labels, wrongly assigned artists, tracklists etc.) in accordance with existing guidelines. Many of which may affect ten or more releases (or whatever the threshold for a so called mass edit might be). Some of them never participate in the forums at all. And I doubt that their voluntary work continues, if they are forced to do so.

That is a fair point. Again, though, if the edits themselves are correct and evidence given, then there is no problem, correct?

joshm1979If there are no further responses or sufficient evidence at this point, EI votes can be placed on each edit.

perlatorEI votes should only be used in the context of existing guidelines.

Correct, so if we can't tell if the edit was correct, no ing evidence was given, and no communication entered into (IOW we have tried our best), what is left to do?

perlatora recent forum statement by nik was "Discogs should be fun". It is difficult to have fun in an environment increasingly governed by bureaucracy, distrust and defamatory tones.

100% agree. Likewise, it is difficult to have fun if people don't provide proof for their edits, and change things in a questionable manner.

This is a large website with a lot of s and a lot of data. We need to communicate with each other, and expect to provide evidence for a specific edit, be that one edit, or 100. If the person doesn't want to communicate, and doesn't want to provide evidence, what are we left with?

AmsreddevilI am just going to post them here

Please don't, a separate thread for any issues is much appreciated, thanks.
ChampionJamesthere should also be some guidance about how to proceed when one opens a thread to discuss a proposed change, and gets no response. After, say, several bumps over several days with no input, should one just file an SR? Wait longer? Go ahead with the edits?

I'd say go ahead, as long as you are convinced yourself that the edits are fine.

Speaking of which, I'm correcting the label entries on some unofficial releases. If a counterfeit release bears the logo of EMI (2) respectively according to the guidelines. Some (so freaking many) counterfeits/bootlegs credit the legitimate label and not the fake counterpart, and that is my latest project. Any problems? Didn't think so.

Maybe an extra bit in the first post about blocking profiles: When you want to block a profile with many entries and redirect to another profile, you must first discuss this properly in the forums. When blocking a profile, you are forcing a mass edit on those profiles. This after yet another 'forced' mass edit without any discussion, discussed here: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/405715

Amsreddevil
Maybe an extra bit in the first post about blocking profiles: When you want to block a profile with many entries and redirect to another profile, you must first discuss this properly in the forums. When blocking a profile, you are forcing a mass edit on those profiles.

+1

This feels like an obvious thing to me, but perhaps it needs to be stated clearly.

Also discussed this very subject in this thread.

devonites
This is the biggest area of conflict I encounter for edits, between those (like me) that think related labels and companies should be collated under one entry with clearly defined profiles (and list of the variations) and those that think it should be recorded exactly as it appears. I refer to the mess we'd have without ANV's if this same principle was applied to artists

Well said. I think it's far better to "collect" all minor differencies/variations on one profile.
It's very hard to submit correctly, when you have 10 similiar companies, and you have no idea which to use (unless somebody have put a clear advice on the profile).

Jayfive
The only edits that should be reverted are ones proven to be incorrect or it cant be worked out one way or the other like some of the more complex label issues.

Yes, I agree.

Also I think instead of providing proof/source for an "Minor" mass edit, I think the "complainer" should post proof/source that the edit/s is incorrect, rather than the one making the edit.
This way alot of work can be done faster, and more fun, then to have to ask for every little change, and the database keeps messy.

when i read this thread i think we can go ahead after 5x "+1"

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/411419

vsa2011
But what is "mass edits"? How much? 2? 10? 15? 100?

It would be very helpful if a more experienced could evaluate whether my edit of Talmont Music Inc. violates RSG §14.1.

As an alternative to reviewing my edit, if there is one entry for "Publishing Company Example, Inc.", which links to 50 individual releases, and another entry for "Publishing Company Example Inc.", which only links to four individual releases, would editing the latter entry as 'Do Not Use, Please Use....' with explanatory release notes, constitute a mass edit and therefore should only be done after opening a thread, waiting for comments, etc.?

Thanks!

berothbr
if there is one entry for "Publishing Company Example, Inc.", which links to 50 individual releases, and another entry for "Publishing Company Example Inc.", which only links to four individual releases, would editing the latter entry as 'Do Not Use, Please Use....'

If the majority of releases had "Publishing Company Example, Inc." mentioned on individual releases.  The number of already linked individual releases is not, for many, an evidence that one name is better than the other.
It is appreciated if you specify that the "mentioned on individual releases" research had be done so others s thinking that the name without period is better will know why this had be done.

Adding a little profile/link to the company page will be seen as the result of some research.

But changing only a company profile is obviously not a mass edit.  Moving many linked releases from one company to the other would be the mass edit.

Check out "comfort" who just took it upon himself to change a bunch of Folk/Country/World releases' Main Artists from the name shown on the front sleeve to "Various" because he "felt like that it is more decent these days (and handy for database) to try to credit Tribes and such, than (although great they did it) someone with a recorder."

http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/submissions?=comfort#=comfort&item=label%2FExplorer%2BSeries

Hello. Help me to correct inaccuracies in your site. This table shows the band Voron Light, but I have a team member http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/artist/912878-Voron-Light , and offer large one http://promodj.com/voronlight . thanks

Please check out this: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/689548?page=1#6881903

edited the Releases in question although discussion hadn't even started yet and was - at this Point - against the Guidelines (that means all 15 Edits EI). He didn't even take the time to check the Label history properly and just went ahead editing.
I have not been casting a vote on this yet, although i got an EI vote myself for a comparable edit of just 1 release a month ago...
Should there be a reaction on this Kind of behaviour?

Please have a look at this 's edits, I have left a note on this Donovan - Catch The Wind, but I feel there has been a huge amount of unregulated editing going on for some time by this contributor.

++++1 The is Milvajunk and they appear to have nearly 12,000 pending submissions; of the ones I reviewed the majority appear to be mass edits made unilaterally.

berothbr
of the ones I reviewed

If you review other s' contributions, please also make sure that your own review is according to the guidelines as well. Voting "Needs Major Changes" on this edit was pretty much out of place: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?release=1634381&diff=14

loukash
berothbrof the ones I reviewed
If you review other s' contributions, please also make sure that your own review is according to the guidelines as well. Voting "Needs Major Changes" on this edit was pretty much out of place: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/history?release=1634381&diff=14

loukash: you are correct — it was supposed to be a needs minor changes vote as per RSG §1.4.2 and RSG §14.1.2 (I selected the incorrect option from the pulldown menu by mistake)

berothbr
it was supposed to be a needs minor changes vote

No, it was supposed to be a "Correct" vote. There was nothing wrong with the release data as a whole or with Milvajunk's edit.

I have several mass edits to complete. It takes a bump or two until I finally get a or two to comment on them. I'd appreciate any : http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/group/thread/689656

as per suggestion (see below) issue moved to a own thread http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/700735

Your original edit(s), as far as i can see, were incorrect! Am i missing the point you're trying to make! Please can you explain.

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
should i make a own thread for...?

Yes please. It's easier for everyone to keep track that way.

F104G
funkymplsshould i make a own thread for...?

Yes please. It's easier for everyone to keep track that way.

done: http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/700735

avalon67
This is IMO 100% imperative. Should be a NMiC offence without it, even if the edit is otherwise correct

I take 3 negative votes from the same withour any discussion in the matter. He merged all the printers related to the labels Cgd and Cbs without any discussion invalidating some credits at his pleasure
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/it/release/6127373-La-Spagnola-Tango-Delle-Capinere/history#latest

I edited them as they appears on the release and wothout any discossion on the matter I think I did the right thing.

I asked to link the discussion if it exist and this is his replay
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/it/messages/view/0H7G68PHmnSsJmGZHGHlfw

Thread opened
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/it/forum/thread/709528

avalon67
Should be a NMiC offence without it, even if the edit is otherwise correct

we never vote as punishment. only on data.
same with websubs. you cannot vote EI just because it's a websub. you have to file an SR.

Is correct vote, company profile exist
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/358526-Reparto-Tipografico-CBS-Sugar
I don't understand why we follow the guidelines and a new (for me is a old ) go ahead to create new company, the votes, if i have vote, it's absolutely correct.

I put the credit as appears on release following the guidelines rules, you give votes &, do mass edits with no discussion NOT following guidelines rules.

capocamillo
I put the credit as appears on release following the guidelines rules

Sure, you have read the company profile, not created by me, i think you are old , not new , and
you know really the guidelines.
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/label/358526-Reparto-Tipografico-CBS-Sugar

velove
avalon67
Should be a NMiC offence without it, even if the edit is otherwise correct

we never vote as punishment. only on data.
same with websubs. you cannot vote EI just because it's a websub. you have to file an SR.

Mmm, that post was made 17 months ago, we learn every day here eh?

But, the guidelines state that, for instance, a location MUST be supplied for file releases, yes? So if the sub doesn't have one, that's against guidelines. I was envisaging the same 'rule'.

we never vote as punishment. only on data.

but not everybody here knows that - i experienced they mean it's vote the and make a huge drama . . .

Mass edit don't exist, in the years we have put under this two company, is no possible justified every month the same thing

Sorry, double post

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
but not everybody here knows that

No kidding. If you vote to punish, you and your ego get off this site! >:D

avalon67
But, the guidelines state that, for instance, a location MUST be supplied for file releases, yes? So if the sub doesn't have one, that's against guidelines. I was envisaging the same 'rule'.

Imho if a comment after a vote can change the validity of a vote then the vote is not justified.

If it can be established that a release is correct by adding a comment than any vote that says otherwise is not ok imho.
Votes are not an instrument to ask for adherence to protocol.

If a release doesn't fulfill minimum release data then a vote can be used.

But eg guidelines mandate detailed submission comments. Which only a small majority provide. Myself not included. That's not a reason to vote NMiC. Just a small violation of protocol.

velove
That's not a reason to vote NMiC. Just a small violation of protocol.

Not much point having the guideline then really, if you can flout it as you see fit?

avalon67
Not much point having the guideline then really, if you can flout it as you see fit?

That's my interpretation based on how e.g. web subs are handled. It's not that I have inside info so maybe I am wrong but don't think so.

No you're probably right.
I did mention in my initial post (17 months ago....) that IMO you should be compelled to add a source (forum thread or management statement) for mass edits....that's all :-)

Another mass edit without discussion.
Please look at this page
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/it/artist/2441437-Alles

the contributor put "The Sphinx" as ANV of "Alles" and changed al the releases by The Sphinx without any discussion.
I think Alles is a completely different name so it can't be the used as main name for The Sphinx and The Sphinx cna't be the ANV of Alles.

What do you think about it?

^do you mean this ?
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com//rvdbrugg/submissions
(i made a quick browse there: most of his edits i do not understand and i'm afraid some are hijacks & others close to vandalism[edit: sorry])

capocamillo
Please look at this page
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/it/artist/2441437-Alles

I've just found Alles.
A line in the profile indicating where the band is from would be nice.

-typo edit-

Hi there I'm rvdbrugg. Live in Holland, 42 years, and for many 35+ years fan of the band BZN from Volendam in the Netherlands, including all band. I'm the writer of a large BZN Discography for all those years, for many Dutch fans, who contributed to my list. 90% of these releases I have in my collection! The other 10% I have proof of existance from other Dutch fans and collectors.

My edits and contributions are NOT Hijacks and for sure NO VANDALISM.
What on earth are you talking about ?!?

Maybe I don't understand exactly all the 'rules' and 'obligations', but I think it's better
to put on the releases that are still missing, than to be complete in all the ANV's etc...

What about the band Alles/Sfinx/Sphinx.
see this link: http://www.peterkoelewijn.nl/discografie/produkties/alles.html

I don't understand why the USA and CANADA release (Spinx) is made an alias
And why the other bandsnames are an ANV.
With adding the missing singles, I wanted to be as accurate and similar to the already existing ANV's.
I it that this band is a difficult situation with all the various band's names.

I'll put some info on the band ALLES, if you are all interested in my edits, instead of calling me a fraud !?

Gr.
Robert van der Bruggen

at Tarantxon, is it corrected now?
One question remaining, Why is 'Spinx' the band's name, while 'The Spinx' release from is master release?
You can add all the info of Alles also at Spinx ... and photo of the band ... it's still one and the same band, so why not keep all the info at one place ??

rvdbrugg
is it corrected now?

Yes, I've corrected all the entries and added a little info for Alles, I'm not sure if a couple of titles in the MR are duplicates or not.

A couple of entries on SkullLine will need to be moved to Alles (3).

rvdbrugg
What on earth are you talking about ?!?

about

Tarantxon
found Spinx and made them Alias of Alles.

but the concept is: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-artist.html#Artist_Name_Variation_ANV

but it seems solved now :-)

Hello Robert,

rvdbrugg
I don't understand why the USA and CANADA release (Spinx) is made an alias
And why the other bandsnames are an ANV.

capocamillo
I think Alles is a completely different name so it can't be the used as main name for The Sphinx and The Sphinx cna't be the ANV of Alles.

Sfinx / Sphinx / Spinx may all be seen as slight variations of one or the other. So they all can be ANV of the PAN ('Primary Artist Name'). Please read RSG §2.5.1. for more info.
Alles is not a slight variation of Spinx, it is a very different name. So Alles cannot be an ANV of Spinx or Spinx an ANV of Alles. But it is the same band and we need to know this. The Aliases exists exactly for this. Please read RSG §2.5.3. and 2.5.4 for more info.

rvdbrugg
so why not keep all the info at one place ??

You probably mean on the same artist page ? Once everything is correctly linked together (with ANV and Aliases), the data is correct. For the display, Discogs programmers have this on their "to do" list, just cross your fingers like many of us and one day, a new artist page including aliases will be available. :o)

Thanks for all the submissions you have already done and to Tarantxon for putting all this at the right place.

at GastX Thanks for the info.
I did mean, why is Spinx now the PAN and the others ANV's?
'The Spinx' is Master release, while 'Spinx' is PAN.
Why not make 'Sfinx' PAN, or 'The Spinx' PAN?
All the variations are used in different countries, (and not used
in the homeland of the band, because that is ALLES), so which
variation do you choose to be the PAN, and why ...

rvdbrugg
which
variation do you choose to be the PAN, and why

Spinx was already in the database, there was no need to create another PAN.

rvdbrugg
Why is 'Spinx' the band's name, while 'The Spinx' release from is master release?

Key release for the MR was only chosen because of the year and 'picture' sleeve.
If you think another better represents the title in the discography this can be changed easily.

spinn-off from
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/6870939-Rock-Roll-Woman/history#latest

rvdbrugg
Sorry, no fraud but the words were hijack and close to vandalism

^ this are discogs usual if concrete actions (edits) happen like the namechange mass edit - that was close to vandalism - and with 'hijack' is meant if a release is transformed to another release by change the data (like a year of release or BaoI) instead of creating a new release page - this was my impression and for the record: i said "most of his edits i do not understand and i'm afraid some are hijacks & others close to vandalism" and i appologized already for that (see above) . . .

note: discogs works like this everybody can contribute and everybody can make comments about the data. and we have guidelines - i was thinking also some details differnt than it's usual here and i learned to adapt it for here, but not all of them on my private documentation/archieve [two different sections] ;-)

calm down, come back and don't take anything personal

welcome in the discogs minefield

.

Prince Rakeem appears first, and not in quotes, and is credited appropriately. The Genius has a specific forum thread stating that Wu-Tang entries credited to GZA should be credited to GZA. I did not create the inconsistency, I just followed the forum posts. Splitting the GZA/Genius threads with the guideline you cited would contradict the previous forum consensus. What am I missing here? This is not a mass edit merging or deleting or creating a PAN, it is simply cleanup based on previous forum threads.

epet
What am I missing here? This is not a mass edit merging or deleting or creating an PAN, it is simply cleanup based on previous forum threads.

As I wrote, most of the changes were 100% great (and appreciated). However, the only thread you cited was one from five years ago that consisted of three total posts, one of which where nik wrote:

nik
The best advice I have at the moment is http://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/forums/topic/207962 , but this hasn't made it to the guidelines yet.

A forum posts that was initiated 5+ years ago as a basis for a mass edit is, at best, tenuous. This is because the guidelines are evolving as are individual opinions, interpretations, and etc. thereof and, as a consequence, many of those discussion topics are rendered obsolete (and especially ones as limited as the one cited).

Likewise, a locked discussion topic is insufficient in many instances as it does not provide s with a forum for asking questions about, voicing their 'IMO's , and etc. about the changes you have unilaterally decided to implement.

Alternately, if you were/are in fact following other more active forum posts, then how is someone supposed to follow which ones you were/are following when the submission notes accompanying the edits often consist of only one word/acronym? (sidebar: is an acronym considered a word?).

epet
What am I missing here?

Without sufficient submission notes or at least a recent forum topic URL, it is extremely difficult to review the edits, which is of course compounded by the fact that the artists involved have multiple aliases that they often use interchangeably on the same release (and sometimes the same track) and often also commingle, which makes communication especially critical in this instance and the absence of it equally problematic.

Hello,

Could you have a look on this Wackie's spider web.
As a simply , i can't choose one when i read:
"Edited at: Bullwakie's Studio" on my release.

Thanks
Hope it was the right thread..

berothbr
However, the only thread you cited was one from five years ago

There is a more recent thread.

nik

Also, please do not make mass edits without a full and thorough understanding of how the site works, and a good forum discussion with a clear consensus.

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/412815?page=1#3841602

avalon67
There is a more recent thread.

Sorry — to clarify the thread I referred to was specific to ANVs vs. aliases for The Genius/GZA, but was closed and had been 'discussed' (if three total posts qualifies as a discussion) more than five years ago.

before there will be a discussion (again) on my contributions, I have started to add some releases for the Dutch singer Annie Schilder (Anny Schilder), former lead singer of BZN. I also have 'transformed' some older entries (or corrected them) to fit with the other similar releases. Hope to do the right thing, because a lot of her CD's, LP's and MC's are missing.

rvdbrugg
before there will be a discussion (again) on my contributions

I don't see the point in posting here, you are supposed to open a Forum thread explaining your intentions before you make your changes.

rvdbrugg
Hope to do the right thing

I hope you do too!

In my enthousiasm I started with adding some CD's and MC's, but then I ed the discussion on my entries from a few months ago, So the point of posting here was to 'ask permission' to add more stuff to the singer's discography. But now I realise there's no point in posting that here because I only know what to add when I'm already adding it. And because there so much missing and there's so much incomplete, maybe it's better that I don't add anything, otherwise it would be like a mass edit .... So please ignore my thread.

rvdbrugg
maybe it's better that I don't add anything, otherwise it would be like a mass edit ....

If you have a bunch of different records, CDs, tapes, etc. that you want to submit and are not currently on Discogs, then you should definitely not hesitate to add those. Even if all of those records, CDs, tapes, etc. are really similar because each one is by the same artist, group, and/or label, then you are still 100% ok and you could submit/edit those without committing a mass edit.

In comparison, a mass edit would be something like if you decided that DJ Shadow's PAN should really be "D.J. Shadow" and then proceeded to edit hundreds of his releases by replacing "DJ Shadow" in the PAN field with "D.J. Shadow". That would not be ok. Similarly, if for example, when you submitted a new record by a particular label, you also decided to edit every other release linked to that label by changing, for example, the label name from "ABC Name" to "ABC Name Records" without first following the mass edit protocol and starting a new forum topic and etc., then that would not be ok.

Forum topic re: potential mass edit violation involving the https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/720158

I stumbled upon loads of releases that have the Translated By credit, most of them Classical releases. However, based on the desription of the credit here https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/creditslist this credit should only be used when the actual translated text is used on the recording itself: "For roles that involve translating lyrics from one language to another. This role is for translations that are used in the audio work only. For Liner Notes translation and the like, please use brackets such as "Liner Notes [Translated By]" (or whatever the role was) instead."

In a vast majority of classical releases the translation referred to on the release is either the translation of the liner notes or of the text sung. For instance: a recording of a Wagner opera sung in its original German language will have the translation of the text in the booklet, a lot of the times in multiple languages, hence you will see that multiple persons are credited for translation work on that one release.

And now the real issue: based on the credit description I could start working on the releases that can be found under Wrting & Arrangement (Translated By credits) for Jean-Sebastien Bach*, Martha Argerich - Toccata BWV 911 - Partita BWV 826 - Suite Anglaise N°2 BWV 807 several more translators are credited so provided I get approval for Mirella Noack-Rofena, should I then also start separate discussions for those or simply correct them together with the irella Noack-Rofena credits. What if there are again several releases where the same co-translators are credited and I edit these while working on Mirella Noack-Rofena and somebody accuses me of doing an undiscussed Mass Edit on the others?

It is a sort of 'down the rabbit hole' situation where if you want to you can do a lot of edits in a very short time. I already have quite an extensive lists of liner notes translators where credits need to be fixed.

ChrisEfterklang
based on the desription of the credit here https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/creditslist this credit should only be used when the actual translated text is used on the recording itself: "For roles that involve translating lyrics from one language to another. This role is for translations that are used in the audio work only. For Liner Notes translation and the like, please use brackets such as "Liner Notes [Translated By]" (or whatever the role was) instead."

The way I see it, what you are proposing is not a Mass Edit that needs discussion. Go on, make the edits and just cite the relevant guideline.

kwulf
The way I see it, what you are proposing is not a Mass Edit that needs discussion.

Why not? It should be a non-controversial mass edit but it's still a mass edit.

Well, at least it is non-controversial :-) but like I explained correcting these 'errors' is almost impossible to discus first because of the nature of it and the number of translators involved. I have started making a list and after gone through a list of 150 artist (of more than 1800) I already have about 50 artist whose credits need to be assessed (there could be genuine Translated By credits in there). Discussing them on an artist by artist basis and waiting for some consensus would take months and to do them all would take years.

To be honest: I have done numerous of these edits over the years (when I was adding my classical cd's to my collection and at the same time updating / checking the submissions) and I did a whole bunch earlier this week when someone pointed out to me that this might be a Mass Edit that needed discussion. It never dawned on me that it could be because I was merely correcting submissions based on the description in the Credits list which seemed very clear and unambiguous. Even started adding a link to the Credits list to the Submission notes so other Discog-ers could see for themselves.