Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
Calvin Walton-2 wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Quite common for small independents. For example: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/99f25dd0-837b-3682-bbb6-132b4255691e (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#, some without. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least five releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but one attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label). Yeah; in a some of these cases the barcode allocated this way seems to be for use in a particular store only, as an internal tracking number. I don't think it would be particularly useful to record this type of barcode, unless you can find the same number in use at multiple stores (Try just googleing the barcode number, and see if what else comes up.) -- Calvin Walton lt;calvin.wal...@kepstin.cagt; ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style The latter was true in all cases, as I recall. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/none-as-a-cat-tp3566370p3576890.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Calvin Walton-2 wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Quite common for small independents. For example: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/99f25dd0-837b-3682-bbb6-132b4255691e (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#, some without. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least five releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but one attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label). Yeah; in a some of these cases the barcode allocated this way seems to be for use in a particular store only, as an internal tracking number. I don't think it would be particularly useful to record this type of barcode, unless you can find the same number in use at multiple stores (Try just googleing the barcode number, and see if what else comes up.) -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style The latter was true in all cases, as I recall. Anyway, that's not difference from correcting a typo from the cover because it is corrected in the website: it could be reasoned and done afterwards. So I don't see how it is a problem… -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/none-as-a-cat-tp3566370p3576890.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
2011/6/6, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Calvin Walton-2 wrote: On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Quite common for small independents. For example: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/99f25dd0-837b-3682-bbb6-132b4255691e (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#, some without. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least five releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but one attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label). Yeah; in a some of these cases the barcode allocated this way seems to be for use in a particular store only, as an internal tracking number. I don't think it would be particularly useful to record this type of barcode, unless you can find the same number in use at multiple stores (Try just googleing the barcode number, and see if what else comes up.) -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style The latter was true in all cases, as I recall. Anyway, that's not difference from correcting a typo from the cover because it is corrected in the website: it could be reasoned and done afterwards. So I don't see how it is a problem… -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/none-as-a-cat-tp3566370p3576890.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least five releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but one attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label). Yeah; in a some of these cases the barcode allocated this way seems to be for use in a particular store only, as an internal tracking number. I don't think it would be particularly useful to record this type of barcode, unless you can find the same number in use at multiple stores (Try just googleing the barcode number, and see if what else comes up.) -- That might be the case sometimes, but more often what I have seen is that a product is released independently by the artist first, in small batches, and so they don't register a code or print it on the packaging. Later the release gets picked up by retailers who now need a code for their systems, and so an EAN is arranged ... it's just that the packaging already paid for doesn't get updated and so the barcode still doesn't appear. Sometimes you'll see the barcode pasted onto the overwrap of the packaging ... heck, I just entered a disc like that the other day. Even digital releases have EANs a lot of the time, but there's no place to print the barcode on the packaging :) Columbia House is one famous example of a place having their own barcode system that doesn't bare resemblance to any EAN. Off topic - I was wondering if in NGS, it might be appropriate to accept those barcodes now ... they are printed on the packaging, so anyone who tried to scan one could find it in MB... back to the topic at hand. Also, there is the case where the release came out originally a long time back, before barcodes were even used, and so there is obviously none on the original packaging. But, for popular releases that stay in print for a long time, the identical release might see barcodes appear on later pressings. We wouldn't want to keep those as separate release events, would we? It would be very difficult, if not impossible to determine when the barcode started appearing. I'm ok with adopting the [none] convention, by the way. Just trying to help clarify some corner cases we will have to deal with. Jeff ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
swisschris wrote: +1 having [none] as an option would make even more sense IMHO for the barcode field: lots of early or auto-produced or small label releases come without and this would spare us the time to search/ask for one where there isn't ;-) 2011/6/1 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren lt;reosare...@gmail.comgt; On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM, caller#6 lt;meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.comgt; wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Quite common for small independents. For example: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/99f25dd0-837b-3682-bbb6-132b4255691e (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#, some without. Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least five releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but one attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label). -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/none-as-a-cat-tp3566370p3568235.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Quite common for small independents. For example: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/99f25dd0-837b-3682-bbb6-132b4255691e (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#, some without. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least five releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but one attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label). Yeah; in a some of these cases the barcode allocated this way seems to be for use in a particular store only, as an internal tracking number. I don't think it would be particularly useful to record this type of barcode, unless you can find the same number in use at multiple stores (Try just googleing the barcode number, and see if what else comes up.) -- Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
All of the Daytrotter Session releases use Daytrotter.com as the label but have no cat#. On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Quite common for small independents. For example: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/99f25dd0-837b-3682-bbb6-132b4255691e (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#, some without. Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
+1 having [none] as an option would make even more sense IMHO for the barcode field: lots of early or auto-produced or small label releases come without and this would spare us the time to search/ask for one where there isn't ;-) 2011/6/1 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM, caller#6 meatbyproduct-musicbra...@yahoo.com wrote: On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#? If so, +1 Quite common for small independents. For example: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/99f25dd0-837b-3682-bbb6-132b4255691e (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#, some without. Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] [none] as a cat#?
I have numerous examples of small indie labels w/ no cat# (no UPC either, especially for anything prior to 1980 or so). +1 Rob.. On 6/1/2011 1:00 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like [none] to show the difference between this has no cat#, and I know that and I don't know if this has a cat#. Any opinions on the matter? __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 6172 (20110601) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
