Label and Company guideline update proposal

Hi all,

Since there continues to be many discussions regarding, especially, companies and how we enter them into the database, I would like to propose we look at the guidelines to make them firmer and clearer regarding how we enter information, and especially how to deal with variations in the name versus related and similarly named entities. The following is a proposed update to http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/help/submission-guidelines-release-label-catalog.html#Label_And_Company_Names "Label and Company Names":

4.2.1. As a starting point, enter the label or company name exactly as it appears on the release.

4.2.2. Company name/s will most likely appear on a release along with the Label name. The Label name is the most important entity to be entered on the release, and is required information.

4.2.3. Sometimes, there will be versions off, or variations in, the label or company name. For example; "EMI Records Ltd" and "EMI Records Limited" are the same company, whereas EMI Music Australia Pty Ltd is a separate but related company:

4.2.3.a. For smaller labels and companies, sometimes a variation is usually unintentional, for example, the addition or exclusion of "Records" after the name. If it is certain that this is referring to the exact same label or company, then it can be amended to use the existing entity name on Discogs. Please make a note of any adjustments in the release notes and the submission notes.

4.2.3.b. For larger labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These must be entered as on the release, unless there is strong and cited proof from trusted sources that it is a variation for the exact same label or company.

4.2.3.c. Abbreviations and punctuation differences in the company designation (for example; Limited, LTD., Ltd etc) can usually be takes as simple variations, and the entity linked to the existing variation listed in Discogs.

4.2.4. The responsibility is always on the wishing to combine label or company names to provide trusted citations that the entity they are trying to combine is indeed one and the same.

Any or amendment proposals to this are very welcome, thanks!

I agree with the whole thing.

I'm not sure if 4.2.4 should be tightened up with not only citations but also a sound reason why entering on the release may be problematic.

nik
4.2.3.c. Abbreviations and punctuation differences in the company designation (for example; Limited, LTD., Ltd etc) can usually be takes as simple variations, and the entity linked to the existing variation listed in Discogs.

typo: "can usually be takes as", to "can usually be taken as".

Thanks nik for bringing this into focus one more time.

Just to emphasize the differences I suggest:

4.2.2. Company name/s (usually mentioned in the fine print) will most likely appear on a release along with the Label (usually represented by a logo). The Label name is the most important entity to be entered from the release, and is required information.

4.2.3. ... For example; "EMI Records Ltd" and "EMI Records Limited" are the same company ...

and

4.2.3.c. Abbreviations and punctuation differences in the company designation (for example; Limited, LTD., Ltd etc) can usually be takes as simple variations ...

essentially says the same thing. Both can be merged imo.

Quoting those EMI company examples in the text, could you please at least use the existing companies, properly punctuated:
EMI Music Australia Pty. Limited
(with their dots for abbreviated Limited-es)

yuhann
Just to emphasize the differences I suggest

+1

Also, I think 4.2.3.b. & 4.2.4. can be rolled into the one 4.2.3.b.

Yes! Thank you Nik.

I don't have any great concerns beyond the tweaking above.

I do like this:

yuhann
4.2.2. Company name/s (usually mentioned in the fine print) will most likely appear on a release along with the Label (usually represented by a logo). The Label name is the most important entity to be entered from the release, and is required information.

^^ and maybe explain at least one of the labels need to be entered first?\

Or doesn't it matter because I seem to recall it won't submit properly anyway if attempted any other way (eg. Companies listed 1st and subsequent with a Label entry being placed anywhere else??)

1skinnylad
^^ and maybe explain at least one of the labels need to be entered first?\

Yes. And not something like: The biggest logo first.
It does matter which label is entered first. That's the one used for the sorting in "my collection"
I do have an example where this get's messed up, but that's something for another thread ;)

^^ as a side point, sometimes it does matter which is entered 1st depending on which cat# really should then get aligned to all the companies as well. But that's another issue and is really quite complex.

I think the guidelines should also mention that people should check if the entity on the release already exists in the database with exactly that name - and if that entity represents the same company or label as the one on the release.

This might seem obvious, but these new guidelines put much emphasis on as on release. Some people may think they can always use first available entry. Afterall they'll be entering it as on release then.
For example they may insist on entering WEA Music instead of WEA Music (2), because it says 'WEA Music' on the release.

It would be great if this would be updated similiar to an Company Name Variation feature to avoid discussions and uncertainity if an abbreviation is used on one release.

slur
It would be great if this would be updated similiar to an Company Name Variation feature to avoid discussions and uncertainity if an abbreviation is used on one release.

I agree with this strongly.

nik
4.2.3.b. For larger labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These must be entered as on the release, unless there is strong and cited proof from trusted sources that it is a variation for the exact same label or company.

I actually have a bit of a problem with this part. Very minor variations, i.e.: including or excluding a period or a comma, are usually unintentional. I could see us having endless duplicated and triplicates of the exact same entity as a result of this language. It also seems to contradict:

nik
4.2.3. Sometimes, there will be versions off, or variations in, the label or company name. For example; "EMI Records Ltd" and "EMI Records Limited" are the same company,

This section is well written and is something I fully . If there is doubt it's best to have two significant variations. When there is little or no doubt I'd hate to see unnecessary duplication.

Perhaps 4.2.3.b could be tweaked or clarified.

nik
Sometimes, there will be versions off, or variations in, the label or company name.

Probably a typo: ...versions OF...?

slur
It would be great if this would be updated similiar to an Company Name Variation feature to avoid discussions and uncertainity if an abbreviation is used on one release.

+1
This is the point, we need CNV.

valparaiso
+1
This is the point, we need CNV

Agreed, but the reality is it's not coming soon. This guideline hopefully makes the application of such when it arrives that much easier.

This guideline change will by design and as per Nik's words on the GZ thread protect data until LNV's are introduced which it seems is more certain than it was 6 months ago where the talk was if not when, we are now in a position where there seems to be a softening which is great news.

slur
It would be great if this would be updated similiar to an Company Name Variation feature to avoid discussions and uncertainity if an abbreviation is used on one release.

This is covered in the rules already, see 4.2.1. You'd simply use one profile reflecting which of the two is most commonly used. The proposed guideline change would make it a rule to enter the abbreviated form or vice versa in the notes to preserve the data accuracy for the eventuality of the LNV system.

jweijde
WEA Music (2)

This is a confusing and a niche page which needs a good look at. It's this kind of page we should seek to avoid.

Take the first release on the page:
Denis Pepin - Une Jolie Fleur
http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-1015112-1291119454.jpeg - see logo, This seems incorrectly credited. WEA Music logo is now on the record, the logo clearly says "WEA Filipacchi Music"

And for those which hold the WEA Music logo, if that's the branding they used after Filipachi's dissolution, it should be entered on the main WEA Music page.

If there is to be a disctinction between WEA Music branches, we should at least do it according to 4.3.2 and drop the numbering and add the location. In this case the location is usually given as paris:

http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-3704066-1341034177-8775.jpeg

So the correct name for this branch if separated from the WEA Music main page should be "WEA Music, Paris" (but only on releases which clearly state the location). We should not add numbers to companies unless there is no alternative as per 4.3.5.

Eviltoastman
This guideline change will by design and as per Nik's words on the GZ thread protect data until LNV's are introduced

I doubt that will be introduced anytime soon. To many people are still struggling to understand the difference between a label and a company. Still lots of companies are being entered as labels and people are changing company names from releases to match names of existing entries in the database.
Introducing LNVs soon will undoubtely result in entities being LNVed that really shouldn't be.

Eviltoastman
This is a confusing and a niche page which needs a good look at. It's this kind of page we should seek to avoid.

Absolutely not. The entity has a clear logo and a clear description. It is the French WEA division. I don't see why we should try to avoid it. Not confusing at all either. Just like WEA Music (4).
It is also not a niche page, there are lots of releases which belong on that page.

Yes, I just was making an edit when you wrote that. You might want to read my post again.

Will do :)

Eviltoastman
Take the first release on the page:
Denis Pepin - Une Jolie Fleur (Dans Une Peau De Vache)
http://s.dsimg.com/image/R-1015112-1291119454.jpeg - see logo, This seems incorrectly credited. WEA Music logo is now on the record, the logo clearly says "WEA Filipacchi Music"

Incorrectly credited yes, but that doesn't make WEA Music (2) a niche or confusing entry. It's just that I got it wrong there. I have no idea why. The logo clearly indicates WEA Filipacchi Music. I have changed it now.

Eviltoastman

And for those which hold the WEA Music logo, if that's the branding they used after Filipachi's dissolution, it should be entered on the main WEA Music page.

Disagree. The WEA Music (2)'s logo.

Eviltoastman

And for those which hold the WEA Music logo, if that's the branding they used after Filipachi's dissolution, it should be entered on the main WEA Music page.

No, because the French WEA Music company is not the same thing as the internationally used WEA Music label.
See RSG 4.3

4.3. For labels and companies that share the same name, we need to distinguish them so they are listed correctly on separate pages in the database

So we need to distinguish WEA Music from WEA Music (2). Currently this is being done with suffixes which is allowed as per 4.3.5.

Eviltoastman

So the correct name for this branch if separated from the WEA Music main page should be "WEA Music, Paris" (but only on releases which clearly state the location).

Some releases may mention the location (Paris or ) and others may not. This will lead to releases by the same company being scattered over different pages. I do not see how that is benificial to the database in any way.

Why are companies included in the 4.3.2. guideline anyway?

Thanks for all the folks! I have amended the proposal as per discussion, and also moves some things around to try to make the guidelines flow better. What do you think?

4.2.1. The Label name is the most important entity to be entered from the release, and is required information. Company name/s (usually mentioned in the fine print) will most likely appear on a release along with the Label (usually represented by a logo).

4.2.2. As a starting point, enter the label or company name exactly as it appears on the release. There will sometimes be variations in the label or company name, so try searching the database for variations that have already been entered:

4.2.2.a. For smaller labels and companies, a variation is usually unintentional, for example, the addition or exclusion of "Records" after the name. If it is certain that this is referring to the exact same label or company, then it can be amended to use the existing entity name on Discogs. Please make a note of any adjustments in the release notes and the submission notes.

4.2.2.b. For larger labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in of defining a separate branch, brand, or company. These must be entered as on the release, unless there is strong and cited proof from trusted sources that it is a variation for the exact same label or company. For example; "EMI Records Ltd." and "EMI Records Limited" are the same company, whereas "EMI Music Australia Pty. Limited" is a separate but related company.

4.2.2.c. Abbreviations and punctuation differences in the name (for example; Limited, LTD., Ltd) can usually be taken as simple variations, and the entity linked to the existing variation listed in Discogs.

4.2.3. The responsibility is always on the wishing to combine label or company names to provide trusted citations that the entity they are trying to combine is indeed one and the same.

jweijde
Why are companies included in the 4.3.2. guideline anyway?

The whole section deals with labels and companies as one unit, to make the guidelines universal and as compact as possible.

nik
Why are companies included in the 4.3.2. guideline anyway?

nik
The whole section deals with labels and companies as one unit, to make the guidelines universal and as compact as possible.

I was just wondering why locations should be added to company names and suffixes should only be used when no locations are mentioned.

Also, after http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/help/forums/topic/338404 and the discussion here http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/history?release=704260#latest it might be worth adding something in the guidelines that labels should not be split or renamed, unless there is proof that the name is factually incorrect. Variations should not be counted as separate labels.
The proof should be more than just the name used in the logo.

nik
These must be entered as on the release, unless there is strong and cited proof from trusted sources that it is a variation for the exact same label or company.

In my opinion this should also work the other way.

The emphasis of the current guidelines seem to be too much on 'as on release' and keeping similar logos separate - even when they represent one and the same label. Resulting in people wanting to split entries when there is no need for it.

jweijde
The emphasis of the current guidelines seem to be too much on 'as on release' and keeping similar logos separate - even when they represent one and the same label. Resulting in people wanting to split entries when there is no need for it.

"These must be entered as on the release, unless there is strong and cited proof from trusted sources that it is a variation for the exact same label or company" - I have to say I fall on the side of keeping things separate unless they are proven to be the exact same (not just guessed at). It is easy to fold one page into another at some point, one way or another. It is impossible to unmix entities that have been altered to be listed under the same name.

nik
I have to say I fall on the side of keeping things separate unless they are proven to be the exact same (not just guessed at).

My issue is not with merging, but with splitting/renaming already existing labels so the label name matches the name in the logo completely.

My point is that some people twist that guideline so they can split or rename (big) already existing label pages so the label name matches the logo 100%.
See for example the discussion about Island Records http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/help/forums/topic/338404

nik
It is impossible to unmix entities that have been altered to be listed under the same name.

Hard, but impossible if there are images and/or when the company name as it appears on the release is entered in the release notes.

nik
to make the guidelines flow better. What do you think?

i like the proposal very much :)

As long as the guidelines are kept simple and not open to misinterpretation, this makes sense. A related matter, see my http://discogs.descargarpelis.net/help/forums/topic/343830

Following on from what jweijde says, does this mean we now undo all the merges that people have done without any evidence?

And by the way, to point out something I've had to mention in submission notes:

Eviltoastman
This is covered in the rules already, see 4.2.1. You'd simply use one profile reflecting which of the two is most commonly used.

"most commonly used" doesn't appear in either the existing or changed 4.2.1, nor 4.2.2c (where the abbreviation and punctuation issue is covered), as a criterion for choosing which should be the primary company name.

nik
What do you think?

Looks good to me. Thanks.

Just another detail: Regarding the ongoing confusion around the label term, I suggest to use label imprint instead whenever necessary. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_label]
Wikipedia[/url] reveals that ambiguity pretty well:

Most commonly, a record label is the company that manages such brands and trademarks ...

as opposed to

A record label is a brand and a trademark associated with the marketing of music recordings and music videos

and

When a label is strictly a trademark or brand, not a company, then it is usually called an imprint, a term used for the same concept in the publishing industry

Those latter two giving a pretty good definition of that term in use Discogs-wise.

I'm sorry for a late response. This is a thread I'm very interested in, as I was active too, when the LCCN was 'promoted' in the forums.

jweijde
I think the guidelines should also mention that people should check if the entity on the release already exists in the database with exactly that name - and if that entity represents the same company or label as the one on the release.

This might seem obvious, but these new guidelines put much emphasis on as on release. Some people may think they can always use first available entry. Afterall they'll be entering it as on release then.
For example they may insist on entering WEA Music instead of WEA Music (2), because it says 'WEA Music' on the release.

+1

1skinnylad
Also, I think 4.2.3.b. & 4.2.4. can be rolled into the one 4.2.3.b.

+1

Tokeowave
typo: "can usually be takes as", to "can usually be taken as".

^^ as above

1skinnylad
Quoting those EMI company examples in the text, could you please at least use the existing companies, properly punctuated

+1

slur
It would be great if this would be updated similiar to an Company Name Variation feature to avoid discussions and uncertainity if an abbreviation is used on one release.

How many "years" are we waiting for it? I'm not going to be sarcastic, but I agree with it 10000%. Since the company fields have been created, it's an open matter. This feature could save us much time, we could leave explaining the way we enter a company name in the submission and/or release notes field.

timetogo

I actually have a bit of a problem with this part. Very minor variations, i.e.: including or excluding a period or a comma, are usually unintentional. I could see us having endless duplicated and triplicates of the exact same entity as a result of this language. It also seems to contradict:

+1

Some movement is welcome on this, particularly some clarification on when and when we shouldn't merge. For example 4.2.2 advises that if something is established to be the same company it can be merged. How different would the naming have to be for it to be protected from such merges or how similar should it be for us to consider a merge. This also goes for general naming leaping from what is on the release to what appears in company registries.

I give the example of the branding/url: www.cdmanufacturing.ca which is printed on the release which we are expected to credit as SLI Manufacturing Inc.. It's a hell of a leap for a submitter. I know that Nik feels that we should credit the urls in these cases, a decision which I will but it's not currently in the guidelines and is bound to be controversial as we saw with the GZ Vinyl issues. The urls on release being credited as something wildly different is not quite endemic but I do see an awful lot of them.