Unknown - Placeholder labels for unidentified entities

Someone out there is probably keeping tabs of these but I thought I'd gather them all in a list and make them available for all s. While many of them have proper descriptions like "not a real manufacturer...", about half of them are still lacking profiles to describe what they are used for. If they have a profile I added the initial words, the rest simply states [No Profile].

Hoping someone finds this useful.

pinging some s
Unknown (ZZ) - Not a real manufacturer...

Relvet
Hoping someone finds this useful.

To me they have all seemed pretty pointless. Maybe of use to someone though.
I have wondered a few times

Many of these are the result of https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324

jweijde
Many of these are the result of https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324

Thanks for providing some historical context!

Seems like Lists would be the better way to group these releases, and these unknown "labels" should be disabled/DNU'd.

Pinging more s Romantus

star_man_20
Seems like Lists would be the better way to group these releases, and these unknown "labels" should be disabled/DNU'd.

Cheapens the (Label) currency allowing them and left alone they have a good chance of proliferating.

The problem with lists is that they aren't publicly editable.

Relvet
Unknown (SYM) - Not a real manufacturer

Comes with ifpi L201:
IFPI L201 - IFPI L210 VTCD IFPI 34xx Székesfehérvár, Hungary >> VTCD
[from http://wiki.redump.org/index.php?title=List_of_SID_codes]

I don’t know if all from this list are the same, but creating Placeholder because I don’t know / I don’t have time to investigate seems out of good practices > so maybe:

star_man_20
should be disabled/DNU'd.

(But I’m not a manufaturer specialist, so that’s just my 2 cents)

Also pinging more s: Fly-Box

Лицензионная Музыкальная Программа
Pinging schokh

Relvet
Unknown (IFPI L111) - [No Profile]

>> let’s just have IFPI L111 in BAOI

jweijde
Many of these are the result of https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324

Indeed and i find this good. There are made for grouping pirate releases with almost same matrix
Is obvious that the releases with this matrixes were made by same manufacturer
For example ABBC matrix by same manufacturer
Probably many from this list were made by 1 manufacturer. Who knows

I consider must stay and do not disable them

About [No Profile] i can do for all

Cheers

borderes
Unknown (Лицензионная Программа) …. Should probably go to Лицензионная Музыкальная Программа

+1 from me

Cl0ver
To me they have all seemed pretty pointless.

Clearly no. Was explained why are created - for grouping similare matrix of pirate releases
All must stay and profiles can be updated

2wings
Clearly no. Was explained why are created - for grouping similare matrix of pirate releases
All must stay and profiles can be updated

People are always entitled to their own opinion or there would be no point in a thread discussion.
An opinion is not saying you must follow. I do consider myself sentient.
Whatever is decided by the majority is fine by me. That is democracy.

Unknown (Limited Edition) - the series contain pro cd r metal releases issued in russia...

These two don't look valid.

2wings
Was explained why are created

That doesn't necessarily mean it is the best approach to take now, so more than valid for current discussion.

spekem
That doesn't necessarily mean it is the best approach to take now, so more than valid for current discussion.

Agreed, just more pseudo-label rubbish to be cleaned up later.

hafler3o
pseudo-label rubbish to be cleaned up later.

+1

spekem
That doesn't necessarily mean it is the best approach to take now

What would be a better approach then ?

jweijde
What would be a better approach then ?

Remove all of these 'Unknown' labels. If someone thinks they have information on how to identify a manufacturer based on matrix information, they can present it in a forum thread for peer review, then create a label page with a profile informing other s how to identify and credit the manufacturer.

If Discogs is a database, then it needs to be maintained like one.

Fly-Box
Is obvious that the releases with this matrixes were made by same manufacturer

Then who is the manufacturer? And how many of these other profiles might also be the same manufacturer? Was the manufacturing equipment owned by any others (previously or later)?

Creating 'Unknown' profiles is a misuse of label pages. And it's leaving behind a mess that others will have to clean up later.

star_man_20
And it's leaving behind a mess that others will have to clean up later.

I don't really see a mess here. There are only a few entries that are questionable. The bulk are OK and created according to the instructions from management in Forum Thread #392324

jweijde
The bulk are OK and created according to the instructions from management in Forum Thread #392324

What instructions?

Also, a lot of the above 'Unknowns' are "manufacturers" (pirate or otherwise). That is an ILLOGICAL stretch from being a pseudo-series.

As Opdiner said 12 years ago:

It's a matrix. Pretty much every matrix on every release has a clear pattern. That does not make them a series.

I haven't seen any instructions either.

UNKDelts
instructions

since for many moons you have been repeatedly blathering here that you no longer contribute to the database because it's too difficult for you to master, you can probably live without them....

jweijde
The bulk are OK and created according to the instructions from management in Forum Thread #392324

star_man_20
What instructions?

Unofficial/Counterfeit
+
Consistent matrix pattern
=
Unknown (XXX)
(where 'xxx' is a value from the matrix that is shared by all these releases)

star_man_20
Also, a lot of the above 'Unknowns' are "manufacturers" (pirate or otherwise). That is an ILLOGICAL stretch from being a pseudo-series.

How so ? The proposal for this method came from Discogs itself: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324#3636211

jweijde
How so ? The proposal for this method came from Discogs itself: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324#3636211

Note you and Nik say 'proposal'. A proposal is NOT an instruction. And it was pointed out how bad of an idea that proposal was in that thread. But it seems the majority of responders in that thread were good with Nik's proposal.

I wonder how many of Nik's other proposals and solutions have since been overturned by the community.

It would probably also benefit Discogs if discussions about pirate manufacturers (Russian or otherwise) had their own dedicated identification and discussion mega thread as opposed to these pseudo manufacturer labels.

CTDP = DADC, right?

Cousin_Mosquito
CTDP = DADC, right?

In this case, DADC (2), actually.
Also consider Sony DADC, Southwater (2)

Yeah I don't like it. Nuke em I say.

jweijde
What would be a better approach then ?

Firstly, don't create fake labels.

Not saying there is not an issue here that is in search of a solution BTW. It would be great to have a solution that can be agreed, but that is not always going to be possible.

star_man_20
Note you and Nik say 'proposal'. A proposal is NOT an instruction

The instruction can be deduced from the various posts in the thread. It's clear the whole thing is about grouping counterfeiters based on a matrix pattern.

spekem
Firstly, don't create fake labels

Management approved it in this case.

jweijde
jweijdeThe bulk are OK and created according to the instructions from management in Forum Thread #392324

star_man_20What instructions?

Unofficial/Counterfeit
+
Consistent matrix pattern
=
Unknown (XXX)
(where 'xxx' is a value from the matrix that is shared by all these releases)

star_man_20Also, a lot of the above 'Unknowns' are "manufacturers" (pirate or otherwise). That is an ILLOGICAL stretch from being a pseudo-series.

How so ? The proposal for this method came from Discogs itself: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324#3636211

This is 12 years old. It needs to be revisited.

jweijde
spekem
Firstly, don't create fake labels

Management approved it in this case.

And I'll say it again - this "decision" was made *12* years ago, most likely not as a professional database manager, but as what "seemed" right at the time. Many of these older rulings were not necessarily based on a complete understanding of databasing.

In any case, fake information should *never* be created. It creates a very bad precedence to make up info if you don't know how or what to credit something, or if it even gets a credit (see: Cedar, 99% of the time just the software used to clean up audio and has no real role).

Some of these even seem like a big stretch to include as any sort of "pattern", like the 5 digit one at the beginning of the list.

This info can go in a list, or be mentioned in the notes if it must be documented somehow.

Also, it seems like 99% of these could even just be found by searching the database correctly. No need to have a fake label profile to gather them if the search does already.

One last thing - we don't even know if these are even manufacturers or what role they actually had in the process. Making this list: https://www.discogs.sie.com/lists/US-CD-Manufacturing-Plants/556300

really showed how many different companies are involved and how many of the ones mentioned in the matrices did nothing more than act as a broker and had no hand in any part of the manufacturing other than placing the order.

disneyfacts
Some of these even seem like a big stretch to include as any sort of "pattern", like the 5 digit one at the beginning of the list.

Sure there are some questionable entries in the list. Doesn't mean they're all incorrect.

disneyfacts
This info can go in a list, or be mentioned in the notes if it must be documented somehow.

Problem with lists is that they're not publicly editable. Putting it in the release notes is pointless because it's already in another section.

disneyfacts
One last thing - we don't even know if these are even manufacturers or what role they actually had in the process.
[...]
many of the ones mentioned in the matrices did nothing more than act as a broker and had no hand in any part of the manufacturing other than placing the order.

Which is why the Manufactured By credit is used.

jweijde
Which is why the Manufactured By credit is used.

We don't even know that they did that. We don't know that it's an indicator for a company, for a customer, or just some random number/letter sequence they made up. It could be a date code. It could be a CD pressing machine code (ex: pressed on machine 1, pressed on machine 2). It could be like CEDAR, where they used the CEDAR program but the CEDAR company had no involvement other than selling them the software. It could be a stamper number. Maybe it's a randomly changing number scheme to avoid authorities. It could be the name of the "label" and not the manufacturer.

Point is, we have no idea what it means and there's no good way to create a linked profile for something that doesn't even exist.

jweijde
Problem with lists is that they're not publicly editable. Putting it in the release notes is pointless because it's already in another section.

If it's already in another section, it doesn't need a label profile then. But if *absolutely* necessary, a note could be added, with consistent language that allows you to search for these items.

But then again, not *everything* needs to be noted. Just because it's on the release doesn't mean it means anything.

jweijde
Sure there are some questionable entries in the list. Doesn't mean they're all incorrect.

They're all made up.

Bottom line, entities/labels should not be made up just because some pattern appears on an item.

disneyfacts
They're all made up.

+1

Current tally of responders of this thread on whether Unknown labels should exist:

Edit: see below for updated tally.

BaldGhost
UNKDeltsinstructionssince for many moons you have been repeatedly blathering here that you no longer contribute to the database because it's too difficult for you to master, you can probably live without them....

Wrong. I use the CIP forum for that.

star_man_20
Against:
star_man_20, 2wings, EzraZebra, disneyfacts

To be clear - I'm against.

spekem
star_man_20Against:
star_man_20, 2wings, EzraZebra, disneyfacts
To be clear - I'm against.

Tally updated.

No strong opinion from my part. Will go with whatever is decided.

star_man_20
Current tally of responders of this thread on whether Unknown labels should exist:

Yes, in favour of a majority vote.

However, I'm a +1 against these.

For me, most we cannot even point to certain fakes pretending to come from specific plants.
So, I feel we are likely promoting potential piracy by giving them credence. Seems to be OK on this site as capturing raw data, but I feel that this time could be better spent on genuine disc manufacturers.
Again, just my opinion and others are free to have theirs.

jweijde
Which is why the Manufactured By credit is used.

disneyfacts
We don't even know that they did that.

This is why the generic Manufactured By credit is used.

disneyfacts

We don't know that it's an indicator for a company, for a customer, or just some random number/letter sequence they made up. It could be a date code. It could be a CD pressing machine code (ex: pressed on machine 1, pressed on machine 2).[...]. It could be a stamper number. Maybe it's a randomly changing number scheme to avoid authorities. It could be the name of the "label" and not the manufacturer.

90+% of these are letter sequences, not numbers.

jweijde
Sure there are some questionable entries in the list. Doesn't mean they're all incorrect.

disneyfacts
They're all made up.

All I'm saying is that most of them are correct based on what's decided in that thread, and ed by management.

jweijde
This is why the generic Manufactured By credit is used.

It's not a generic credit. It's used where explicitly stated or where we know the entity had a role in the manufacturing process but not sure of the exact role. These matrices have no indication of what they are - it's like creating a profile based on the M1S1 on WEA manufactured CDs - not the manufacturer, appears on many different manufacturers items.

jweijde
All I'm saying is that most of them are correct based on what's decided in that thread, and ed by management.

We don't know that it's still ed by staff. Like I said before, it should be revisited, if necessary. It's bad catag to make up things.

disneyfacts
We don't know that there still is staff.

I've corrected that for you

jweijde
disneyfacts
We don't even know that they did that.

This is why the generic Manufactured By credit is used.

Let me make sure I understand your reasoning correctly:
"There is a common pattern to a few pirate matrices. We do not know what the pattern means. Let's assume the pattern indicates a company, and on that pattern basis we'll document them as the manufacturer of this CD."

No, that's an illogical use of an LCCN role.

For every existing legitimate manufacturer profile, a Discogs has had to research the history of the plant and provide examples of the manufacturer's matrix sets in a forum thread. We (other s) then peer review the information found, often with other s finding additional information and examples. All of the findings are used to validate (or invalidate) the creation of the manufacturer's profile. A profile is drafted for that agreed-upon manufacturer that informs all s on how they can identify and credit the manufacturer, and sometimes also additional details such as plant ownership history, information, website addresses, parent companies, etc etc etc.

Creating these Unknown profiles completely byes any peer review process and does nothing except group matrix sets by whatever one interprets is a commonality. That, to me, sounds like a list, not a label.

Diognes_The_Fox, can you give us an updated opinion from staff on these Unknown profiles?

star_man_20
Seems like Lists would be the better way to group these releases, and these unknown "labels" should be disabled/DNU'd.

That's my thought too. That's what I've been using lists for: https://www.discogs.sie.com/lists/Possible-Creative-Sound-Gallery-Releases/180413

star_man_20
Creating these Unknown profiles completely byes any peer review process and does nothing except group matrix sets by whatever one interprets is a commonality. That, to me, sounds like a list, not a label.

+1

Tally updated

star_man_20
spekemstar_man_20Against:
star_man_20, 2wings, EzraZebra, disneyfacts
To be clear - I'm against.

Tally updated.

+ 1 for Against

I'm against removing them
@ disneyfacts stop removing them until we have majority here

Also, why years back ago was correct and now not?

2wings
Also, why years back ago was correct and now not?

Because it's a terrible practice and experience has shown that. No one knows what those numbers mean, therefore you can't factually assign a role to them.

Half of these are a big stretch in any case and more are likely just initials of the artist/album title.

Staff has already said to not use them too.

Use a list if you want these documented.

disneyfacts i see what staff says.
But let's have a forum consensum for that
Now there's not a consensum in removing them

So stop removing until we have a majority for removing or staying

star_man_20
Tally updated

I am against the practice and for using lists.

2wings
disneyfacts i see what staff says.
But let's have a forum consensum for that
Now there's not a consensum in removing them

So stop removing until we have a majority for removing or staying

Current consensus is 8 against keeping these unknowns, 3 for keeping these unknowns.

disneyfacts
Because it's a terrible practice and experience has shown that. No one knows what those numbers mean, therefore you can't factually assign a role to them.

+1

2wings
But let's have a forum consensum for that
Now there's not a consensum in removing them

I'd say as soon as we identify an existing label that an Unknown profile's contents actually belongs under, the incorrect Unknown should immediately be emptied into the correct profile(s), such as Unknown (CTDP).

For the rest, waiting another week for additional Discoggers to weigh in won't hurt anymore, as long as no new Unknown profiles get made in the interim. However, based on the current consensus, I would strongly suggest that you start making some lists if you want to save the contents of the existing Unknown profiles.

2wings
I'm against removing them
@ disneyfacts stop removing them until we have majority here

+1

star_man_20
For the rest, waiting another week for additional Discoggers to weigh in won't hurt anymore, as long as no new Unknown profiles get made in the interim. However, based on the current consensus, I would strongly suggest that you start making some lists if you want to save the contents of the existing Unknown profiles.

Sounds good, though staff has already said to not use them. Luckily, there's a bug right now where old label profiles don't actually disappear, so it should be easy to make lists even if the profile is "gone"

Current tally of responders of this thread on whether Unknown labels should exist:

Against:
star_man_20, spekem, EzraZebra, disneyfacts, Cl0ver, Diognes_The_Fox, BaldGhost, Miki242, hafler3o, Earjerk

For:
jweijde, Fly-Box, 2wings, A.V.Topsy, Marc_BEL, F17T, Alexxx_CE, Don_Cupidon

Unstated, but statements sound like they don't like:
borderes

Whatever the majority decides:
Relvet (OP)

Unstated:
Cousin_Mosquito

disneyfacts

2wings
I'm against removing them
@ disneyfacts stop removing them until we have majority here

+1 for keeping
Was clearly explained and agreed for that back in time

For me, looks like someone hardly want to remove them even was explained and agreed why these 'unknown' were created
So do not rush in removing them

Other than collecting stamps can someone provide a solid reason for keeping these and how they are a benefit as I seem to bemissing someting.
Maybe time to ping some more of the more experienced contributors here.

Also that what may or may not have been agreed on in the mists of time does not proclude further discussion at a later date.

Marc_BEL
Was clearly explained and agreed for that back in time

The fact that the old agreement exists is not being disputed.

What is being discussed is whether these Unknown labels should still remain based on current label standards.

Cl0ver
Also that what may or may not have been agreed on in the mists of time does not proclude further discussion at a later date.

Agreed. We have the benefit of 12+ years of Discogs growth, knowledge and experience, and some things needed in the early years don't fit anymore with the current state of Discogs.

2wings
I'm against removing them

+1

2wings
I'm against removing them

+1

spekem
Firstly, don't create fake labels.

What do you think this is? Not fake?

star_man_20
In this case, DADC (2), actually.
Also consider Sony DADC (2) or Sony DADC, Southwater (2)

Where is your angry:

EzraZebra
Nuke em I say.

Cl0ver
That is democracy.

Double standards.

star_man_20
Unstated, but statements sound like they don't like:

I thought I was clear enough, pseudo rubbish that needs taking to the dump.

Alexxx_CE
Double standards.

I have no idea what you're saying or why you're quoting me.

Alexxx_CE
What do you think this is? Not fake?

We don't know if those numbers even mean anything or if they're tied to the manufacturer in any way. They very likely don't mean anything so they can't be traced back to the manufacturer or "label" that's distributing these.

As I said above, many of them are just initials of artists or album titles, or a huge stretch to include them on a profile (ex: Unknown (CD)... which probably just means compact disc and nothing else).

We document/link factual information here, we don't make up label names to group together things that may or may not be related. We don't do this for unknown manufacturers of legal CDs, so we shouldn't do it here.

2wings
all Not On Label (Artist Name) like Not On Label (Madonna) must go too

agreed, these entities have never appeared to have any real benefit to me

2wings
then KJF and all Not On Label (Artist Name) like Not On Label (Madonna) must go too

Sure, +1. The Not On Label (Artist Name) ones are a bit more useful/factual since they are all by the same artist, but I don't really care either way - I just use Not On Label regardless.

disneyfacts : we do not have to treat preferentially Unknown (MATRIX)
Not On Label (Artist Name) were created identical with same purpose as Unknown (MATRIX)

So all Unknown (MATRIX) + Not On Label (Artist Name) + KJF must go at same time. Are identical
Not to be treated preferentially

Or all or nothing. Personal preferences, clearly are not accepted on DiscoGS

2wings
disneyfacts : we do not have to treat preferentially Unknown (MATRIX)
Not On Label (Artist Name) were created identical with same purpose as Unknown (MATRIX)

So all Unknown (MATRIX) + Not On Label (Artist Name) + KJF must go at same time. Are identical
Not to be treated preferentially

Or all or nothing. Personal preferences, clearly are not accepted on DiscoGS

The difference is the Not On Label (artist name) ones are verifiably releases by that artist (whether official or unofficial), while Unknown (xxx), we don't actually know what those matrices mean.

Totally fine with getting rid of KJF and Not On Label (artist name) though.

disneyfacts : we do not have to treat preferentially Unknown (MATRIX)
Not On Label (Artist Name) were created identical with same purpose as Unknown (MATRIX)

So all Unknown (MATRIX) + Not On Label (Artist Name) + KJF must go at same time. Are identical
Not to be treated preferentially

Or all or nothing. Personal preferences, clearly are not accepted on DiscoGS

+1 for this. No personal preferences. All must go or nothing

2wings
So all Unknown (MATRIX) + Not On Label (Artist Name) + KJF must go at same time. Are identical
Not to be treated preferentially

Or all or nothing.

Fly-Box
2wings disneyfacts : we do not have to treat preferentially Unknown (MATRIX)
Not On Label (Artist Name) were created identical with same purpose as Unknown (MATRIX)

So all Unknown (MATRIX) + Not On Label (Artist Name) + KJF must go at same time. Are identical
Not to be treated preferentially

Or all or nothing. Personal preferences, clearly are not accepted on DiscoGS

+1 for this. No personal preferences. All must go or nothing

I do hope you understand what the difference is between the two though.

1. Not On Label (Artist Name) is in the actual guidelines. Unknown (xxx) is not. (RSG §4.4.2.).

2. For Not On Label (Artist Name), we know that these releases, for a fact, are by the artist named in the label. There's no disputing that. For Unknown (xxx), we don't know what those matrix values mean, or if they even mean anything significant. Creating a list allows you to document it without creating false info or creating a placeholder for something that never existed.

disneyfacts
1. Not On Label (Artist Name) is in the actual guidelines. Unknown (xxx) is not. (RSG §4.4.2.).

We can put this there

disneyfacts
2. For Not On Label (Artist Name)

disneyfacts
Totally fine with getting rid of KJF and Not On Label (artist name) though.

No preferential treatment

Marc_BEL
For me, looks like someone hardly want to remove them even was explained and agreed why these 'unknown' were created

Why ? When was discussed and helped the database

By the way. Why Relvet who started this is gone for here ?

Marc_BEL
By the way. Why Relvet who started this is gone for here ?

I have already stated I don't have an opinion on if they should stay or go. Read my initial post. I just thought it would be useful to gather all these profiles and make them visible for the community. Anything beyond that is out of my control.

Relvet
I have already stated I don't have an opinion on if they should stay or go.

This is impossible. You started this discussion.

Marc_BEL
Why ? When was discussed and helped the database

It doesn't help the database to have false information. None of these labels are based on factual information, only speculation on what they mean, if they mean anything.

Marc_BEL
This is impossible. You started this discussion.

Maybe you should read my initial post a third time.

The Unknown (XXX) profiles should stay, as nik decreed many years ago: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324#3636211

However, some of the profiles created above can be a mistake.
For example, in Unknown (S (2)). The 2nd profile has a detailed description how to distinguish "correct" CDs from mid 00s

But returning to other CDs in Paradise Lost - One Second. No evidence for linking to same profile.
In the case of Dr. Alban CD "S" appears to be an abbreviation for "Star Ltd." (pirate label that issued that CD).
While I agree that Revolter - Datamerica

So people who group CDs _only_ because of same letters in the matrix are wrong.
But if the matrix shows same pattern / design, as well as other elements of release appearance - then yes, they should be grouped under Unknown (XXX)

disneyfacts When you do mass edits without final approval in the thread, you look like a vandal who destroys 13 years of other peoples' work in a minute

star_man_20
Seems like Lists would be the better way to group these releases, and these unknown "labels" should be disabled/DNU'd.

It's a weird suggestion to use "lists'.
Lists are used for people's personal interests, like "sexy covers", "women wearing boots", "cats and dogs on cover" and so on...

While Matrix this is a technical thing (a manufacturer's "signature")

This is actually similar to a Graffity. Most graffity is illegal, so people can't sign their works using their real names. They often use abbreviations (like several CAP letters)

Similar in pirate business - they competed with other pirates, and wanted that their work could be distinguished from works of their rivals.
Not only by buyers, but also by the plants - the plant shouldn't confuse orders and send to a wrong client.
So they used these abbreviations.

For buyers the matrix also provided important information. For example DK & HB matrices from mid-00s offered quality copies, made from a CD (lossless) source, not MP3.

While with GB, MU you would get an uncompressed MP3 in most cases.

p.s. However also see my message above about incorrect linking. I agree that probably some people went too far in creating Unknown (XXX) profiles, and some profiles contain non-related CD from different decades or regions of the planet.

I think it's an interesting way to look for connections and clues. Some of these groupings *might* represent something meaningful. Many of them definitely will not. But it's mostly guesswork and databases aren't built on speculation.

+1 for removal.

Using lists for personal detective work, when needed, is a good suggestion.

Earjerk...
But it's mostly guesswork and databases aren't built on speculation.

Why it's a "guesswork" ? Many such profiles are definitely NOT guesswork.
For example, Unknown (DK)
These 2 have a known "activity period" (~ 2003-2006), all releases designed in same key (for example, many are digipaks re-designed into version for jewel case), and even like real labels, there 2 have a "taste" in music, and release artists of selected styles only.

So when you suggest to remove ALL such profiles, it's like a suggestion to ban Internet (or VPNs) only because SOME people use it for illegal activities.

I think in the tread https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324#3636211 enough arguments were already provided 13 years ago in favour of creating such profiles for releases with clear pattern.
Also nik's final suggestion was not challenged, everyone seemed to agree with that.

So I agree that SOME recently created profiles with questionable identity between releases should be removed,
but those long-running that stayed in the database during last 13 years, and existed for many years before that as XXX-Series (this was mentioned in the thread I mentioned above) - those sure must stay!

And an attempt to remove them is just vandalism, a try to destroy many years of people's work in a minute.
Similar to a "cancel culture" where people are "wiped out" from history or music scene only because of momentary political or cultural trends

Don_Cupidon
Similar to a "cancel culture" where people are "wiped out" from history or music scene only because of momentary political or cultural trends

That's an awfully dramatic statement considering these "profiles" are just compiling releases with segments of matrix strings that a deems related.

Don_Cupidon
Lists are used for people's personal interests, like "sexy covers", "women wearing boots", "cats and dogs on cover" and so on...

Lists can be used for anything, such as releases with segments of matrix strings that a deems related.

I have several for manufacturer oddity examples, and a few manufacturers I have been researching..... Wait.

star_man_20
That's an awfully dramatic statement considering these "profiles" are just compiling releases with segments of matrix strings that a deems related.

What's the proof that they are NOT related ?

Why should non-related pirate companies from random countries make CDs with "LXZ+sequental number" on matrix same year (in 2003) ?

Was it a sort of world-wide hype (like a tik-tok challenge) or a global pandemia (like corona) ?

Earjerk...
But it's mostly guesswork and databases aren't built on speculation.

If it's a guesswork, what should you say about Premier Toons ?

The profile says it's a "bootleg label based in the UK".

But anyone can challenge this. Label - who said so ? Do they have a web page ?
A Series ? But who said they are of same origin ? The design is so simple, that for example my designer can reproduce it in 10 minutes.
UK ? But what's the proof ? Ok, everyone bought these on htfr.com.. But what if these vinyls were made in some country with limited Internet access in early 00s. Like Albania or former Jugoslavia. In this case htfr.com could be just a reseller for UK, but it doesn't mean the product was made for UK.

And what about white label vinyl releases from UK ? Something like Liquid Aliens - Trip Toon / We Got To Jam
These have pure white labels without any info.
Some have pen/marker-written texts or stickers, which are not confirmed and could be easily made by a release submitter (image contributor) or previous owner.
And what we see? People add track names, artist names, and sometimes even label and cat# judging only on Matrix etchings.

But following your logic, the matrix etchings of given pattern mean nothing. Anyone can use them :)
Country = UK ? But is it written on release? Maybe it's China. Who knows - maybe like Pumping House (was invented by Klubbheads in Holland, but later developed in St. Petersburg, Russia and in Spain) the "UK" music was popular in China and released on vinyl there ? :)

And about artists and songs. People (contributors) claim that they have these songs on other (not "white label") releases, so they used the names (both artists and tracks) taken from there... Ok, but do you know that both artists and tracks can be renamed ?

For example the world-wide smash hit Global Playboys. They changed the name of the band when the track hit the radio-waves... So speaking of UK whitelabels - following your logic, all the info on them is JUST A GUESS, so they all should be added as "Unknown Artist - Untitled" with "Untitled" tracks on "Not On Label" with "none" cat# :) Or you disagree ?

Don_Cupidon
If it's a guesswork, what should you say about Premier Toons ?

The profile says it's a "bootleg label based in the UK".

It's a branded label with a consistent font/logo. No guesswork.

An isolated piece of text from a matrix doesn't narrow anything down enough to know if what we're seeing are releases from one specific label. Could be multiple labels which are unrelated other than the manufacturer. Or could be multiple labels/artists using the same brand of CD/CDr. We just don't have enough info there to know how, if at all, these are related.

star_man_20
Lists can be used for anything, such as releases with segments of matrix strings that a deems related.

Ok, let's go further and disable Styles.
You know, there's always a debate about styles.
For example, Drum & Bass fans distinguish NeuroFunk, TechStep, Intelligent... And on Discogs we have only D'n'B, which hurts some fans of this music.

So let's have LISTS for styles also!

Probably there already are, so now it's time to remove Style field (tags) from release data in order to restore peace in the galaxy.
I've seen a debate about a style for "2 Unlimited" album. Now the common opinion is to consider that music "Euro House", but some people want it to be "Techno", because the rapper Ray says "I'm making techno, and I'm proud" in the song.

Ok, now let's remove Styles from Discogs.
In this case those debating guys can make separate LISTS.
One makes a list for Techno, another one a list for Euro House.
Then the album can be added to both lists, so everyone can be happy!
Peace and no debates!

Don_Cupidon
So let's have LISTS for styles also!

You'd actually get more traction w this idea.

Earjerk...
It's a branded label with a consistent font/logo. No guesswork.

Ok, what about this one: Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bells II. Some s changed Year to 1999 because of "07/99" on Matrix.
I have this release and I can't see "1999" nowhere on it!
Both artwork and disc only mention "1992"

So let's edit the release date back to 1992. Because on Discogs we have NO GUESSWORK!

And one more example: SNA profile.
But isn't it a "guesswork" again ?

Why you ignore the clues on "Unknown (XXX)" matrices, but believe the info provided by Matrix on these 2 releases I mentioned ?

Earjerk...
It's a branded label with a consistent font/logo.

And about "consistent font/logo". Yesterday I had a debate with a about these releases: Madonna - Diamond Collection

You do not have to be an expert in design too see that their Matrices have consistent font/size/style

Earjerk...
You'd actually get more traction w this idea.

I understand that this idea will also have followers :) But why should we destroy what what working good for many years ?!
Discogs was always a bit "behind" in adding styles. Also they make some weird choices.
For example, they refuse to add "Russian Chanson" style. But recently added "Russian Pop".
But actually Russian Pop is the same as Ukrainian Pop, or Latvian Pop or whatever. Europop was Ok for all that.
While "Russian Chanson" is actually different from the Chanson known worldwide. In Russia it's a mixture of Urban Ballad with a Crime Song. It's the most popular style among people who were in prison (or will go there soon), like Gangsta Rap in US... At the same time, AFAIR, Chanson from is not a music about crime...

Ok, but those delays and wrong choices are not a reason to get rid of Styles, IMHO.

You know, it's not good to try to change "everything" that was working good (but with small flaws) for many years.
It's better to fix the flaws, than drop/destroy the whole thing.

Don_Cupidon


Lists are used for people's personal interests, like "sexy covers", "women wearing boots", "cats and dogs on cover" and so on...

Good list reference IMHO

Earjerk...
We just don't have enough info there to know how, if at all, these are related.

Actually the meaning of these "abbreviations" is NOT a mystery, as many people think.
They indicate the owner of the pressing - the person (or the company) who paid to the plant to have the CDs pressed.

You know, with official CDs you will hardly have a case where same album with same label is requested by different clients at the same time.
So it's easy for the plant not to confuse orders of different clients.

And speaking of pirates - when a new album of a popular band (like U2) is released, every pirate company requests it.
So all discs will have same label logo (like "Island"), same name, same copyright texts scanned from official CD.
In such case the best solution against confusing orders is to have the client's name in the matrix.

In Russia and CIS the name of a person in a document consists of 3 words - name, family name, father's name.
So the easiest abbreviation is of 3 letters, like LXZ.
But in ordinary life people usually mention only name / family name - 2 words. In this case a 2-letter abbreviation will work, for example DK

As piracy is a crime, careful people won't use real names. In this case they can use JOPA (it's a curse word: ass, back) or XXX (an abbreviation known worldwide).

NSK (2) is an abbreviation of Novosibirsk. This company is not "Unknown" - because they openly worked under brand "NSK" on grey market.

I also see "MINSK" mentioned above - that's a capital of Belarus

Often the word on matrix is an abbreviation of a label name. For example, Balalayka Records
Because it's a verified fact that BAL on matrix (for CDs from Russia) is an abbreviation for Balalayka Records
Same about MOFR - this abbreviation stands for Monsters Of Rock (who started in 2001, but are still active in 2025)

p.s. So there's no need to remove the "Unknown", where a consistent font/size/style/exists !
Maybe soon we will find what the abbreviation means (like we did with NSK, BAL and MOFR) and in this case will just move the items to a "more correct / exact" profile.

Don_Cupidon
Actually the meaning of these "abbreviations" is NOT a mystery, as many people think.
They indicate the owner of the pressing - the person (or the company) who paid to the plant to have the CDs pressed.

Do you have any proof? Why would they, a pirate company, leave anything on the item itself that could be traced back to them or the client?

Could one label contract with multiple manufacturers who then use the same matrix scheme? Who's to say all these manufacturers have that exact policy?

Don_Cupidon
NSK (2) is an abbreviation of Novosibirsk. This company is not "Unknown" - because they openly worked under brand "NSK" on grey market.

They're in the matrix perhaps, but we have no idea what role they have. Could be the customer, could be the pressing plant, could be the person they obtained the "masters" from. We have no idea, so we can't credit them with a role. We can't guess at what their role is either.

Don_Cupidon
careful people won't use real names.

So how do we know that anything in the matrix truly indicates a company?

Don_Cupidon
Often the word on matrix is an abbreviation of a label name. For example, Unknown (Bal-Neo) "Unknown (Bal-Neo)" - this profile is a mistake, and should be merged with Balalayka Records
Because it's a verified fact that BAL on matrix (for CDs from Russia) is an abbreviation for Balalayka Records
Same about MOFR - this abbreviation stands for Monsters Of Rock (who started in 2001, but are still active in 2025)

Based on known information, things like this can be credited with something like Record Company, where it's verified that "Bal-Neo" appears on Balalayka Records releases and it can be reasonably assumed that something with that matrix was issued by that company. But there's no proof of their involvement beyond Record Company or Label status.

Don_Cupidon
p.s. So there's no need to remove the "Unknown", where a consistent font/size/style/exists !

Just because they share some patterns doesn't mean they're made by the same people. In the US for example, many unassociated pressing plants used the same companies to print their labels.

Don_Cupidon
Maybe soon we will find what the abbreviation means (like we did with NSK, BAL and MOFR) and in this case will just move the items to a "more correct / exact" profile.

When we find the actual label name/role/etc, we can document it then. Not make up fake names/profiles for things that may or may not actually exist.

Here's another good example of using a list for this type of issue: https://www.discogs.sie.com/lists/Wavy-K-symbol-printer-on-Disneyland/1604886

Many records on the Disneyland label have a wavy K symbol in the corners of the cover. This is a symbol a jacket printer/manufacturer would put on the things they printed. However, we don't know who this printer is. We wouldn't create a profile "Unknown (K)" or a "K (188)" type profile to document this because neither are correct. But I have it in the list and when we find out who the printer is, these subs can be updated, correctly, one time.

I hope it makes sense that "Unknown (xxx)" is a bad practice because there are too many unknowns involved that are likely intentional. Without more solid facts, we cannot credit those companies with anything.

I the Unknown (XXX).
AFAIK nik was a truly involved and wise manager, and all his decisions and recommendations were deeply thought out. So there is no need to review all his decisions just for the sake of reviewing something.

As for

disneyfacts
Why would they, a pirate company, leave anything on the item itself that could be traced back to them or the client?

- why shouldn't they ?

Russian revolutionaries used pseudonyms - for example, Ulyanov signed as Lenin, Dzhugashvili - as Stalin. This way they lost some confidentiality, but working completely anonymously they would never have gained authority.

In the pirate market authority is important. Like everywhere else, where people compete for a larger customer base.

disneyfacts
But there's no proof of their involvement beyond Record Company or Label status.

Speaking of NSK and Balalayka Records, when they are mentioned on release only by an abbreviation in the matrix, it was also agreed in the forums to link them as "Record Company". For example there's a thread about popular https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/339560#3187919

Like with "SM", the proof was the catalogues available on pirate wholesale sites, distributed as XLS files.
Now most people know pirate company KIVI, as their current catalogue is easy to find using popular search engines.
Somewhere on my computer I have same files for NSK. These were from their "last days", but still it contains (and proves) many items currently added under NSK (2) profile.

The front man of NSK is Igor. He previously communicated with clients directly on a Russian site for wholesale traders.
I sourced his phone from the site and even spoke with him many years ago. But nothing happened from that, as he didn't have interest in the project I was thinking of.

disneyfacts
Just because they share some patterns doesn't mean they're made by the same people.

Why would non-related people use the same fonts / styles / design ?

The probability of such random coincidences is 0.

If on a distant planet the aliens will look exactly the same as humans - this can be only because they are the product of the same project by God or more advanced aliens.

disneyfacts
But I have it in the list and when we find out who the printer is, these subs can be updated, correctly, one time.

You remind me of people who suggest to ban Darwin theory completely only because of the several "missing links" and because of "fake missing links" which some abs of the Darwin theory created.

I understand that some of your arguments have weigh, but there are much more arguments in of the Unknown (XXX), already provided in the topic featuring https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324#3636211
So I don't see any reason to reconsider the decision made by nik.
However I agree with previous speakers who stated that this "Unknown" thing was abused in recent years, so some of the recently created profiles need review and some should be disbanded.

If you're eager to do this work, you can start here by mentioning the profiles you think are fake or are a mistake - an explain why you think so. I suggest starting with the most obvious cases.

yura-v
AFAIK nik was a truly involved and wise manager, and all his decisions and recommendations were deeply thought out. So there is no need to review all his decisions just for the sake of reviewing something.

Sure, but most of the staff were figuring it out as they went along - I don't know of any staff who actually have real life data management experience beyond what they've done here. Just because he decided something then doesn't mean it needs to stand by default - when you find new data, you adjust your standards to match best practices.

yura-v
- why shouldn't they ?

Russian revolutionaries used pseudonyms - for example, Ulyanov signed as Lenin, Dzhugashvili - as Stalin. This way they lost some confidentiality, but working completely anonymously they would never have gained authority.

In the pirate market authority is important. Like everywhere else, where people compete for a larger customer base.

I would assume most pirate companies wouldn't want authorities tracing things back to them easily. That's a good way to easily get shut down.

yura-v
Why would non-related people use the same fonts / styles / design ?

The probability of such random coincidences is 0.

They simply used the same printing company or something similar. It's seen with genuine releases too, going all the way back to when records were first being made.

yura-v
I understand that some of your arguments have weigh, but there are much more arguments in of the Unknown (XXX), already provided in the topic featuring nik: https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/392324#3636211
So I don't see any reason to reconsider the decision made by nik.

When you get new information or gain more experience, it's good to reevaulate practices to see if they're actually useful. 12 years of experience here plus 10 years experience in libraries tells me that Unknown (xxx) is a poor practice that introduces false information based of guesswork and conjecture.

yura-v
If you're eager to do this work, you can start here by mentioning the profiles you think are fake or are a mistake - an explain why you think so. I suggest starting with the most obvious cases.

They all are. Names shouldn't be made up for things that may not even exist. Guesswork and conjecture can be captured in lists until something about them is definitively proven with a real name. Where else would you think it's ok to make up names and still rely on the data?

yura-v
I the Unknown (XXX).
AFAIK nik was a truly involved and wise manager, and all his decisions and recommendations were deeply thought out. So there is no need to review all his decisions just for the sake of reviewing something.

And that was never codified or added to the actual guidelines for how many years now?

Not to mention he no longer works here, or even contributes AFAIK. He definitely doesn't contribute in the forum discussions, unless it's under a different . Haven't heard a peep for years.
There's too many stray guidelines for anyone to keep track of.

disneyfacts
I would assume most pirate companies wouldn't want authorities tracing things back to them easily. That's a good way to easily get shut down.

Well, do you think secret agent "007" wanted to be shut down ? :)

No, but he was a sort of a "front man" for British intelligence. The enemies didn't know his real name, but they new that "007" is a wrong person to mess with :)

Ok, I know that "007" didn't exist in real life. While pirate companies do. They sometimes use various fake brands like Tornado Records (4), but often they prefer not to create their own artworks, just copy and slightly edit the already existing official ones (which takes less work). This is what the company standing under "LXZ" did.

The use of the LXZ abbreviation provided recognition while maintaining anonymity. Similar to "007" (also 3 symbols)

disneyfacts
Guesswork and conjecture

Well, as other explained above, adding tracklists and artists for whitelabels is aslo "guesswork" - because even if the track sounds similar to the one you have on official CD release, you can't be sure it's the same track or artist,
As demo tracks are often renamed for final official release, artists also can "adjust" their name.

A lot of data on Discogs is a result of some "research" or "home detective work" :) For example, many releases have misspelled / misprinted artists, or wrong data printed, or people actually performing on release not the ones mentioned.
A lof of valuable data was added on Discogs as a result of some "detective work".
Do you suggest to delete all that data too ?

As was written above many times, all or most of the "old" (created 12 or so years ago) "Unknown (XXX)" profiles were created as a result of some research. People compared not only abbreviations on matrix, but many other features, such as design of CDs and artworks, font / size used, designer habits and many more.

disneyfacts
They simply used the same printing company or something similar.

We are speaking of similarities of CD matrix design - and you mention printing companies.
This is wrong direction, because for example in the 90s CDs for ex-USSR were often made in one place (Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic), while artworks were made in another (for example, locally)

disneyfacts
when you find new data, you adjust your standards to match best practices.

Speaking of science, that's correct.
But please let us know what "new data" you have researched, that makes you sure nik's decision was wrong.
Have you performed an investigation that is deeper than performed by nik or contributors to those "unknown" profiles ?
Sorry, but I can't see any...