Talk:Release/Catalog Number

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Discussion on Release Catalog Numbers

Re: point 3a

Was 3a ever decided anywhere in a RFV? luks and I went round and round on that very point for a long time on a 500 or so sized batch of releases for Varese Sarabande, as he didn't like the 3a approach. Additionally, 3a assumes it is for separate markets, whereas the dual cat #'s we ran into were for the same releases to the same market, with the same sole cat # on the liners (nearly impossible, for many, to determine which, without actual scans of each liner), just one cat # the internal company cat #, and the other the distribution company cat #. (VSD-5999 vs 302 065 999 2, for example, with the 5999 part being the same in each variant of the cat #). -- BrianSchweitzer 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • AFAIK, none of this was decided by a vote. It's just what I've noted as common/good practice from numerous release event edits. For the cases you've mentioned, I think it is best to use the "friendly" VSD codes, particularly if scans can be sourced, as the longer numerical version looks fairly similar to what I imagine is the barcode. In other words, choose option (b). --ArtySmokes
    • Well, more info :) Varese began using the MCA distribution system, and started using the 302 numbers. At the same time, they switched to using VSD- as their own prefix, rather than the other prefixes they had been using. (Lots more cat # breakdown in their listing's annotation here). So, beginning with VSD-5201 (the first VSD # used), all releases had both #'s. However, up through around VSD-6200, the liners almost always showed the VSD- number. Beginning around VSD-6000, they switched to using the 302 number on the liner, and around VSD-6200, they stopped always assigning 302 numbers, so for 6200-6500, all have 302 numbers, but not all had VSD- numbers. At 6500, they stopped using the VSD cat number system, and went solely to 302 numbers. (All of this, as well as the "we aren't sure which in that range did or didn't have both numbers" I confirmed by speaking to their archivist on the phone.) So, the compromise luks and I agreed on was to use VSD numbers for 5200-5999, and 302 numbers for 6000+. As it is now, the system just isn't built for dual cat #'s for a single event. If that is ever added, we agreed to go back and re-asses/research for the 6200-6500 range, to add in the secondary cat #s where needed. All of this, though, is a long winded way to say I don't think 3a is really the best solution. If there's a secondary cat #, until the system can support multiple cat #s for the same event, rather than making it appear as if there were 2 events, I would simply use one, and note the secondary cat # in the release annotation. Perhaps it even would be worth making a "Release events with multiple cat #'s" wikipage, like the other lists (Releases with pre-gap tracks, etc) for future follow up when the system can support the needed edits. -- BrianSchweitzer 11:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I like 3a)except wrt to duplicating the label, wouldn't it make more sense to use the distributors label for the distributors catalog no , they are still linked by barcode

e.g. label Blanco y Negro catalogno NEG66TE barcode 745099306700

label Warner Music catalogno 4509-93067-0 barcode 745099306700 -- ijabz

Re: point 3c

  • I'm in two minds about this one. If the same pressing is released in multiple countries it should have a 'region' release country (eg 'Europe'). I think by specifying particular countries as per the supplied cat#s we are 'creating' releases when in fact it's just the one? Not sure! --Gecks
    • I'll try and find a real world example at some point, as this was written quickly and off the top of my head. I'm not particularly keen on "region" releases, as different countries release things on different dates. Warner now tends to use the same cat for UK *and* Germany, but EMI definitely used "friendly" cat #s for the UK, particularly for releases on imprints like Food, while also listing CDP codes for other countries. --ArtySmokes

Re: point 4

  • I would say that we should always log the 'box' cat#, with the disc-specific cat# being an additional cat# for each disc (annotation..). IMO the box cat# is the most 'useful' because that's what people will be looking for most often. --Gecks
    • I do it the other way round because we list discs individually on MBz. In many cases the first disc matches the overall cat number anyway, as the second disc is a bonus disc, and the first disc may be sold separately. For the bonus discs, I think it is relatively important to list the specific cat number if it exists, as such discs are not always included in the package. This idea has not gained an overall consensus as yet and is discussed below. --ArtySmokes


ClutchEr2 reports that very recent CDs do not have a ReleaseCatalogNumber. Instead they use the BarCode without the trailing zero and 13th check digit number.

  • This is only partly true as far as I can tell. A lot of (small) labels still use internal catalog numbering, and I've also seen some labels using a smaller part of the barcode. Anyhow, this should be moved out from this page, as it pertains to ReleaseCatalogNumber, not to LabelCode. -- dmppanda 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a double CD release where each CD has a catalogue number, and the digipak has one. What to enter as catalogue number? --Zout

  • There has been some heated discussion about that earlier, and no consensus as far as I can tell. I would suggest, if the set catalog # and discs catalog # are really completely unrelated: use the *set* catalog # (eg: the unique catalog # for the box), and possibly mention in the annotation that the discs themselves have a different cat #. Although, I've seen cases where: CATALOG# for the set and CATALOG#-1 for disc 1, CATALOG#-2 for disc 2 etcetera. In this later case, I think using the *disc* catalog # makes sense. -- dmppanda 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)