Here it used to see at first glance differences between very similar releases.
But can be used that way? Seems interesting but should be corfimed by staff.
Adding pressing plant identification in ftf (spelled out or just code from labels or runout) is allowable and IMHO should be used as much as possible to help identify a specific release in MR (Master Release). In reference to link above about what to use--- This database uses acronyms in many locations - ftf should be able to use them as well. It is the FREE text field.
There is a thread recently where nik said to enter pressing plants in FTF as "xxx Pressing" and put followup info in the notes. xxx represents the pressing plant code..
I missed that discussion over two years ago... So obviously it is allowed, to put Pressing Plants into FTF - despite the fact, that a Pressing Plant has nothing to do with FORMAT. To put differences between similar releases in the notes - along with a short explanation, seems much more better to me - especially regarding 'Non-experienced s" not being familiar with Discogs. What should someone who just wants to know, what release he owns, make of "", "MY", "MO" or "PR"???? Iron Butterfly With Pinera* & Rhino* - Metamorphosis
"Difference to [xxxx] and [xxxx]: Pressed by by Shelly Products, Huntington Station, NY, see 'LY' in matrix# on labels" in the NOTES seems to be by far the better and more consistent way.
But however, it seems to be a fact, that the Pressing Plant can be added under 'Format'. But is it really reasonable, to delete formerly existing notes as "redundant", cf. Iron Butterfly With Pinera* & Rhino* - Metamorphosis??
Hochelema
Difference to [xxxx] and [xxxx]: Pressed by by Shelly Products, Huntington Station, NY, see 'LY' in matrix# on labels" in the NOTES seems to be by far the better and more consistent way.
That should definitely go in the notes, but adding the code to the FTF helps identification at the MR level.
Diogenes_The_Fox
... adding the code to the FTF helps identification at the MR level.
I understand the attempt - but are the benefits worth the disadvantages? My two main objections are:
1.) The usability for 'non-experienced s' (that may be a little bit 'off-topic' or a point of minor interest for many s - but if you look at the bulk of wrong info added from sources in the net, which claims the info is from Discogs - but simply did not understand, what they saw - and that are wrong infos, which Discogs is accused of - wrongly, but who cares - it may be not an unimportant point).
2.) The inconsistent corruption of the FORMAT fields. As far as I can see, the description of "Format" (6.1.1.) and the "Formats List" will have to be updated - and I can't think of any formulation which do not open a lot of doors for "Strange Abbreviations" (i.e. Only difference: 'Different wording of legal reservation on label rim" (not a very rare case) = 'DIF'??? - So maybe it would be a practical proceeding, to constrain the "differences" possible for the Format-section to manufacturing/pressing/distribution data - or similar?
