Rough Draft: BaOI Guideline Update

Hello! Apologies for the delays in getting back to this.

Acknowledgements & Thoughts:
* I understand Distribution Codes are contentious. Let's deal with it at the guideline level first and we can adjust down the line as needed.
* I don't like my definition of Depósito Legal and would appreciate someone who's more familiar to review that.
* I kind of want to prevent ISRC codes from being used unless they're printed on the actual release or are somehow included with the digital package (for digital), but I'm not sure how best to word that / what everyone else thinks.
* By going to 5.2.a, .b, etc from 5.2, 5.3 it allows more expansion without destroying existing links to those guidelines. It's not pretty, but it should preserve linking.

From: RSG §5.2 - RSG §5.8

To:

5.2.a. Barcodes can be sourced from both the barcode text (the numbers printed below the barcode) or by reading the barcode itself with a barcode scanner. If there is a discrepancy between these two sources, both barcode variations can be entered into separate barcode fields.

Usually, the human readable code will include spaces, dashes, or other characters. These characters only serve to make the barcode easier to read, they are not necessary for computers to parse. It is recommended to enter them without the spaces and dashes (for usability and searching), but the choice is exclusively up to the submitter. Ultimately, the barcode can be entered both ways on the same release, please do not delete one version in favor of the other.

The 'Description' field can be used to indicate the source of the barcode, for example "Scanned" and "Text". In the case of multiple barcodes on a release, they can all be entered in separate barcode fields - please use the 'Description' field to provide any further information, if possible.

5.2.b. Label Code is a four or five digit code prefixed with LC. GVL started on 1st May 1976 to allocate Labelcodes to record companies in order to uniquely identify them. Codes are currently assigned by GVL to companies engaged in music recording that are located in the countries of the EU. Please enter the whole code including the 'LC' prefix. An example is "LC 0125".

5.2.c. Matrix / Run-Out information is often stamped in the run out grooves of records, or in the inner ring of CDs. Vinyl run out etchings can also contain mastering engineer / mastering studio / pressing plant information (often as initials), and extra text. This information can all be added to one 'Matrix number' field.

Matrix Numbers and other run out information can also be extracted from the whole run out inscription, and added as further 'Matrix Number' fields with descriptions and / or expanded upon in the notes as the submitter sees fit.

Matrix numbers can also be found printed on the label, often without the stamper version etc, this can be added in a separate field if desired.

There can be large gaps between different sections of a releases run out inscriptions. Please only use a space to denote such gaps, as using other separators may cause problems for people searching for a specific data string.

One edition of a release may have many different matrix numbers on individual copies - especially for major label releases. These are considered manufacturing variations for the purposes of cataloguing on Discogs, and not unique releases, so one Discogs 'release' may contain multiple variations in matrix numbers etc. For smaller releases, or in special cases, the matrix variation may indicate a unique release / edition, so please ask in the Database Forum Topic if in doubt.

5.2.d. SID codes (Source Identification Codes) were introduced in 1994 by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) in order to help combat piracy. The mastering SID code is usually found in the matrix area/mirror band of a CD. The mould SID code is usually found in the mould/hub of a CD molded into the plastic of the disc.

The mastering SID code identifies the machinery used to make the glass master. The mould SID code identifies the plant where the CD was pressed. SID codes should not be used to identify manufacturing plants or glass mastering facilities however as the codes may transfer from owner to owner of the equipment and/or pressplant.

A SID Code consists of the letters IFPI, followed by either four or five additional characters, which may be alphabetical or numerical. A mastering SID code must always start with the letter 'L'. A mould SID code can start with any letter apart from "I", "O", "S" and "Q".

Though untypical, some releases may have the SID codes repeated in the matrix string itself. Rarer still, a release may sometimes have more than one mould SID code. Further details about SID codes and their implementation can be found here:
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/sid-code-implementation-guide.pdf

A release with SID codes cannot have been made before 1994. If the date cannot be established with a citation or an adequate explanation, the date should be left blank.

5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.

5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to a release that shows the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP).

5.2.h. SPARS Code is a three letter code developed by the Society Of Professional Audio Recording Services (SPARS) for compact discs.

5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, and Portugal.

5.2.j. ASIN is the Amazon Standard Identification Number. This is a unique identification number assigned by Amazon.com and its partners for product identification within the Amazon.com organization. Please provide submission notes that point to the relevant release on Amazon. This number should only be applied to releases manufactured by Amazon (CD-Rs), physical releases exclusive to Amazon, and digital files sold by Amazon.

5.2.k. ISRC or International Standard Recording Code. As these apply to individual tracks, please use the description field to note which position it applies to.

5.2.l. Rights Society is an association that isters the rights to the artists recorded work, such as collecting royalties for radio and TV usage etc. A list of them are on our country guideline page. An example is "ASCAP"

5.2.m. The 'Other' field can be used for any other identifying number or code on the release.

5.3.This section has been merged into 5.2.d

5.4.This section has been merged into 5.2.c

5.5.This section has been merged into 5.2.j

5.6.This section has been merged into 5.2.l

5.7.This section has been merged into 5.2.b

5.8.This section has been merged into 5.2.m

Diognes_The_Fox
An example is "LC 0125".

Examples can be LC 0125, Lc 0125, lc0125, LC-0125 aso...
(after a discussion in the German Fo)
more examples, or should be entered as on release,
regards

Diognes_The_Fox
ASIN

Diognes_The_Fox
SPARS Code

Diognes_The_Fox
Distribution Code

Can you add some examples to the draft guideline?

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.

sebfact has provided plenty of documentation including a decree published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française and pertaining to the legal deposit of phonograms confirming without ambiguity that those "supplemental codes consisting of 2 letters and 3 digits" are Codes de prix.
Why would Discogs call Distribution Code something that's been officially confirmed to be called, in real life, Price Code?

DonHergeFan
Can you add some examples to the draft guideline?

I'm into this. I'll crosslink when I stitch everything up.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.

Please reword, or all this is rendered useless and the trolls have won.
References:
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/746274?page=4#7444014

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.

sebfact
Please reword

+ 1

Please make extremely clear that Distribution Code should be used only if explicitly stated on the release. Plenty of proof has been provided that what we usually called distribution codes are nothing but price codes. Thanks.

[quote= Diognes_The_Fox]
5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.[/quote]

sebfact
Please reword,

+1 and, i'm not sure if it belongs exactly here but i see often s who move a UK WX ### catalog numbers to Baoi because they believe it's a Price Code... but it's not (they have unique, per release numbers / if it would be a true "Price code" we could find the same one on different releases)

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/405851#3763627

punkergott
Examples can be LC 0125, Lc 0125, lc0125, LC-0125 aso...
(after a discussion in the German Fo)
more examples, or should be entered as on release,
regards

+1

Yep, 5.2.f need a rewording like Seb and VJ66 has pointed out.

Bong
Yep, 5.2.f need a rewording like Seb and VJ66 has pointed out.

+1

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.

5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to a release that shows the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP).

Actually Price Code should be 5.2.f because we know what is a price code, and include the 2 letters + 3 digits description and other examples, too
and 5.2.g should be Distribution Code with a vague description + do not list as Distribution Code unless it is printed as such on release or there is a strong, citable source for its use.

Diognes_The_Fox
Usually, the human readable code will include spaces, dashes, or other characters. These characters only serve to make the barcode easier to read, they are not necessary for computers to parse. It is recommended to enter them without the spaces and dashes (for usability and searching), but the choice is exclusively up to the submitter. Ultimately, the barcode can be entered both ways on the same release, please do not delete one version in favor of the other.

The 'Description' field can be used to indicate the source of the barcode, for example "Scanned" and "Text". In the case of multiple barcodes on a release, they can all be entered in separate barcode fields - please use the 'Description' field to provide any further information, if possible.

I am kind of confused. Do you want to say that a barcode entered 'without the spaces and dashes (for usability and searching)' should get the description of 'Scanned'? As far as I can see annd also would prefer we have at least 3 types:

a) Barcode (Printed): As printed on the release including dashes and spaces
b) Barcode (Text): As above but dashes and spaces removed
c) Barcode (Scanned): An actually scanned code. This should be used only if the actual code was scanned using a device and recognized by software and as such requested in the guidelines. There might be differences between the content in a) and b) vs. the content coded in c) that are only recognizable when actually scanning the barcode. When using c) the should identify explicitly that a device was used in the sub notes and ideally referring to the device or SW (I i.e. add Barcode scanned using iCody on iPhone).

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.

So...the default is Price Code? Why does it come after the Distribution Code then, shouldn't it be the first to be mentioned in the list of items here? And is Distribution Code only to be used when actually "Distribution Code" or similar is mentioned on the release (or a source)? Is that how I have to understand it? The wording is slightly confusing for me. Examples, please add examples!

Diognes_The_Fox
The 'Description' field can be used to indicate the source of the barcode, for example "Scanned" and "Text".

Mop66
a) Barcode (Printed): As printed on the release including dashes and spaces
b) Barcode (Text): As above but dashes and spaces removed

It would be great if guidelines is updated for that.
As printed on the release including dashes and spaces is sometimes "As printed", "Printed" or even "Text"
As printed on the release but dashes and spaces removed can be "String", "Text", "Compact text"
...

A mastering SID code must always start with the letter 'L'.
Some release have a mould SID code begining by L (Liran' Roll - El Reto: Auditorio Nacional 2012 Vol. 2: Mastering: IFPI T-900 / Mould: IFPI H901 (CD) - IFPI T-900 (DVD) (will add scans in a few days)
And some releases have IFPI code,but not the acronym.

Diognes_The_Fox
Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

I asked before and got no answer: is it okay to use these for cassettes as well? Warner/WEA-distributed releases in the US and Canada often have them.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to a release that shows the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP).

Not the ones I've seen. There's things like 0798 which appear on some LP spines with no description, but Price Code is usually described as such, with just one- or two-character code, with no indication of what retail price it represents. E.g. second image on The Salsoul Orchestra - Up The Yellow Brick Road (BTW, is it possible to have the specific image appear in a post?)

Distribution Code: understood with as-on release, I'll let this sit for a bit more to get some more eyes and then I'll revise the draft.

Mop66
I am kind of confused. Do you want to say that a barcode entered 'without the spaces and dashes (for usability and searching)' should get the description of 'Scanned'? As far as I can see annd also would prefer we have at least 3 types:

a) Barcode (Printed): As printed on the release including dashes and spaces
b) Barcode (Text): As above but dashes and spaces removed
c) Barcode (Scanned): An actually scanned code. This should be used only if the actual code was scanned using a device and recognized by software and as such requested in the guidelines. There might be differences between the content in a) and b) vs. the content coded in c) that are only recognizable when actually scanning the barcode. When using c) the should identify explicitly that a device was used in the sub notes and ideally referring to the device or SW (I i.e. add Barcode scanned using iCody on iPhone).

The section on barcodes is unchanged from how it's currently worded. This bit should be branched out into a different thread to keep things slightly more simple. :)

"Why should a Depeche Mode CD have PM 500 (1987), PM 520 (1986), PM 570 (1999) and PM 610 (end of the 1980s)? Evidently, the distributor (here EMI / Pathé-Marconi) does not change over the years. Nor does the format or the packaging.
Why is PM500 not correlating with the area of distribution, i.e. appearing on releases from ? PM did not distribute in , so why bother?
The only thing that changes over time is the price."

Statement in detail:
PM 500 (1987),
PM 520 (1986),
PM 610 (end of the 1980s
PM 570 (1999)

If "only price" changes - why there a changes in different values: 5/6 and 0/2/1/7 - PM and last digit 0 consistent

"appearing on releases from ? PM did not distribute in , so why bother?"
French "price codes" are of course irrelevant in although appearing on multi region sleeves - and should be added to a submission therefore.. and you'll easily find releases all "Made in " by the same company (WEA Musik GmbH) but spreaded in Europe in exactly the same kind of "universal" sleeve. only difference is the rights society printed on the canter label (SACEM, GEMA, SIAE etc) CBS Haarlem printed (nearly all) labels BIEM/GEMA or BIEM/STEMRA housed in a sleeve with different codes relevant in their matching countries
A multi purpose code reduced to "price code" without presenting a matching price list seems still strange .... imho

and judging other member`s opinion(s) like this: "Please reword, or all this is rendered useless and the trolls have won." does not need any comment as it speaks for itself for the author's state of mind

Rewording:

5.2.f. Distribution Code is a certain kind of code which appears on releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. Please only use where the nature has been confirmed and do not confuse with the more frequent Price Codes.

5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to determine the price of an audio carrier. Price codes can appear in various kinds, e.g. two letters and three digits (BA100, PM 500), circled letters (Ⓐ or Ⓦ), as "series" (Serie Azul, Série Artistique), 1 or 2 letters (M, AC), 2 or more digits, often after a dash (-213, 0812), etc.

Some more reading on Price Codes and why they aren't always as described in the guideline:
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/721735

Freeceland
A multi purpose code reduced to "price code" without presenting a matching price list seems still strange

And why can't you keep things in 1 thread but drag it in others? Anyway, examples have been presented elsewhere, you simply won't accept it. The only one to confirm that Elvis is dead is Elvis himself? This is getting ridiculous.

Hi Diognes_The_Fox, re:

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.l. Rights Society is an association that isters the rights to the artists recorded work, such as collecting royalties for radio and TV usage etc. A list of them are on our country guideline page. An example is "ASCAP"

I'm loath to bring this up again, but at present avalon67 and I are using every opportunity in each relevant thread to raise the issue that rights societies are companies and as such need a profile in the LCCN section.
Now I know in other threads we've gained a greater understanding of these companies and we've an idea on the back-burner about "dummy" profiles so that they are not entered as publishers, but I really can't miss this chance, which may be a last chance, to stress that for database accuracy and to take the site forward a move to LCCN and away from BAOI could happen at this very moment the other definitions and guidelines are being thrashed out.
The topic has been touched on in many threads (which I won't link to now) but the information about these companies is never found on cd or vinyl or other format runouts, always on labels and sleeves, the home of company information.
I accept you may not have a change planned at this very minute, although I would prefer that before we have a few more million entries to edit, but maybe you could speak to the business proprietors to see if this anomoly could be rectified in the near future.
It's taken me hours of thought as to whether to post this or not as I don't wish to hijack the thread, but I really couldn't miss the chance when the whole of the BAOI definitions are under such close scrutiny.

sebfact
5.2.f. Distribution Code is a certain kind of code which appears on releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. Please only use where the nature has been confirmed and do not confuse with the more frequent Price Codes.

5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to determine the price of an audio carrier. Price codes can appear in various kinds, e.g. two letters and three digits (BA100, PM 500), circled letters (Ⓐ or Ⓦ), as "series" (Serie Azul, Série Artistique), 1 or 2 letters (M, AC), 2 or more digits, often after a dash (-213, 0812), etc.

This looks very good ^^^^
I'd just switch them to have Price Code 5.2.f then Distribution Code 5.2.g when in most cases Price Code will be used and Distribution Code will be irrelevant.

Please also update RSG §4.7.5 and RSG §4.10.1. Every occurence of the term "Distribution Code" should be replaced with "Price Code" and other adjustments are needed too:

4.7.5. Please be careful not to add Label Codes or Price Codes into the catalog number field. More information about these codes can be found on the wiki Label Codes page and price codes page.
These codes can be entered under 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' - see help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode

(the link to the Distribution Code page at https://reference.discogslabs.com/wiki/Distribution-Codes is currently broken anyhow, because the name of the page was changed to something else in the meantime)

4.10.1. Sometimes, a Price Code will appear on the release. Please don't enter these as catalog numbers, they can be entered using the appropriate tag in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section - see help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode. Label codes, distributionprice codes or catalog numbers are sometimes prefixed with country abbreviations or indicators. Please enter these in the description field only, not as part of the code itself. More information on Price Codes can be found in the Discogs wiki.

5.2.f. should be deleted and all following sections renumbered. There is no such thing as a Distribution Code. Keeping the term is only going to confuse people.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

Is this only applicable on vinyl records? Many companies are identified by codes, logos or have their names on the matrix string or molded into the plastic of the CDs.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, and Portugal.

Unfortunately we never had an identifier like this in Brazilian releases. Other codes often shown in BR releases do not relate to the releases themselves, but to record companies and manufacturers, such as CGC / CNPJ or SCDP-PF. See https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/747795
Since april, 2003 a batch code ID is used only to differ pressings of the same release, please see https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/396654

sebfact
5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to determine the price of an audio carrier. Price codes can appear in various kinds, e.g. two letters and three digits (BA100, PM 500), circled letters (Ⓐ or Ⓦ), as "series" (Série Azul, Série Artistique), 1 or 2 letters (M, AC), 2 or more digits, often after a dash (-213, 0812), etc.

+ 1.
Very good, sebfact. I have edited the word "Série" as it is also marked with accent in BR Portuguese.

caobao

A mastering SID code must always start with the letter 'L'.
Some release have a mould SID code begining by L (Адаптация - Так Горит Степь: IFPI LC33 / Адаптация - Уносимся Прочь: IFPI LC77)
Blondinka KSU* - Барокко ; Kirpichi* - Summertime: Mastering: IFPI ALM / Mould: IFPI ALM02
Liran' Roll - El Reto: Auditorio Nacional 2012 Vol. 2: Mastering: IFPI T-900 / Mould: IFPI H901 (CD) - IFPI T-900 (DVD) (will add scans in a few days)
And some releases have IFPI code,but not the acronym.

Russian and Mexican CDs do not trump the IFPI guidelines. Poor implementation, fakes, errors, who knows. And I see no factual info to suggest IFPI LC33 is a mould code and not a mastering code. Where is it? You added it as a mould code, anyone could have added it as a mastering code.

It is also time to wean Discogs off 'Distribution Code' dependence!

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, and Portugal.

They can be found in other countries as well such as Uruguay:

The Alan Parsons Project - Yo Robot

and Bolivia: Kjarkas* - Lo Mejor

The Spanish D.L. codes start with a letter combination, that indicates where the item has been deposited, such as B (Barcelona), M (Madrid), S.S. (San Sebastian), BI (Bilbao), and so on, followed by a separator (dot, slash, whitespace, hyphen), then a number (5 or less digits), a separator and the indicator of the year (2 or 4 digits).

It can be recognized by the full name "Depósito Legal", or "diposit legal" (catalan), or abbreviations "Dep. Legal" or "D.L.".

The year in the D.L. field is a good way to date a release: it can never be earlier than the year, although sometimes a D.L. value is kept from an earlier release. It is not common to find on releases before 1960, but there are a few from 1958 in the database (yay for datamining!).

The D.L. format has also been described in the Spanish law (updated 2011):

https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2011-13114

in article 14.

Personally I think that when adding the D.L. to the release it should *not* contain the words Depósito Legal, or D.L. or anything like that, as it is already clear what is meant.

gerjolp
and Bolivia: Kjarkas* - Lo Mejor

On closer inspection: this could be a fluke.

I do see that some of the "European" releases also have a DL, example:

New Order - International (A Taste Of The Brand New Greatest Hits Compilation)

gerjolp
The Spanish D.L. codes start with a letter combination, that indicates where the item has been deposited, such as B (Barcelona), M (Madrid), S.S. (San Sebastian), BI (Bilbao), and so on, followed by a separator (dot, slash, whitespace, hyphen), then a number (5 or less digits), a separator and the indicator of the year (2 or 4 digits).

And, oh, I also note that some people include (P) or similar things as part of the D.L., because it appears after it but it should not be entered as a part of it, it is the law, literally ;-)

Experienced with extensive expertise offer excellent advice on correctness, but a real beginner is better placed to advise on comprehensibility. It's hard to think back to how baffling all this jargon can be, so I hope this is tested on a newbie (newest member of Discogs staff?) before updating.

My very non-expert comments relate to how hard I find the guidelines to understand, and since you're overhauling the whole section, some of these relate to the existing / unchanged bits:

5.2.a Barcodes - how about a line on not using 'string' as a descriptor. Have to dig pretty deep into forums to learn it's frowned upon, and it's still being added to releases.

5.2.b Label Code - I'd trim the history (2nd and 3rd sentence). Simple 'how to' guidelines are easier to use. Push the history / glossary stuff out to the reference wiki.

5.2.c Matrix / Runout - link to RSG §1.4.1 in last paragraph would be useful

5.2.d SID's - I'd prefer 'Mastering SID' and 'Mould SID' to be separate items. Again trim history, apart from the important bit - introduced 1994.

5.2.e Pressing Plant - Still don't know what these look like, so an example or pattern (if there is one) would help

5.2.h SPARS - how about define what it is (or does) rather than define the acronym, again with example / pattern

Since the update there's been loads of petty bickering in sub-histories about the etiquette of shuffling data. One lot wants it in 'drop down order', another lot wants 'on release order', another lot wants 'edited first order'. I don't give a stuff what order it's in. But if there is a preference (for NEW submissions) maybe the section top could say so?

hafler3o
And I see no factual info to suggest IFPI LC33 is a mould code and not a mastering code. Where is it? You added it as a mould code, anyone could have added it as a mastering code.

It's in the mould hub, not in the mirrored band. But not in the same line than manufacturer, as often on Russian pressing.

hafler3o
You added it as a mould code, anyone could have added it as a mastering code.

If you had the release in hand, you wouldn't add it as mastering SID code either.

hafler3o
Russian and Mexican CDs do not trump the IFPI guidelines. Poor implementation, fakes, errors, who knows.

About IFPI T-900, probably. It's in the same string and format than the rest of the matrix. It should probably be removed.
About IFPI ALM, it's not the same thing. It's in a different string and format than the rest of matrix, as will often be a Mastering SID code. But on the other hand, their Mould SID code is IFPI ALM + 2 digit numbers.

DonHergeFan
Can you add some examples to the draft guideline?

That would be easier and understandable (at least for those who read the guidelines).
RSG §7.2.1: there is a list of Right Societies.
Is it possible to include a list of SPARS codes to the guideline? How many SPARS codes exist?
Same thing for Price Code (per country)? Maybe on the unofficial wiki (with links tothe actual guideline)
Is it possible to add a link to gvl website for the label code section?
http://labelcode.gvl.de/

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

lbamaral
Is this only applicable on vinyl records? Many companies are identified by codes, logos or have their names on the matrix string or molded into the plastic of the CDs.

in.spirit
5.2.e Pressing Plant - Still don't know what these look like, so an example or pattern (if there is one) would help

Should we use Pressing Plant ID instead of another matrix/runout field to, for example:
- ООО "Инновационные технологии" Лицензия №77-347 IFPI ALM02
- Mastered by Sony Music México
- MADE IN BY EDC / Universal M & L,
- Any logo/url taken from matrix

Sometimes, guideline miss examples.

in.spirit
5.2.h SPARS - how about define what it is (or does) rather than define the acronym, again with example / pattern

I agree. I sometimes see "CDC" listed as a SPARS code, even though that is some Sony distribution code. I also would appreciate some stricter rules regarding what is acceptable: I see SPARS codes listed with spaces (A A D), dots (A.A.D.), brackets ([A A D]) and other variations as well. Personally I would recommend to have it without spaces, brackets, dots, etc., so "AAD", as it is the most consistent.

sebfact
5.2.f. Distribution Code is a certain kind of code which appears on releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. Please only use where the nature has been confirmed and do not confuse with the more frequent Price Codes.

5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to determine the price of an audio carrier. Price codes can appear in various kinds, e.g. two letters and three digits (BA100, PM 500), circled letters (Ⓐ or Ⓦ), as "series" (Serie Azul, Série Artistique), 1 or 2 letters (M, AC), 2 or more digits, often after a dash (-213, 0812), etc.

Some more reading on Price Codes and why they aren't always as described in the guideline:
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/721735

Thank you! I like these.

mcr1
I'm loath to bring this up again, but at present avalon67 and I are using every opportunity in each relevant thread to raise the issue that rights societies are companies and as such need a profile in the LCCN section.

Understood. Let's keep that for a separate project so we can get the new definitions added first before debating existing ones.

strummin
Please also update RSG §4.7.5 and RSG §4.10.1. Every occurence of the term "Distribution Code" should be replaced with "Price Code" and other adjustments are needed too:

Thank you for the heads up. Distribution Code was so heavily worked into the RSG all these years. It's good that we're going to be making some advances in our collective understanding of how these things fit together.

No bones about it, the movement to formally address Distribution Code on the site is a big deal that touches a huge number of releases.

lbamaral
Is this only applicable on vinyl records? Many companies are identified by codes, logos or have their names on the matrix string or molded into the plastic of the CDs.

I had qualms about matrix area identifiers being added, but, wanted to get opinions on this. Does this sound okay? It might help make identification of unique releases more easy for casual people?

gerjolp
They can be found in other countries as well such as Uruguay:

Okay, thanks! Perhaps maybe we can come up with a better definition? (Also, would a DL kind of be like the US's Library of Congress Catalog Number?)

in.spirit
Still don't know what these look like, so an example or pattern (if there is one) would help

Mostly, these are the ones that are noted as "on label" on this list. Per my note above, though, curious about thoughts on matrix area ones:

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/lists/US-Record-Pressing-Plants/213755

in.spirit
5.2.a Barcodes - how about a line on not using 'string' as a descriptor. Have to dig pretty deep into forums to learn it's frowned upon, and it's still being added to releases.

Considering that we've updated barcode search, I'm wondering if string is even needed anymore. Thoughts?

gerjolp
I agree. I sometimes see "CDC" listed as a SPARS code, even though that is some Sony distribution code. I also would appreciate some stricter rules regarding what is acceptable: I see SPARS codes listed with spaces (A A D), dots (A.A.D.), brackets ([A A D]) and other variations as well. Personally I would recommend to have it without spaces, brackets, dots, etc., so "AAD", as it is the most consistent.

I think this might also might be able to expand out some of these definitions to pages in http://reference.discogslabs.com

Diognes_The_Fox
Okay, thanks! Perhaps maybe we can come up with a better definition? (Also, would a DL kind of be like the US's Library of Congress Catalog Number?)

Yes, it seems to be very close to that so for the Americans that would be a good analogy.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, and Portugal.

Not seen them on releases from Portugal btw.

Diognes_The_Fox
It might help make identification of unique releases more easy for casual people?

Not in my opinion. Most of the time it confuses more than it clarifies what company actually made it, by simply crediting its generic name. It is as if - in the case of US vinyls - we only credit "Pressed by - Capitol", instead of pointing out exactly which of the plants, whether Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Scranton, etc.
This field should only be allowed for CDs and DVDs if and when the code / sign / text point out exactly which plant manufactured the item. I think 5.2.e requires some kind of warning for accuracy in notation - and consequent linking on LCCN.
On Andy Summers, Robert Fripp - I Advance Masked the company is clearly identified.
All credits for Microservice are instead inaccurate, because this company had 3 pressing plants and in this way the credit goes for none of them.

caobao
it's in the mould hub...

Which just means it's a mastering code transcribed into the mould layer/area OR a mistake in asg a genuine mould code number OR something else. You seem to have arbitrarily decided one conflicting item in identifying the code over another, without any proof or deductions. I've read the ifpi guidelines and yes this code is unusual but (big but) where is the proof it is a non-compliant mould code? Again anyone could arrive at a different answer (mastering code) using different criteria (prefaced Lxxx string).

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.c. Matrix / Run-Out information

Stamped and etched in the free description field? (must be added?)

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.b. Label Code

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.l. Rights Society

should follow RSG §1.2.2.b. (RSG §4.7.1.)

Regards

in.spirit
real beginner is better placed to advise on comprehensibility

I'm not quite one of these but near as dammit as I don't immerse myself in technical detail to any great extent; the whole issue of price vs distribution is starting to get completely confusing from the casual 's perspective. I just want to ensure any data I enter is correct and I want the guidance to help me with that as much as possible. I get the and aspects of this re price but what about the UK too? See Coming Around Again second image - price or distribution? 5.2.f/g need to be absolutely crystal clear as current suggested wording doesn't quite help.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.h. SPARS Code is a three letter code developed by the Society Of Professional Audio Recording Services (SPARS) for compact discs.

Is it just compact disc? Above example also carries what appears to be a SPARS code and that's vinyl.

a_d_c
what about the UK too?

The UK case is really crystal clear, since these codes like HH, ZZ etc. were explicitly called "price codes" on the releases since the 70s.

Diognes_The_Fox
The mastering SID code identifies the machinery used to make the glass master. The mould SID code identifies the plant where the CD was pressed.

Isn't this the other way around...?

Renatar
Isn't this the other way around...?

Sorta, yeah. Both identify the machinery. Mastering code is for the laser beam recorder used to make the glass master, and mold code is for the pressing machine. Neither one is supposed to be used on Discogs to definitively identify a pressing plant, though.

vinyljunkie66
The UK case is really crystal clear, since these codes like HH, ZZ etc. were explicitly called "price codes" on the releases since the 70s.

Ok but my point is the guidance needs to cover this (all countries, all variants - within reason!), with examples, for the uninitiated. The examples I have seen do not explicitly state 'price code' on the release; it is simply a code against a given country with no other explanation unless you "know" what it means. I would hope that zero knowledge would be assumed when developing guidance material but then I guess it depends who the intended audience is...

Depósito Legal seem to be rather a date than a code, no?
Also, it sometimes appear in on some records that are offered with books (François Hadji-Lazaro - Ma Tata, Mon Pingouin, Gérard Et Les Autres...) (as "Dépôt Légal")

TwinPowerForce
Depósito Legal seem to be rather a date than a code, no?

No it is not a date, but it includes a date. It is an indicator that indicates in which library you can find it (the first part indicating a city), then a number for the item and then the year in which it was deposited...or something like that.

Diognes_The_Fox
Distribution Codes are contentious

in the 80s i asked a recordstore staff about the funny little numbers on the LP sleeves and they say it's a code to calculate the price. i never heard something else until i ed discogs. here this nubers are sometimes PC and sometimes DC. It can't be both. I wonder from where comes "Distribution Code"? in another thread i've read it's a creation from discogs. if this is true the dropdown "Distribution Code" should be eliminated without replacement. not?

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.k. ISRC or International Standard Recording Code. As these apply to individual tracks,

You'll also find non-track specific ISRC codes. Example: 'Round About Silence
Also, 5.2.k should specify whether the "ISRC" prefix should be included or not.

gerjolp
SPARS codes listed with spaces (A A D), dots (A.A.D.), brackets ([A A D]) and other variations as well. Personally I would recommend to have it without spaces, brackets, dots, etc.,

-1
My understanding is that in the BaOI section, we enter the identifiers exactly as on release. So if there is "A.A.D." on release, we enter it like this.
This should perhaps be added as a general rule to RSG §5.1, although it follows from RSG §1.2.2.b.

punkergott
Diognes_The_Fox
An example is "LC 0125".

Examples can be LC 0125, Lc 0125, lc0125, LC-0125 aso...

In rare cases, the LC prefix is missing. So 5.2b should be changed as follows:
5.2.b. Label Code is a four or five digit code usually prefixed with LC. [...] Please enter the whole code as on release, including the 'LC' prefix, if present.

Rhineheart
gerjolp
SPARS codes listed with spaces (A A D), dots (A.A.D.), brackets ([A A D]) and other variations as well. Personally I would recommend to have it without spaces, brackets, dots, etc.,

-1
My understanding is that in the BaOI section, we enter the identifiers exactly as on release. So if there is "A.A.D." on release, we enter it like this.
This should perhaps be added as a general rule to RSG §5.1, although it follows from RSG §1.2.2.b.

Agree, same case with Depósito Legal adding D.L. or Dep. Leg. when it is printed, or S.A.G.A.E. instead SGAE or Imp. de lujo instead Impuesto de Lujo. We have description field for that, reflect as on release.

Rhineheart
Diognes_The_Fox5.2.k. ISRC or International Standard Recording Code. As these apply to individual tracks,
You'll also find non-track specific ISRC codes. Example: 'Round About Silence
Also, 5.2.k should specify whether the "ISRC" prefix should be included or not.

ISRC codes ALWAYS(!) apply to individual tracks.
There is no other way how a ISRC code can be made, because that is the international rule of how an ISRC code should be made. If it's different it is simply not a valid code.

Didier Lockwood - 'Round About Silence
In this example you gave the ISRC code is simply incomplete and therefore technically not valid and correct.
"ISRC: FR - 14 F"
"FR" is probably the code for country
"14F" is probably the artist code for Didier Lockwood
What is missing are the part of the code for the year of recording, and the part of the code for the specific recording of the track (indeed, "track", not "trackS")

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/693089#6914658
Just read this reply I gave here where I explain what an ISRC code is and how these codes are made, and you'll understand why your example can never be a correct ISRC code.

gerjolp
Not seen them on releases from Portugal btw

It's not very common but they do exist.

e.g.: Iron Maiden - Fear Of The Dark

tele52
Agree, same case with Depósito Legal adding D.L. or Dep. Leg. when it is printed

+1

I see no reason not to include the prefix as printed. While it might be rare, there could be a case where one release has D.L. printed but another version with it written out in full. It's just another thing to include here that could be helpful in the future.

^^ Even it could be "educational" for s who do not known what D.L. could be meaning ;-)

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.g. Price Code

We'll also need a mention in the guidelines how to list F: PM 512 or PM 512.
Is F / part of the code? IMO, no, those should be listed in the description field, with a recommendation to list as on release.
Price Code (F:): PM 512
Price Code (): PM 512
Price Code (): PM 512

BUT, treating F / I etc. as descriptors (which they are) means you can't record an "empty code box" when given on release...

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

in.spirit
comprehensibility

Yes, this concern is very real, especially when you're supposedly writing guidelines for a multilingual base...

Whole chunks of this section could be advantageously replaced by simple pictures of a release back cover showing all those bits and bobs (barcode + label code + price code + spar code) + what's acceptable and what's not when it comes to list them in the appropriate fields.
Same for a CD matrix: image + how to break the data down + which box for which portion would be way more efficient than 300-word long §s.

I'd like to pitch again for UK purchase tax code to be added.

_jules
BUT, treating F / I etc. as descriptors (which they are) means you can't record an "empty code box" when given on release...

(F:) : none

gerjolp
Yes, it seems to be very close to that so for the Americans that would be a good analogy.

Thank you!

punkergott
Stamped and etched in the free description field? (must be added?)

Should be added where appropriate. There's a whole different can of worms with full string vs. stamped / etched parts that should be saved for a different thread.

punkergott
should follow RSG §1.2.2.b. (RSG §4.7.1.)

As a new addition to the existing wording for Rights Society, this sounds like a good idea.

a_d_c
Is it just compact disc? Above example also carries what appears to be a SPARS code and that's vinyl.

Thanks! I'll adjust that.

Renatar
Isn't this the other way around...?

I didn't adjust the wording here. Any changes here should be proposed in a different thread. :)

Rhineheart
In rare cases, the LC prefix is missing. So 5.2b should be changed as follows:
5.2.b. Label Code is a four or five digit code usually prefixed with LC. [...] Please enter the whole code as on release, including the 'LC' prefix, if present.

Sounds good.

Rhineheart
You'll also find non-track specific ISRC codes.

JeroenG8
ISRC codes ALWAYS(!) apply to individual tracks.

Which one is it? ;)

It's at least agreed that if ISRC codes are added, noting which tracks they apply to should be mandatory, yes?

baldorr
I see no reason not to include the prefix as printed. While it might be rare, there could be a case where one release has D.L. printed but another version with it written out in full. It's just another thing to include here that could be helpful in the future.

Sounds good!

_jules
Whole chunks of this section could be advantageously replaced by simple pictures of a release back cover showing all those bits and bobs (barcode + label code + price code + spar code) + what's acceptable and what's not when it comes to list them in the appropriate fields.
Same for a CD matrix: image + how to break the data down + which box for which portion would be way more efficient than 300-word long §s.

We kinda have this:
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/doc/finding-the-info-on-a-release

Perhaps an update is in line here?

Diognes_The_Fox
Perhaps an update is in line here?

Yep. At the very least, that page should be added to the Distribution Code detox programme.

Diognes_The_Fox
It's at least agreed that if ISRC codes are added, noting which tracks they apply to should be mandatory, yes?

Usually. But sometimes in rare occasions the ISRC-codes are added for a whole release as a 'compact code' (like in the example we had here Deadbeat - Roots And Wire, where one ISRC "CA-W29-08-00137/44" is given, which in reality means ISRC "CA-W29-08-00137" up to ISRC "CA-W29-08-00144")

If you would like add more info about ISRC codes in the guidelines it might be an idea to explain how an ISRC code is build up.
That way people can easily recognize if something is a genuine ISRC-code, a 'compacted code', an incomplete code or not an ISRC-code at all.
As explained in https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/693089#6914658

JeroenG8
For example:
RJ Rootz Feat. Elène Vaye - In 't Oosten
(...)
NL-F9C-15-00001 : In 't Oosten (dance mix)
NL-F9C-15-00002 : In 't Oosten (classical mix)
NL-F9C-15-00003 : In 't Oosten (Gelderland mix)
NL-F9C-15-00004 : In 't Oosten (sco remix)
(...)
So each recording has its own code. Note that officially the 'ISRC'-part is NOT part of the code itself. (but often it is printed alongside the code)
Each part of the code has a different meaning:
NL = country identifier, in my case NL for the Netherlands
F9C = artist identifier, in this case my own group 'RJ Rootz featuring Elène vaye'
15 = the year of the recording, in this case 2015 (note that it is the year of recording the final track, which is not per se the year of release)
xxxxxx = the last part are five numbers, which is the track recording number in that year, so starting with 00001, then 00002, etc.
Once applied to a specific recording, an ISRC-code can never change

hafler3o
And I see no factual info to suggest IFPI LC33 is a mould code and not a mastering code. Where is it? You added it as a mould code, anyone could have added it as a mastering code.

Please take a look on example (with scan of the matrix) I supplied at https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/750389?page=1#7446833

On some CDs IFPI LC33 or IFPI LC77 appear only on the Matrix ring (and appear to be Mastering codes).
On other CDs they appear only in the transparent area of the disc, which people call "hub" or "mould code area" (I do not know what is the correct name for this 'area' of the disc) - and so can be added as Mould codes.
On some CDs they appear both on the matrix ring and in the 'hub'. This suggests that they can be added both as Mastering and Mould codes (if same code appears twice), or like with Gwar - Scumdogs Of The Universe - it's not a problem to see "which code is which"

caobao
Should we use Pressing Plant ID instead of another matrix/runout field to, for example:
- ООО "Инновационные технологии" Лицензия №77-347 IFPI ALM02
- Mastered by Sony Music México
- MADE IN BY EDC / Universal M & L,
- Any logo/url taken from matrix

Here - https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/373899#3470268 - 4 years ago I tried to explain (using examples from scans of CD matrices) how to distinguish correct (actual) "Pressing Plant IDs" from "fake" - on CDs made in Russia (or in Ukraine for sale in Russia). Maybe it helps, and can be contributed to the Guideline.

5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

@ United Record Pressing?

pcerio
5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

I've used it a few times to list the stamped logo of Alco Research And Engineering, Co.. Hmmm... seems like it's either "Pressing Plant ID" or "Other".

pcerio
@ Diognes_The_Fox So this field will only be used for identifiers like the ◉ and ✤ symbols printed on the labels of records pressed by Decca Records Pressing Plant, Gloversville, for example, and not for the ⓤ symbol etched in the runouts of records pressed by United Record Pressing?

I thought it was for the manufacturer identifier codes used on American PolyGram pressings (53, 72, etc.) or WEA Canada (Q, CR, C, etc.) which appear on the labels.

brunorepublic
I thought it was for the manufacturer identifier codes used on American PolyGram pressings (53, 72, etc.) or WEA Canada (Q, CR, C, etc.) which appear on the labels.

And the SP, MO, PR, etc. Atlantic USA plant indicators which are suffixes to the matrix printed on labels. And Elektra/Asylum/Nonesuch used these as well (PRC, PRC-W, CSM, CSP, etc.). I also thought they were limited to label-printed codes, not runout stamps / etches.

Showbiz_Kid
I also thought they were limited to label-printed codes, not runout stamps / etches.

That's what I wanted to , that it was only for label printed identifiers such as 26 for Decca Records Pressing Plant, Gloversville.

Diognes_The_Fox

_jules
Whole chunks of this section could be advantageously replaced by simple pictures of a release back cover showing all those bits and bobs [...]Same for a CD matrix [...].
/_jules

We kinda have this:
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/doc/finding-the-info-on-a-release
Perhaps an update is in line here?

Never ever seen that page before. Would have really helped me to see that when brand new (now even). Why's this stuff so hard to find? The sub-form pushes s to the guidelines; guidelines push s to the forums. It's not intuitive to look elsewhere for submission guidance.

I've barely looked at the pages. After a quick scan of the ugly looking top of the page, I concluded 'nah, there's no submission help there', and didn't go back.

You should assume the worst in s (I'm a lazy get, and skim read, and I'm not alone in that): write in plain language*, and put signposts to guidance all over the place. Since these helpful pages exist, why aren't they linked into the guidelines?

* in England we have the 'Plain English Campaign' - is there an American equivalent?

JeroenG8
"ISRC: FR - 14 F"

can never be a correct ISRC code.

You are probably right, it's not a fully qualified ISRC code. But does it matter? Since when do we check syntactical or semantic correctness of identifiers in the BaOI? We don't check whether barcodes, LCs, matrix info, etc. are correct, we enter these identifiers as they appear on release.
So when an identifier "ISRC: FR - 14 F" is found on a release, we add this to the BaOI as
ISRC: FR - 14 F
Don't we?

Rhineheart
You are probably right, it's not a fully qualified ISRC code. But does it matter? Since when do we check syntactical or semantic correctness of identifiers in the BaOI? We don't check whether barcodes, LCs, matrix info, etc. are correct, we enter these identifiers as they appear on release.
So when an identifier "ISRC: FR - 14 F" is found on a release, we add this to the BaOI as
ISRC: FR - 14 F
Don't we?

Yes, of course we do, but that doesn't mean it hurts to know how an official and correct ISRC-code looks like and to know that it technically can only apply to single tracks, not albums in total.
If that information is not given somewhere, people will keep on saying that ISRC-codes cán be for a complete release, which is technically impossible.
When that information is given, we can still document what is printed, but at the same time we know that the code is incorrectly printed and nothing more than decoration.

in.spirit
* in England we have the 'Plain English Campaign' - is there an American equivalent?

Sure, it's called the 'Plain American Campaign'. In fact, there was an election recently. ; )

I'm starting to see all kinds of entries for the Pressing Plant code - outside of what it was designed for. So I'm voting to get the definition in the guidelines sooner...maybe? That one seems easier to get done.

JeroenG8
sometimes in rare occasions the ISRC-codes are added for a whole release as a 'compact code' (like in the example we had here Deadbeat - Roots And Wire, where one ISRC "CA-W29-08-00137/44" is given, which in reality means ISRC "CA-W29-08-00137" up to ISRC "CA-W29-08-00144")

I feel it should be correct to enter this kind of abbreviation as-on-release into one BAOI field, and/or enter it as one interpreted BAOI field per track, with appropriate descriptions.

Diognes_The_Fox
I kind of want to prevent ISRC codes from being used unless they're printed on the actual release or are somehow included with the digital package (for digital), but I'm not sure how best to word that / what everyone else thinks.

IMHO, if the data is available in the CD subcode, and if someone uses an app capable of reading the codes, the codes should be allowed to be transcribed. Maybe a standard description like "Track n, CD subcode" should be suggested in the guidelines.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.g. Price Code is an identifier assigned to a release that shows the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price (MSRP).

I'm not sure if you're saying "MSRP" needs to appear or not to signify a price code, but there are plenty of Australasian releases which use the term "Price Code" (see https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/746502 ).

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.e. Pressing Plant ID is an identifier code printed on the release which identifies the pressing plant it was pressed at.

This should explicitly mention that it is not for codes found in the matrix.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.f. Distribution Code A certain kind of code which appears on certain European releases in addition to one or more obvious catalog numbers. This supplemental code usually has two letters, an optional space, and three digits. Please use Price Code instead unless it is printed on the release or there is strong, citable reference for it's use.

All those in the know, know this is actually called a Price Code. As a retailer and importer for well over 25 years, dealing with many French, German, Italian and Spanish distributors and labels, it is always referred to as the Price Code (or translation thereof).

Distribution Code (in this sense) seems to be something someone at Discogs made up. Ideally it should be disposed of and removed from the Discogs system completely.

Actual "Distribution Codes" are those used internally by distributors and manufacturers, also sometimes called "part numbers" or "reference codes" which are quite common on Columbia/Sony releases. But they are best addressed as "other" as the exact use of them is not documented anywhere that I can find, except for denoting different editions available in catalogues.

jweijde
This should explicitly mention that it is not for codes found in the matrix.

+1

baldorr
tele52Agree, same case with Depósito Legal adding D.L. or Dep. Leg. when it is printed

+1

I see no reason not to include the prefix as printed. While it might be rare, there could be a case where one release has D.L. printed but another version with it written out in full. It's just another thing to include here that could be helpful in the future.

Technically the words 'depósito legal', or d.l., etc. are not part of the *actual* depósito legal (the format for the spanish one is defined in spanish law) so perosnally I would not want anything but the actual d.l. in the field. How it's printed could indeed be useful if entered in the description field.

pcerio
@ Diognes_The_Fox So this field will only be used for identifiers like the ◉ and ✤ symbols printed on the labels of records pressed by Decca Records Pressing Plant, Gloversville, for example, and not for the ⓤ symbol etched in the runouts of records pressed by United Record Pressing?

It was primarily intended for use for these types:

brunorepublic
I thought it was for the manufacturer identifier codes used on American PolyGram pressings (53, 72, etc.) or WEA Canada (Q, CR, C, etc.) which appear on the labels.

Showbiz_Kid
And the SP, MO, PR, etc. Atlantic USA plant indicators which are suffixes to the matrix printed on labels. And Elektra/Asylum/Nonesuch used these as well (PRC, PRC-W, CSM, CSP, etc.). I also thought they were limited to label-printed codes, not runout stamps / etches.

But, the more I think about it, the more I think there's benefit for casual cataloguers to be able to better make the connection what symbols signify which version is which. I am confident that newer contributors wouldn't be able to tell that the 'I' in a runout string means RCA Indianapolis.

Does anyone have any objections to this?

timhorton69
I'm not sure if you're saying "MSRP" needs to appear or not to signify a price code, but there are plenty of Australasian releases which use the term "Price Code"

I'm not! I think my definition needs some work. As an American, I don't get to work with a lot of these codes that often, so I'm not intimately familiar with them in practice.

Distribution Code or Price Code

Diognes_The_Fox
But, the more I think about it, the more I think there's benefit for casual cataloguers to be able to better make the connection what symbols signify which version is which. I am confident that newer contributors wouldn't be able to tell that the 'I' in a runout string means RCA Indianapolis.

Does anyone have any objections to this?

Interesting question.

We already have RSG §5.4 that states:
"Matrix Numbers and other run out information can also be extracted from the whole run out inscription, and added as further 'Matrix Number' fields with descriptions and / or expanded upon in the notes as the submitter sees fit."

...however, I don't see people using this solely to extract pressing plant information. So perhaps using the Pressing Plant ID field could be useful for this.

On the other hand, I do worry about muddling of data types. Printed codes on labels (Atlantic, ATCO, Elektra, Asylum, Polygram, A&M), and jackets (primarily Capitol releases) would wind up being mixed with runout stamps and etchings (PRC, SRC, "Blocky 'S'", ⧈-G-⧈ etc.), and s are notoriously poor ing the Description fields to note what's what. And since the runout marks are already documenting in Matrix / Runout fields, they are already searchable.

IRT educating s about the meaning of the runout marks, many of us already enter explanatory statements in Notes explaining the meaning of these marks and cross-referencing them to their respective Company profiles.

So I guess I have not yet formed a coherent opinion, but I do have questions :)

Whether or not Pressing Plant ID applies to the codes / symbols ed in the runout areas, the blocking of the use of it on CDs summarizes the use of the identifier on US-made Vinyl records. As well as Depósito Legal only applies to Spanish releases and Label Codes are only present in European releases, it seems that the only truly universal identifiers in BaOI are Barcode, Matrix / Runouts and SID Codes. Rights Society should not even be there. SPARS codes are useless as identifiers. ISRC only apply to individual tracks, not to releases.
Has it been a good idea to multiply fields to fill when we see that even the few who are able to decipher these codes are having trouble to define their application?

lbamaral
SPARS codes are useless as identifiers.

I'd have to disagree there.

The presence of a SPARS code means the release is post 1984, which could be useful.

The_Beatles.
I'd like to pitch again for UK purchase tax code to be added.

I second this, please :)

*edit:
http://www.peterice.com/purchasetax.htm - some background info for those unfamiliar with UK tax codes.

Know your JTs
Handy for identifying reissues (although not definitive).

The_Beatles.
lbamaralSPARS codes are useless as identifiers.
I'd have to disagree there.

The presence of a SPARS code means the release is post 1984, which could be useful.

Absolutely agree and a quality sound useful for many s/buyers, specially in classical music.

tele52
Absolutely agree and a quality sound useful for many s/buyers, specially in classical music.

What I meant by 'useless as an identifier' refers to the use of code for differentiation of releases, or even versions of the same release. We easily find several versions of the same album showng the same code, as in 1987's US versions of Revolver and 3 more, all AAD. On the other hand, I accept and any idea of classifying SPARS codes as Format - maybe using FTF - since this is what the fact code is: a recording / mastering / pressing format indicator.

lbamaral
What I meant by 'useless as an identifier' refers to the use of code for differentiation of releases, or even versions of the same release.

Actually that's not correct either.

I'm struggling to search and link due to being on a phone but I know of a few of the first Beatles CD's were released with the wrong SPARS codes on them.

These were corrected later. Hence those codes are the identifier.

lbamaral
SPARS codes are useless as identifiers

-1

i just switched
AAD: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/23117-En-Attendant-Cousteau/history?diff=21
DDD: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/release/10881276-En-Attendant-Cousteau/history?diff=2

_jules
Is F / part of the code? IMO, no, those should be listed in the description field, with a recommendation to list as on release.
Price Code (F:): PM 512
Price Code (): PM 512
Price Code (): PM 512

+1

Here some of my additional ideas. Thanks god I took a 3 months break and I wasn't editing any of the code so far. Read the discussion and felt with some of the s in certain useless discussions...

Diognes_The_Fox

5.2.a. Barcodes

Some s also use the expression EAN and UPC,maybe this needs mention

Diognes_The_Fox

5.2.c. Matrix / Run-Out information

It is worth to put a sequence about how to sort runout variants, as there was already trouble about this some year ago.
And it should be clarified, which case needs an unique release and which not.
It would also be a good hint to rule out the placing of pressing variants into the master release and/or into release notes.
Then, it is also important to clarify, that the runout section is not to use in a LCCN field (e.g. as cat#). We had some cases.

Diognes_The_Fox

5.2.d. SID codes

Please make a comment, not to use italic ifpi (iƒpi). No capitalization, but as on release.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.f. Distribution Code

The discrepancy of what people do and what it was intended for is almost insolvable. Thus, it needs a definition.
I like sebfacts approach except for the last conclusion. From my belly and also in contrary to the Wiki entry,
I would tend to call PM 500 et al. better distribution code.
It is true, that the 3 digit number is about the price. But is it impossible, that a distribution code (all 5 digits) contains a price information? Surely the price is a part of the distribution process.
Taking another not cited example, the Polydor and DGG codes in 's 50s and 60s, which I could assign via literature. Those were so called "Schlüsselnummern", which were intended to the correspondence between dealer and catalogue owner. Of course it was a number,which often was used to build up a price, but it was a distribution code.

I would tend to call anything a distribution code,which was not intended to be addressed to the customer.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.g. Price Code

I know price codes most prominently from GDR-releases, which were directly addressed to the customer.
I would interprete it always like this,as it is easier, than to go into deepness of the record companies' internals.
There is certainly more proof for them, as e.g. some example from called "Preisgruppe xx", which was then a sort of legend above the counter.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.h. SPARS Code

Wasn't it more than 3-digit in a later stage?

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.l Rights societies

.
Here, there was also a list by me in the past, which lists additional examples. What urgently has to be cleared: If the text stays like this (ok for me), the usage of ASCAP and BMI as an example is not a good choice, as the printed RS on releases is usually the artists RS.
Compilations and songwriter credits also contain the publisher's RS, which is frequently ASCAP and BMI for US releases. Also take into , that the situation in some countries of split Rights societies is very intransparent.
change the wording to 'Rights society [Publishing] is used to list publishing and songwriting royalty information'.

I am missing the verbatim use of Others[] for cat# of the single discs in multiple disc publications, as there are still a number of confusing records in database. Here, the respective sequence has also to go into cat# guideline.

Thanks for the proceedings!

bbm

Oliver_Ostblock
I know price codes most prominently from GDR-releases, which were directly addressed to the customer.

And in the US, price codes were printed on spines by companies ranging from United Artists to Warner / Elektra / Atlantic to tell retailers what the MSRP was.

Oliver_Ostblock
change the wording to 'Rights society [Publishing] is used to list publishing and songwriting royalty information'.

I have to think that this will be very confusing, as Publishing has long been in LCCN. IMO, it's not BEST suited to be there, as it should be tied to individual songs for clarity, not the overall release, but it's been explained that changing this will lead to a HUGE database revision and is not likely to happen soon.

Oliver_Ostblock
I am missing the verbatim use of Others[] for cat# of the single discs in multiple disc publications, as there are still a number of confusing records in database. Here, the respective sequence has also to go into cat# guideline.

Agree very much with this. It's been decided in Forums, but not memorialized in Guidelines yet, and it should be done to keep improper documentation from occurring (and repeating!).

Showbiz_Kid
I have to think that this will be very confusing, as Publishing has long been in LCCN

Yes, I think so and I have no need in adding those BMI/ASCAP publisher rights. But there was a hot discussion some months ago with s, who use to enter those.
Imho we have to find a regulation. The management's sentence would exclude them, but I am not sure, if this was intended.
But I agree, that confusion will start and speaking of me, I can on that.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, and Portugal.

Not always, but found in some 60's & 70's releases from Uruguay too.

https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/search/?q=uruguay+dep%C3%B3sito+legal&type=release

Adjust 5.2.i. a little?
5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, Portugal and Uruguay.

UriahCego
Adjust 5.2.i. a little?
5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, Portugal and Uruguay.

Unfortunately we've never had a code like this here in Brazil. It is very helpful to nail dates of reissues when (p) shown is not updated, a big problem here... :-/

Showbiz_Kid

bbm54 I am missing the verbatim use of Others[] for cat# of the single discs in multiple disc publications /bbm54

Agree very much with this. It's been decided in Forums, but not memorialized in Guidelines yet

If you know, and can share, any good link(s) to forum discussions on this issue, it would be much appreciated. Forum search is lousy.

Diognes_The_Fox
5.2.b. Label Code is a four or five digit code prefixed with LC. GVL started on 1st May 1976 to allocate Labelcodes to record companies in order to uniquely identify them. Codes are currently assigned by GVL to companies engaged in music recording that are located in the countries of the EU. Please enter the whole code including the 'LC' prefix. An example is "LC 0125".

Not content with inventing the mispress, Beyoncé - Lemonade).

Also, I can't find an example right now, but I have a few CDs where the LC is listed LC-less, ie just the digits string.

Also, good luck with this thread...
How about splitting it into dedicated sub-threads for a) Barcode b) LC c) Matrix and bits and bobs d) Price Code / Distribution Code e) Etc. to consolidate and finalise rewrites etc.?

I have returned. Apologies about the delay. It's been a week.

Showbiz_Kid
On the other hand, I do worry about muddling of data types. Printed codes on labels (Atlantic, ATCO, Elektra, Asylum, Polygram, A&M), and jackets (primarily Capitol releases) would wind up being mixed with runout stamps and etchings (PRC, SRC, "Blocky 'S'", ⧈-G-⧈ etc.), and s are notoriously poor ing the Description fields to note what's what. And since the runout marks are already documenting in Matrix / Runout fields, they are already searchable.

Fortunately, generally the pressing plant ID is static and tends to be different from the one in the runout etching. I don't see too much confusion there over where specifically the code is printed/stamped.

When both are present, something like
Pressing Plant ID - SP - On Labels (Matrix Suffix)
Pressing Plant ID - SRC - In Runout

could work. I would also generally have some amount of faith that the people who add that level of detail are also generally more likely to be the type that add more detail in the FTF as well.

Oliver_Ostblock
Some s also use the expression EAN and UPC,maybe this needs mention

I'm vaguely aware of the differences between those. Maybe best to do a different thread and regroup?

At least with barcode search being more functional than it used to be, maybe we need adjustment in general.

Oliver_Ostblock
It is worth to put a sequence about how to sort runout variants, as there was already trouble about this some year ago.
And it should be clarified, which case needs an unique release and which not.
It would also be a good hint to rule out the placing of pressing variants into the master release and/or into release notes.
Then, it is also important to clarify, that the runout section is not to use in a LCCN field (e.g. as cat#). We had some cases.

+1. Especially considering my comments in a recent thread.

Oliver_Ostblock
Please make a comment, not to use italic ifpi (iƒpi). No capitalization, but as on release.

Agreed.

Oliver_Ostblock
The discrepancy of what people do and what it was intended for is almost insolvable. Thus, it needs a definition.

Agreed. It's so deeply ingrained into the RSG / Discogs, that there at least needs to be a transitionary phase to identify & group those.

Oliver_Ostblock
Wasn't it more than 3-digit in a later stage?

I do not know. If true, can update.

Oliver_Ostblock
I am missing the verbatim use of Others[] for cat# of the single discs in multiple disc publications, as there are still a number of confusing records in database. Here, the respective sequence has also to go into cat# guideline.

Agreed. Thoughts on wording?

Oliver_Ostblock
Yes, I think so and I have no need in adding those BMI/ASCAP publisher rights. But there was a hot discussion some months ago with s, who use to enter those.

Personally, I just enter everything that appears and tag whatever tracks they apply to in the FTF. Is that kind of what's been discussed here?

UriahCego
Adjust 5.2.i. a little?
5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from Brazil, Spain, Portugal and Uruguay.

Is there a short list somewhere that lists all countries involved or maybe we can just list it as "found on releases from certain countries"?

_jules
Not content with inventing the mispress, Beyoncé also upped the ante with a 6! digits! label code (reportedly: Beyoncé - Lemonade).

Ugh. Well, probably more like that coming.

in.spirit
If you know, and can share, any good link(s) to forum discussions on this issue, it would be much appreciated.

Diognes_The_Fox
Agreed. Thoughts on wording?

Sorry guys, we have this already, I didn't notice: RSG §4.7.6

Diognes_The_Fox
Agreed. It's so deeply ingrained into the RSG / Discogs, that there at least needs to be a transitionary phase to identify & group those.

A collection of a few discussions and research threads.
Maybe it could be convenient to collect codes from familiar labels/companies. There are a lot of them

1. French price codes: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/706164
2. DGG/Polydor codes: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/413694
3. Ariola codes: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/392288
4. Distribution code countries: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/397610
5. TELDEC codes: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/349481
6. Distribution/Price code: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/214417
7. For EFA: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/325338
---------
8. The most recent thread: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/746274

Oliver_Ostblock
Sorry guys, we have this already, I didn't notice: RSG §4.7.6

Maybe outside the scope of this thread, but BaOI page, which says nothing about the best way to enter them.

I've subbed /edited a few, using BaOI 'Other' with description 'CD1 cat. no.' etc., which I hope is the correct way to do it. At first I put them all under 'Label' as separate fields, but I think someone told me not to do it... or maybe it is in the guidelines somewhere?

I don't like guessing; I'd prefer the guideline to tell me what to do. For something as important as cat. nos. for individual discs (helpful to match stray LP's separated from original set), it's not ideal to be relegated to 'Other'. But if they have to be in 'Other' then I wish the RSG §4.7.6 or section 5 would state best practice, e.g.:

4.7.6. Sometimes individual discs in a multi-CD or multi-LP set will have their own catalog numbers p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶, separate from the main catalog number on the packaging. These numbers c̶a̶n̶ should be entered in the 'Barcode And Other Identifiers' section under 'Other', with an appropriate description added, e.g. 'Cat. No. CD1' (see help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode ) (see 4.7.2)

[and / or the company, when it is a sequential identifying number that relates directly to the company]
Does 'company' mean label? Clause is unclear... if indiv. disc nos. can all go under label as separate fields, that would resolve my issue?

in.spirit
I don't like guessing; I'd prefer the guideline to tell me what to do.

But this is what the guideline exactly tells you and as far as I can judge, you did it in a correct way...

Diognes_The_Fox
We kinda have this:
https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/doc/finding-the-info-on-a-release

Perhaps an update is in line here?

Yes, just noticed there's a SPARS code on the 1st image, so that needs annotation (bit of a tight squeeze).
Also there's a 'Distribution Code' PG 899 - so maybe that needs an update to 'Price Code' (if that's definitively decided, must it, I lost track of that lengthy debate).

in.spirit
Also there's a 'Distribution Code' PG 899 - so maybe that needs an update to 'Price Code' (if that's definitively decided, must it, I lost track of that lengthy debate).

It does need updating.
Also, this page has just been bumped / pimped: https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/356624#7452988
Too bad it wasn't updated before being given a new visibility...

Diognes_The_Fox
Is there a short list somewhere that lists all countries involved or maybe we can just list it as "found on releases from certain countries"?

Yup, it's better as you pointed. I just read what s gerjolp and lbamaral posted previously https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/750332#7444855
IMHO the countries can be removed and adjust the 5.2.i. paragraph to:

5.2.i. Depósito Legal or Legal Deposit is a code assigned by a government's copyright office or central library. These are primarly found on releases from certain countries.

=======================================================================================
In my experience, and as a comment, the Spanish and Uruguayan "Depósito Legal" are very useful to get the exact year of release.

Thank you Brent.

_jules
Also, I can't find an example right now, but I have a few CDs where the LC is listed LC-less, ie just the digits string.

I see this on quite a few of the Virgin releases.

Diognes_The_Fox
bbm54
Wasn't it more than 3-digit in a later stage?

I do not know. If true, can update.

Not officially, but some people have used 4 digits, see the wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

Somewhere near the bottom:

'The additional "D" was added to indicate the instruments the music was made on were digital; this may not be a SPARS-endorsed code.'