Olyphant company numbers to LCCN per profiles

I've been adding lccn numbers for Cinram, Olyphant, PA in late 2003.

I should have announced this before I began this edit project but I'm doing it now. As far as I can tell, there is nothing "wrong" with adding these numbers and removing erroneous release dates prior to 1996 for these plants.

There are a number of releases in the Olyphant profiles that are/were dated well before 1997. One such example, Specialty Records Corporation when the company (based in Olyphant, PA) was named as such.

Another, which needs to be changed is: Fleetwood Mac - Tango In The Night

I've also been fixing/linking unlinked credits in the process, updating SID tag dropdowns, etc. And I've added "wea mfg. OLYPHANT" to the matrix string when it is clearly seen in images but not in the matrix string.

If a has an issue, with any of these edits please comment here.

Aside from the fact that it's sort of confusing that you've started a thread when we had one going already, there does appear to be some confusion about the exact transition dates for the plant. See celluarsmoke's post here: http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/402349#6980963

Out of consideration if I had wanted to make an edit to another 's submission, I would send them a PM or add a submission note prior to making an edit; however this may be an impractical approach.

As I mentioned in the other thread http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/402349?page=1#6980963,

oceanographer
The issue at hand seems that a unilateral decision has been made on how to interpret the LCCN data into a chronological history and therefore reorganize each entry according to the Olyphant catalog number. It is quite plausible but no one to my knowledge in the Discogs community has every discussed utilizing this data in such a way.

I do not know exactly how many edits have been done so far without properly discussing these changes to the database or on submission pages. I work hard on getting all the details right to the best of my knowledge and then see changes made that are theoretical in practice.

oceanographer
Out of consideration if I had wanted to make an edit to another 's submission, I would send them a PM or add a submission note prior to making an edit.

I apologize oceanographer. This would be very hard to do on every edit. I understand your frustration. Hopefully I have addressed any issues with your submissions.

Regarding mastering/pressing release sequence of wea mfg. Olyphant, it seems to me that a linear timeline is emerging for each of the sequential strings W, X, Y & Z. Kinda helps get a 'feel' at least for approximate pressing dates. I know some folks consider this dangerous, but to me it's interesting/helpful.

One danger of this sort of mass edit "per the company profile" is... what if some aspect of the profile that is being used to "prove" the action is in error? Then that error, rather than being confined to the profile page, becomes propagated over numerous releases.

And what are we to make of contradictory evidence such as this?

I believe all that article means is that WEA built a CD manufacturing facility in Olyphant, PA. From its inception until sometime in 1996 it was known as Cinram, Olyphant, PA.

brianvy
I've been adding lccn numbers for WEA Mfg. Olyphant & Cinram, Olyphant, PA according to the company profiles. Per the profiles, WEA Mfg. Olyphant was in existence from 1997-2003 (although I believe late 1996 is more plausible). It then became Cinram, Olyphant, PA in late 2003.

I should have announced this before I began this edit project but I'm doing it now. As far as I can tell, there is nothing "wrong" with adding these numbers and removing erroneous release dates prior to 1996 for these plants.

There are a number of releases in the Olyphant profiles that are/were dated well before 1997. One such example, Various - Great Speeches Of The 20th Century, was dated 1991 and per these company profiles as they currently stand, that date is simply impossible. So I correctly (it seems to me) cleared the release date, as it would be impossible for this WEA Mfg. Olyphant pressing to be released in 1991. I also added "Reissue" since this exact pressing must have been released well after 1991. Based on all these entries I've seen, that release was almost certainly first pressed in 1991 by Specialty Records Corporation when the company (based in Olyphant, PA) was named as such.

Another, which needs to be changed is: Fleetwood Mac - Tango In The Night

I've also been fixing/linking unlinked credits in the process, updating SID tag dropdowns, etc. And I've added "wea mfg. OLYPHANT" to the matrix string when it is clearly seen in images but not in the matrix string.

If a has an issue, with any of these edits please comment here.

Talk about leading a sad existence, even working on entries on Thanksgiving. A day that should be spent with family or even volunteering one's time for the less fortunate.

As I previously pointed out, if you don't own a title and are trying to change information you cannot prove, just to change it based on what you believe to be correct is wrong. You should leave it well alone. Case in point, that dashboard confessionals music club repress that I submitted. 99% sure you don't own it based on trying to change matrix info to what you want it be vs. what it actually is. It's an OOP title, a music club version (no more club editions, hallelujah) and this forum post just corroborates my hunch how you're trolling along making mass edits trying to make yourself seem important or something along those lines.

I don't claim to be the best contributor or know everything. I've earned a few new things this past week, in fact. Most of what I have are RP's and in the case concerning many of my earlier contributions, I was unsure as to how that aspect of the matrix should be handled (the guidelines are lacking in this regard).

No, that's definitely uncalled for. You don't need to be insulted for your attempts to make the data better.

Owning a release is not a prerequisite to adding information.

^ that's true, however a consensus THEN a mass update is what is required here, not just a mass update and a thread.
We've already had this conversation and brianvy has his heart in the right place so I'm no longer going to quibble about it.

cellularsmoke
No, that's definitely uncalled for. You don't need to be insulted for your attempts to make the data better.

Owning a release is not a prerequisite to adding information.

+1

dreeat
^ that's true, however a consensus THEN a mass update is what is required here, not just a mass update and a thread.

+1 to that.

chromedigi
+1 to that

It seems a thread should have been started first... But what is the consensus needed? I've added LCCN & made changes to entries per the existing company profile. Consensus has already been reached AFAICT. Is it possible to move on to the data at this point? Please see the side discussion linked in the 2nd post above.

brianvy
LevisGuy569Talk about leading a sad existence
I appreciate your commentary on my so-called "sad existence". But is this at all relevant to this discussion?

Just so the community knows, this also sent me commentary which included:
"Hey Moron, Yeah, you in the stupid. Don't change entries you don't own." along other degrading language such as the enlightened phrase "keep your filthy dick skinners off of it". Should I have to put up with this?

you obviously didn't read the entire post or failed to grasp the point.

your extension of "gratitude" or sarcasm for that matter is unnecessary. I brought the same qualm to your attention previously and apparently you chose to ignore it. if you're going to attempt to quote someone, then do it correctly instead of paraphrasing it in some feeble attempt to gain sympathy.

you don't own the Cinram repress of Interpol's Turn on the Bright Lights. If you did you would not have arbitrarily decided where you think certain information contained in the matrix string should go instead of where its's specifically placed.

You don't own the BMG Direct music club edition of that Dashboard Confessionals repress. If you did, you wouldn't have tried to change the information from being an RP to an original pressing.

Add that to the countless other titles that you took it upon yourself to amend.

I appreciate the vote of confidence regarding the quality/thoroughness/accuracy of my contributions to the database, but it should be relegated to someone who can corroborate what is added/edited/submitted, etc.

Note the key usage of the word - should, used to provide a recommendation, not a demand or a command.

brianvy
Consensus has already been reached AFAICT.

I can't say I see a solid consensus forming as yet, though you continue to charge ahead performing these edits (I got notices for some 18 that I own so far today alone - a typical day for me in this mass edit). What's the rush?

I remain skeptical of this entire procedure, and would like to see more input from the community regarding its validity. There are rational causes for concern, and if damage is potentially being done, it is entirely reasonable to put the project on hold until the project is vetted.

Not many folks have weighed in here, in this thread that you forked from the original one on this topic. I would very much like to see more input from the larger community. At the very least, if there does emerge something like a satisfying consensus, perhaps those of us who are made to feel nervous by this thing will get over it. I'm open minded, but not satisfied at the moment.

LevisGuy569
you don't own the Cinram repress of Interpol's Turn on the Bright Lights. If you did you would not have arbitrarily decided where you think certain information contained in the matrix string should go instead of where its's specifically placed.

You don't own the BMG Direct music club edition of that Dashboard Confessionals repress. If you did, you wouldn't have tried to change the information from being an RP to an original pressing.

Go ahead and link those releases so the community can have a look at the changes I made which entitled you to resort to language like "keep your filthy dick skinners off of it". I'm more than happy to discuss each submission publicly. I still think your interpretation of the data on that crappy Cinram, Olyphant, PA repressing?

chromedigi
I can't say I see a solid consensus

At this point I'm just adding LCCN per the various Olyphant profiles. Is this a problem? If s have an issue with a specific submission I'm inviting them here. What is your complaint?

Here is a perfectly typical edit I'm making based on the Olyphant profiles/submission images. I cannot see how this is not an improvement of the data and is not in complete compliance with the guidelines:
Coo Coo Cal Feat. Koffee Brown & Midwikid - How Does It Feel To Ya

More typical examples:
Local H - Half-Life E.P.

Or:
Built To Spill - Sabonis Tracks

Or a slightly more complicated entry like these:
Tori Amos - Silent All These Years

brianvy
At this point I'm just adding LCCN per the various Olyphant profiles.

This is not true. You are doing more than simply adding pressing #s to LCCN. You are making inferences and altering other data based on these inferences.

brianvy
Is this a problem?

Yes.

brianvy
What is your complaint?

1) Edits based on inferences. LevisGuy569 indicates that matrices are being edited not according to what is actually on release.
2) Edits based on company profile pages, a process I'm not sure I find trustworthy.
3) Process. Both the guidelines and a pinned thread explain how to go about doing these things.

chromedigi
You are doing more than simply adding pressing #s to LCCN. You are making inferences and altering other data based on these inferences.

Please give concrete examples instead of generic comments like this.

chromedigi
1) Edits based on inferences. LevisGuy569 indicates that matrices are being edited not according to what is actually on release.

And based on the way LevisGuy569 talks to of the community you trust his perception?
On Interpol - Turn On The Bright Lights, there was no "CI" in the matrix BaOI string on a repressing he submitted. However he stated there was a "CI" in the matrix in the submission notes. I entered it into the matrix & he was super pissy (using completely inappropriate language, etc.) because I put it in the wrong place.

chromedigi
2) Edits based on company profile pages, a process I'm not sure I find trustworthy.

I almost find this complaint unfathomable since this is the entire point of profiles on this site.

chromedigi
3) Process. Both the guidelines and a pinned thread explain how to go about doing these things.

I hope I've addressed this by opening this thread and actively participating in the discussion. I'm honestly only concerned about bettering the data. I assume that is true with all of us.

The main point of opening this thread goes beyond just announcing your mass edit. The announcement does not justify your actions. What needs to be discusses is if the mass edit will be sanctioned by the Community. This would mean for the time being that date editing cease -even if the dates are impossible for the questioned submission or seem obvious to you. Even the pre-1996 dates should be taken under higher scrutiny as they are still inter-connected to these events.

It is your job to persuade us through proof and consensus. Besides a hunch or deductive reasoning, please give us solid evidence on the data chronology

From your other post, certainty has not been your strong suit (related to these posts):

brianvy
I don't know for sure but

from http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/402349?page=1#6980963

brianvy
it seems to me that a linear timeline is emerging for each of the sequential strings W, X, Y & Z

brianvy
Kinda helps get a 'feel' at least for approximate pressing dates. I know some folks consider this dangerous, but to me it's interesting/helpful.

In the Community we like (need) the following:
-Links to resources ing your claims
-Links to other threads that discuss your claims or
-Useful information shared by other community

The details should be clear enough that anyone on Discogs can actually understand and put them into practice. These details should also become part of the Company profile pages before continuing on.

Thanks for actively helping to convince us and resolve our questions.

oceanographer
This would mean for the time being that date editing cease -even if the dates are impossible

If the date is impossible and it is not possible to deduct it, it should be removed. Brian should have started this thread earlier to announce his intentions, but most of what he has done here has been correct.

Discussing "CI" pressings with dates before the Cinram takeover would be a complete waste of energy. What would be the benefit? Do you have evidence of time travel? Be realistic.

http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=7428882#latest had a date prior to the Cinram take-over of a few months.

"By the pressing sequence (I know you're not a fan) this is circa 2005." was left as a comment so I changed it to '2003' rather than leaving it blank or changing it to 2005 since the community does not have proof of a chronology pattern that establishes release dates per matrix data for these pressings. Besides asking the Doctor, how I am to know in the future when to leave a release date blank when the dates are this close to the original pressing without any guidance on the profile pages. X22733 would not validate this date as a 2003 release, 2005 release or blank. Only brianvy seems to have this knowlege.

oceanographer
Only brianvy seems to have this knowledge.

That seems disingenuous. Look, I don't "know" anything more than anyone else. But I'm looking at the data as it is presenting itself from the work I've been doing and I see a certain "pattern". Also, I'm not adding dates to things based on putative pressing dates. I've only suggested that a certain issue date doesn't fit the pressing sequence. That is all.

There is an inference that I'm doing a lot more with dates than I really am. I've mostly made comments on these subs after adding LCCN and seeing where it fits in the grand scheme.

Eviltoastman
Discussing "CI" pressings with dates before the Cinram takeover would be a complete waste of energy. What would be the benefit? Do you have evidence of time travel? Be realistic.

I have cleared dates and added "Repress" if there is a CI in the matrix and the issue date is pre-2003. Again, this is all just normal (I would think perfectly acceptable) editing based on the profiles.

Eviltoastman
Brian should have started this thread earlier to announce his intentions

Regarding this, my intentions weren't clear when I started and then became curious about Olyphant LCCN sequences. oceanographer suggested I start a thread. I should have even started it sooner. Here we are.

My apologies if you think I am being disingenuous.

From comments that I have read in these threads I have an impression that very few people know how you calculate this data (maybe just me?). Yes W's, X's, Y's & Z's seem to fall into certain date schemes that apparently you have deduced. If others understood these date I think there would be less resistance to updating the profile and allowing your edits.

Good luck with your endeavors. I will just wait for an outcome. Best

I apologize. It does seem like you're genuinely interested. I'll try to come up with some broad-stroke Olyphant sequence ranges tomorrow. If nothing else it will be fodder for discussion. Haha. Cheers.

Ranges? I'd avoid that and only credit the matrix to the company if mentioned.

For instance "WEA Olyphant X81216 CI" would not mean this nonsense:
Glass Mastered By WEA Olyphant - X81216
Pressed By Cinram - X81216
I've seen that done and will be unpicking those as soon as I can (not you Brian). For one the thing relates specifically to the authoring of the master, so the cat# in no way belongs to the solitary pressed by creditee™. If there was one entity involved all along and is meant in a general way, then fine (as they are holistic and the cat will belong to them), but where the roles are split as in these cases, adding the cat# to Cinram would be completely wrong and using ranges (guesses) to do so are not in order and in such cases, the number must remain in the baoi.

brianvy
LevisGuy569you don't own the Cinram repress of Interpol's Turn on the Bright Lights. If you did you would not have arbitrarily decided where you think certain information contained in the matrix string should go instead of where its's specifically placed.

You don't own the BMG Direct music club edition of that Dashboard Confessionals repress. If you did, you wouldn't have tried to change the information from being an RP to an original pressing.
Go ahead and link those releases so the community can have a look at the changes I made which entitled you to resort to language like "keep your filthy dick skinners off of it". I'm more than happy to discuss each submission publicly. I still think your interpretation of the data on that crappy Dashboard Confessional - MTV Unplugged v2.0 club edition release is uned. Why is this a Cinram, Olyphant, PA repressing?

chromedigiI can't say I see a solid consensus
At this point I'm just adding LCCN per the various Olyphant profiles. Is this a problem? If s have an issue with a specific submission I'm inviting them here. What is your complaint?

brianvy
I'll try to come up with some broad-stroke Olyphant sequence ranges tomorrow. If nothing else it will be fodder for discussion.

Based on looking at the pressing sequence, here are some observations:

"W" pressings:
W1-W4xx: approx 1996
W4xx-W20xx: approx 1997
W20xx-W42xx: approx 1998
W43xx-W46xx: approx 1999
W48xx-W67xx: approx 2000

"X" pressings:
X1-X9xx: approx 1996
X10xx-X38xx: approx 1997
X39xx-X65xx: approx 1998
X66xx-X102xx: approx 1999
X103xx-X141xx: approx 2000
X143xx-X171xx: approx 2001
X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002
X186xx-X215xx: approx 2003

I know this is "dangerous" but as an example of a pressing date that does not make sense & appears quite unlikely is:
Pet Shop Boys - Bilingual
This is currently dated 1996 with sequence # X11400, but 2000 is much more likely.

Or:
Björk - Hyper-ballad
This is currently dated 1996 with sequence # X16105, but 2001 is much more likely.

I am not advocating replacing the 1996 dates with the later dates, I'm only suggesting the current (very unlikely) release dates should probably be cleared. This is only a suggestion...

oceanographer
Besides asking the Doctor, how I am to know in the future when to leave a release date blank when the dates are this close to the original pressing without any guidance on the profile pages. X22733 would not validate this date as a 2003 release, 2005 release or blank. Only brianvy seems to have this knowlege.

We do not take dates from matrix numeric ranges, period. This has been discussed over and over and over again. If the date is in doubt we leave it blank. That is what the Guidelines say to do. Anything else is imposing your own standards.

Speaking of imposing your own standards, you are now demanding that logos in the matrix be interpreted as text and transcribed to lccn. Where do the Guidelines suggest such a thing? Where to they encourage it? Huge clue: they don't and that demand is out of line.

See: http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=2415056#latest

Fauni-Gena
We do not take dates from matrix numeric ranges, period. This has been discussed over and over and over again. If the date is in doubt we leave it blank. That is what the Guidelines say to do. Anything else is imposing your own standards.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm not suggesting taking dates from matrix numeric ranges. I was very clear to address that specifically when I said "I am not advocating replacing the 1996 dates with the later dates, I'm only suggesting the current (very unlikely) release dates should probably be cleared. This is only a suggestion...".

Fauni-Gena
Speaking of imposing your own standards, you are now demanding that logos in the matrix be interpreted as text and transcribed to lccn. Where do the Guidelines suggest such a thing? Where to they encourage it? Huge clue: they don't and that demand is out of line.

I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm not "imposing my own standards". I just know that the text/logo is there but it's not entered in your matrix string. And (I may be wrong) but I thought we entered the entire matrix string? Many people (again I didn't make this up) enter this logo as ['wea mfg OLYPHANT' logo]. Do whatever you want. Again, I'm not "demanding" anything.

For example:
http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/690110
http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/387469

The first link is especially relevant. Seems like you're pretty angry and I don't see justification for it...

brianvy
I'm not "demanding" anything.

You did ask her to do it, semantics aside. You could easily do it yourself, if it's so all-fired important.

Also, there's never been consensus on precisely how to enter logos that incorporate text into the BaOI. Many of us use different methods. That issue and a host of others were hashed out in extensive threads initiated, and then completely abandoned by, the database manager. Since that time there's been a more or less tacit understanding by most of us that we are free to enter this data as we see fit at this time, within the bounds of reason and usefulness, provided it's accurate and intelligible. The basic principle most people abide by is that you don't change the way someone else has done it in favor of your own preferred method, you don't remove any data, and you don't split data off without retaining the full string.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a certain decorum that surrounds this stuff based upon mutual respect, and the way you approach these matters here and many many times elsewhere has a tendency to rub some people the wrong way. It's like, the tenth thread we've had on your mass edits now.

I'm doing nothing wrong. I apologize if I'm rubbing someone the wrong way. That is not my intent.

I'm probably being defensive, but if you and/or other s think the database would be better off without my contributions then maybe that is something I should consider. I'm really only trying to clean-up entries and get the data as consistent/accurate as possible.

Regarding preferred entry of "wea mfg. OLYPHANT" text/string, why don't we keep that to the more specific thread I linked:
http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/690110

brianvy
if you and/or other s think the database would be better off without my contributions then maybe that is something I should consider.

I never suggested anything of the kind. What I suggested, as I have in the past, is that you might consider that the way you've been approaching these matters has contributed to a lot of the tension.

brianvy
Regarding "wea mfg. OLYPHANT" matrix entries, why don't we keep that to the thread I linked

Because now you've got us in three different threads over this. At this juncture it seems to make the most sense to stay in this one since it's been getting bumped the most.

ChampionJames
I never suggested anything of the kind. What I suggested, as I have in the past, is that you might consider that the way you've been approaching these matters has contributed to a lot of the tension.

Like I said, I'm probably just being defensive but I often feel overly criticized by certain community ... and they tend to be the same 3 or 4 s. You say "Because now you've got us in three different threads over this." as if I'm some sort of miscreant for pointing Fauni-Gena to a completely on-topic relevant thread... Or I'm some sort of malefactor for opening this thread to specifically address my edits?? However, I'll take your advice into further consideration.

At any rate, I started this thread to address "Olyphant company numbers to LCCN per profiles". I'm interested in staying on topic. Consider it a request, not a "demand". ;)

I'm heading off site for the day, but I'll continue to go by the profiles and add LCCN without addressing any date discrepencies until a later time. Peace.

brianvy
You say "Because now you've got us in three different threads over this." as if I'm some sort of miscreant for pointing taklit-sarut to a completely on-topic relevant thread... Or I'm some sort of malefactor for opening this thread to specifically address my edits??

Again, I suggested nothing of the sort. I just think it's sort of strange. I mean, we had a WEA Olyphant BaOI thread going about your updates, and then you opened this quite redundant one. And now you're asking us to discuss WEA Olyphant BaOI issues in yet another thread. It's odd, is all. Is it really a wonder a lot of folks in the thread seem pretty confused?

brianvy
Like I said, I'm probably just being defensive but I often feel overly criticized by certain community ... and they tend to be the same 3 or 4 s.

I've actually sorta been trying to help you out, if you haven't noticed. I haven't exactly been flying off any handles here, and I did defend you upthread, both on some aspects of the substance of your edits, and against the personal ugliness posted up there (albeit in violation of the posting rules, but I digress). I paged you on the original thread because your edits were being discussed at length without you apparently being aware of it, and I figured you deserved to know about it.

But anyhow, I'm not at all interested in any drama. I just figure you might want to ponder how you approach these projects, so that we don't keep having to have these threads every few months.

Popped back for one more reply then off to sleep...

1) The other thread (690110) just seems better to discuss specific wea olyphant logo issues. I'm not particularly interested in belaboring that logo topic.

2) I opened this thread about these specific edits because it was recommended by another .

3) I must say I find it surprising that entering LCCN data & blanking impossible dates, etc. per existing profiles is problematic or even confusing.

ChampionJames
I just figure you might want to ponder how you approach these projects, so that we don't keep having to have these threads every few months.

I appreciate the "page" in the other forum. I always reply when paged... And like I said, I didn't intend for this to become a "project" initially. However, I don't think I've done any inappropriate editing such that this is a "bad" thread...or a "shame on Brian" thread. But perhaps I don't see it the same way.

My interest here is in gleaning more information about WEA Olyphant timeline in a way that is essentially respectful to the community. I hope I haven't been disrespectful in this endeavor.

[And in the end, honestly, maybe I'll be the only one that appreciates or 'accepts' this "pattern". Maybe the "W" & "X" observational post above (and the "Y" & "Z" post to come) was only for my reference. Who knows??? I'm guessing it will at least be helpful on some level.]

Question about this entry to which I added LCCN. FWIW, it has also been voted correct:
http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=52198#latest

But I'm wondering... there are 2 distinct glass masterings represented on this single submission, both pressed by WEA Mfg. Olyphant. Should variants 2 & 3 be split into a new submission? Opinions?

brianvy
But I'm wondering... there are 2 distinct glass masterings represented on this single submission, both pressed by WEA Mfg. Olyphant. Should variants 2 & 3 be split into a new submission? Opinions?

Abso-fu...
Yes ;)

brianvy
I'm not "demanding" anything. I'm not "imposing my own standards". I just know that the text/logo is there but it's not entered in your matrix string. And (I may be wrong) but I thought we entered the entire matrix string? Many people (again I didn't make this up) enter this logo as ['wea mfg OLYPHANT' logo]. Do whatever you want. Again, I'm not "demanding" anything.

The way you worded your comment sure read like a demand to me. Also, I don't see how a logo is ever part of the matrix string. Yes, it's present in the matrix, but it's impossible to render it accurately into lccn.

I also responded in the other thread, which I did not see until now. Once again, it's not required by the Guidelines nor has management affirmed what was discussed there. I don't believe it can be accurately entered, so I won't enter it. I already don't add numbers from pressing plants as I believe the way the community and management have decided to extract information is often erroneous. It's made up data. It's also not required so I am under no obligation to include it.

My simple solution, if it turns out I can be pressed to enter what I consider bogus information, is really simple. Matrix data is not required at all. I'll just leave it out if y'all prefer. I've been debating just doing minimal subs for a while now.

brianvy
1) The other thread (690110) just seems better to discuss specific wea olyphant logo issues. I'm not particularly interested in belaboring that logo topic.

Then why did you?

brianvy
I'm probably being defensive, but if you and/or other s think the database would be better off without my contributions then maybe that is something I should consider. I'm really only trying to clean-up entries and get the data as consistent/accurate as possible.

You are being defensive. Neither I nor anyone else have suggested you stop contributing. I do, however, see a fascination on your part with the matrix, for better or for worse, while I increasingly see it as trivial info that I am sick and tired of dealing with. Again, entering it is a choice on Discogs. How to enter it is largely laid out by the Guidelines in clear language. However, nothing says a logo must be transcribed. That was my whole point.

(Edited for typos)

Language/tone is sometimes hard to gauge online, but I don't think I demanded anything. I didn't say "you must do this, it is required by the guidelines". I made a comment based on my understanding of entering matrix strings gleaned from several past forum thread majority opinions. My comment on the submission was "Also 'wea mfg. OLYPHANT' text should be added to the matrix string in BaOI since it is present in the images." Next time I'll soften it for you and say something like "It seems to me that 'wea mfg. OLYPHANT' text....."

Then, almost instantly I was accused of "making up your own rules" and that I "impose your own standards on others". It just turned really quickly into a confrontation based on that (clearly inflammatory) language. Maybe we should move on? I'll flatly say (as I have a few times already) my comment was not meant as a demand.

Fauni-Gena
However, nothing says a logo must be transcribed.

Ok, fine. You see it as purely a logo. I see it as logotype because it contains very clear, easily decipherable words. So we have a difference of opinion (however, FWIW yours happens to be in the minority, at least according to that other thread). Again, it's a minor point (for me). I don't think I have anything more to add.

brianvy
So we have a difference of opinion (however, FWIW yours happens to be in the minority, at least according to that other thread).

Brian, it;s not mandatory information. However, feel free to complete it. Personally I hate it when only part of the matrix is entered so share your view up to a point. I disagree however in browbeating s by insisting that they enter it. Not entering it does leave us with multiple legacy issues which can be avoided if they are entered completely. Dupes, needless queries about where WEA is credited on the release... etc.

Eviltoastman
Personally I hate it when only part of the matrix is entered so share your view up to a point.

+1

Eviltoastman
browbeating

brow·beat
ˈbrouˌbēt/
verb
gerund or present participle: browbeating

intimidate (someone), typically into doing something, with stern or abusive words.

Browbeating??? I made 1 comment which I published here and stated multiple times was not meant as a demand or an insistence. I didn't use "stern or abusive words". Browbeating is completely overstating any words or phrases I used or continue to use. Yeesh!

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but the release history of Windowlicker directed me here for discussion about variant glass masterings.

As far as I can tell, variants 2 and 3 should be deleted from this submission and added as a separate entry. I will do it (soon) unless there is a good reason not to.

Is it allowed to have two "Glass Mastered" or "Pressed By" LCCNs with differing cat #s to represent different variants:

http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=6528547#latest

epet
As far as I can tell, variants 2 and 3 should be deleted from this submission and added as a separate entry. I will do it (soon) unless there is a good reason not to.

Please do. See: http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750?page=1#6983070

Stereolab42
Is it allowed to have two "Glass Mastered" or "Pressed By" LCCNs with differing cat #s to represent different variants:

http://www.discogs.sie.com/history?release=6528547#latest

These aren't different variants of the same disc though, right? This is a 2 disc set.

brianvy
These aren't different variants of the same disc though, right? This is a 2 disc set.

True. No issue with that then.

A question about WEA Mfg. Olyphant.

Several vinyl releases have been linked such as:
Dimitri From Paris - Une Very Stylish Fille

And well, there are more...

Yet they only say "Test pressing from WEA Manufacturing" on the release; so shouldn't these be linked to WEA Manufacturing "as on release" (also active from 1978 to October 2003 according to that profile)? I do see the "1400 E. Lackawanna Ave., Olyphant, PA 18448" address on them.

Anyways, I've only seen this exact "WEA Mfg. Olyphant" string in the CD matrix. Thoughts?

p.s. there are plenty of these vinyl test pressings already linked to Timbaland - Here We Come

Where should these go?

Why people use "Glass mastered by" when the release neither credits "glass mastered by" or that it was the only role in the manufacturing that was undertaken is a complete mystery to me. This application is incorrect imo. Unless it is implicitly stated or as in the case of the Cinram/WEA splits that we're discussing here where WEA only glass mastered, the credit should not be used.

brianvy
Where should these go?

They are properly attributed already. However it may also be properly attributed in a more specific way to WEA Mfg Olyphant only if we stop considering it logotype. Which according to your edits is not the case. WEA Mfg Olyphant logotype is not the same thing as "Test Pressing From WEA Manufacturing." with an address and telephone number then given quite a distance from this statement:

"1400 E. Lackawanna Ave. Olyphant, PA. 18448" and "Phone: (717) 383 3291" and "TWX: 510-671-4580).

Doing this would be misappropriating a brand name. You might counter with, "brnach consistently stating a location, but the issue is that "WEA Mfg Olyphant" is not a branch consistently stating it;s location. It;s branding where the location is an intractable part of the brand name. As such you could develop those two test pressings to credit "WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant", as the location is consistantly given but there is no WEA Mfg Olyphant branding. You should not conflate the two as everything after the comma in a location suffixed profile is artificial, we invent that entity by taking the given branding "WEA Manufacturing" and parsing out other information so we are left with the location. Also we'd suffix with the state too, so actually it would be "WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant, PA" and "WEA Mfg OIyphant" - two separate profiles.

to me this is wea not WEA . . .

[it was changed recently a few times in the matrix from wea mfg. to WEA mfg...]

and: it would be a huge benefit in cases like this, to have a updated initial post a short with a conclusion about the consensus and 2-3 links to the relevant posts - it's simply too much to force reading 50 posts in a foreign language

Would the same number apply both to the Glass Mastered By entry and the Pressed By entry if the disc is pressed at a different plant than where the glass was mastered?

For example: Kraftwerk - Computer World
Glass Mastered At – WEA Mfg. Olyphant – W2976
Pressed By – WEA Mfg. Commerce – W2976

How do we know this is a correct application of the number in the case of the Pressed By entry?

I don't think it is: I think the number found in the matrix applies only to the Glass Mastered By role in cases where the disc is pressed at a different facility.

It's not reasonable to conclude that the number applies to both the glass mastering process and the pressing process, when each processes is done at a different plant.

Is there any citation or source that backs up the idea that that number applies to both processes? If not, I think we go with our rule of thumb: as on release. Seeing as the numbers in question here are without a doubt associated with WEA Mfg. Olyphant, the logo is right there demonstrating that, it seems reasonable to enter the number found in the matrix for the Glass Mastered By role.

It does not seem reasonable to assume it is ok to enter that same number for a process done at another plant where there is no specific and obvious association with the number. It's not stamped into the mould, etc, etc, etc.

When I asked WEA Mfg. Commerce profile.

Why are people are in such a mad dash to shoe-horn numbers into fields without proper justification?

[edited to correct typo]

Eviltoastman, we agree then, that long list of test pressings currently attributed to wea mfg. Olyphant should be moved to WEA Manufacturing.

tommy.b
Is there any citation or source that backs up the idea that that number applies to both processes?

No, it is all based on naive pattern recognition as far as I have been able to determine. There is virtually no sourcing on any of this business, let alone the issue of which processes the number relates to.

tommy.b
Why are people are in such a mad dash to shoe-horn numbers into fields without proper justification?

It is a compulsion of certain s, and one I have never understood. These "sequential numbers" (a total misnomer, incidentally) do more damage than good in my view. All they do is invite s to make guesses and assumptions and fill in "missing" data based on same.

It seems we're stuck with it, though.

tommy.b
Would the same number apply both to the Glass Mastered By entry and the Pressed By entry if the disc is pressed at a different plant than where the glass was mastered?

For example: Kraftwerk - Computer World
Glass Mastered At – WEA Mfg. Olyphant – W2976
Pressed By – WEA Mfg. Commerce – W2976

If two roles are concluded as in that example which leads us to two entities, then the W ref goes to the glass mastering role as it is lasered into the area at the glass mastering stage. if however this was in the mould or etched in the mirror band , then this would have either been done when creating the stamper or is embossed in the mould = the entity given the pressing credit. WEA Mfg. Olyphant is always found lasered = glass mastering. However if only one entity was responsible for the manufacture of the release, use a holistic credit (Manufactured by and made by are the best, but many people like pressed by too) and add the cat# to the recipient of the elected role.

brianvy
we agree then, that long list of test pressings currently attributed to wea mfg. Olyphant should be moved to WEA Manufacturing.

Yes. Believe it or not Brian, but I tend to agree on most of what you do. I sometimes (definitely not always) take issue with your approach as James appears to above, but generally I recognise your contribution as a mostly positive one which was not always the case.

Eviltoastman
Yes. Believe it or not Brian, but I tend to agree on most of what you do. I sometimes (definitely not always) take issue with your approach as James appears to above, but generally I recognise your contribution as a mostly positive one which was not always the case.

Ok then, thanks. Moving in the right direction...

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

Regarding the "Test pressing from WEA Manufacturing" vinyl entries, I posted the following note on these submissions currently linked to WEA Mfg. Olyphant:

" Hi, according to the forum linked below, the pressing entity should either be changed to WEA Manufacturing, or an entirely new entity should be created with the name "WEA Manufacturing, Olyphant, PA".
http://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750?page=1#6983516 "

Hopefully this is acceptable. I would lean towards simply moving these to WEA Manufacturing unless there are objections.

If someone feels strongly using a location suffixed profile fr those, they might get their way. I'm happy with using WEA Manufacturing but would be happy with the new profile too.

Fauni-Gena
Speaking of imposing your own standards, you are now demanding that logos in the matrix be interpreted as text and transcribed to lccn

Well, in the WEA mfg. case, it's not logo, but plain text. You can PRETEND if it would be a logo, but it's a plain text, just like 'Sony Music', 'DADC Austria' on the Sony releases. Some Sony releases indeed use LOGO in matrix (big D referring to DADC), but it's not the case.

Also the 3 stripes in matrix is a LOGO, representing Warner, but logo and plain text are distinctive.

I the updates from 'brianvy' on this matter, as I understood his intentions at first and I see more benefits than possible disadvantages. Where I noticed any problem with his updates, I left a comment.

I'd keep up with LCCN updates.

However, as for dates, it might be best to create a thread with a list of those subs that have questionable dates for now so that the community can help sort things out.

Eviltoastman
Yes. Believe it or not Brian, but I tend to agree on most of what you do. I sometimes (definitely not always) take issue with your approach as James appears to above, but generally I recognise your contribution as a mostly positive one which was not always the case.

I'd like to just take a moment to echo this sentiment, as occasionally these threads take on a more combative, or accusatory, tone.

hwanin
Well, in the WEA mfg. case, it's not logo, but plain text. You can PRETEND if it would be a logo, but it's a plain text,

Um... no, that stylized oval shape is not plain text. It cannot be entered on a keyboard or represented in Unicode. That makes it a logo, not plain text at all.

It doesn't matter. Y'all have convinced me not to enter matrix information going forward. I made the same decision with runouts on vinyl maybe 7 or 8 years ago when it became clear to me that they can be controversial. I'll handle CDs the same way. That data is optional and I'm opting out. Problem solved for me.

brianvy
p.s. there are plenty of these vinyl test pressings already linked to WEA Manufacturing. At least 20 of them or so. For example these submitted by a staff member:
Unknown Artist - Untitled
Timbaland - Here We Come

Where should these go?

I don't know. I went with as-on-label. \o/

Fauni-Gena
That data is optional and I'm opting out. Problem solved for me.

Hey, don't take it personal or be offended. Makes no sense. There were issues, when I became mad about few changes, but not doing at all = no benefits for the "crowd"
I prefer to enter everything, and even if someone comes and alter the information, the submission history represents all the data, before change.

Fauni-Gena
Um... no, that stylized oval shape is not plain text. It cannot be entered on a keyboard or represented in Unicode. That makes it a logo, not plain text at all.

So anything is a logo that cannot be entered exactly the same as we read it? I understand your explanation, but design does not make a text "non-text". The matrix area is not a piece of paper, these information are pressed, hence the manufacturer can use any style they want.
We see this particular thing from completely different angle and we disagree.

Sometimes the release titles or track lists contain stylized shaped letters and no one says: that's logo, because it's not unicode character.

hwanin
Sometimes the release titles or track lists contain stylized shaped letters and no one says: that's logo, because it's not unicode character.

Very valid argument. Even band names are often presented as a consistent "logo". For example, ABBA with the backwards 2nd "B". We don't throw our hands up in despair and say "I can't decipher this text. Might as well not enter it."

brianvy
I have fixed this issue on your sub per discussion earlier in this thread. I will go through and fix other wea mfg. Commerce entries that have LCCN either entered by me or someone else.

ok, thanks, appreciate the work.

Fauni-Gena
... Y'all have convinced me not to enter matrix information going forward..... Problem solved for me.

There are identical looking releases with matrix only differences. It's not the same having a first issue from a later reissue (ie: with/ without SID codes). Matrix info helps to distinguish that and for voiding invalid dates.
It's true that matrix info is confusing, but you could just enter what you see and leave it, other s can infer and add companies, other codes, etc.

About this thread, most Brian's edits on submissions I have are almost always positive and helped me finding dates, or at least ruling out wrong dates. His edits are valid, and commenting that a date might be wrong is not abusive at all.

Fine. If you think it's somehow important you can enter all the matrix info you want. It's not required data and I could care less about the trivial information contained there. I will therefore cheerfully ignore the matrix as I've done on my last few submissions. If it becomes mandatory information I'll simply stop submitting rather than engage in endless arguments about data that is often erroneous as entered on Discogs now. Like I said, for me the problem is solved.

Fauni-Gena
I could care less

I think you mean the opposite.

No, in American usage "I could care less" means I don't care at all. I don't care at all.

taklit-sarut, no one will force you to enter matrix info (it's like forcing entering song lengths, or full credit list). As I said before, sometimes matrix is the only way to distinguish an original release from a later reissue, or manufacturing plant/country, or ruling out imposible dates. For some of us early editions are more valuable (usually have more dynamics).
Maybe you should ignore this thread if you don't care.

Fauni-Gena
No, in American usage "I could care less" means I don't care at all. I don't care at all.

"I could care less" actually means you care, but you could possibly care less, if motivated. I couldn't care less means I care so little it couldn't be any less. Interpretation: I don't care at all.

brianvy
[wea mfg. OLYPHANT logo]

+1

as per how to enter logos

can anyone with knowledge of hand save me some investigation time and tell me: Did Specialty Records Company have sid codes IFPI 2Uxx and IFPI L90x before handing over to WEA MFG Olyphant? Or did these codes start with WEA ??

As i am wondering if the release below is potentially a repress by WEA off an SRC glass master. There is no mention of "S" logo in matrix however that may have been ignored by the member who entered the data originally.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/Artifacts-Between-A-Rock-And-A-Hard-Place/release/256605

skinnybutdangerous
can anyone with knowledge of hand save me some investigation time and tell me: Did Specialty Records Company have sid codes IFPI 2Uxx and IFPI L90x before handing over to WEA MFG Olyphant?

Here are some SRC pressings with the 2Uxx mould code, all from '96:
Neurotic Outsiders - Neurotic Outsiders

I've never seen an SRC pressing with mastering SID codes. I don't mean to infer that they don't exist, and there are many more to look through at the SRC page. But it seems they were in no rush to adopt the system.

From 1995:
Joy Division - Permanent: Joy Division 1995
Matrix / Runout: [Specialty 'S' Logo] 1 45979-2 SRC##01 M1S5
Mould SID Code: IFPI 2U3D

Sunny Day Real Estate - Sunny Day Real Estate
Matrix / Runout: IR SP 316-2 SRC@@01 M2S4
Mould SID Code: IFPI 2U2Y

1994:
Ramones - Animal Boy
Matrix / Runout: [Specialty 'S' logo] 1 25433-2 SRC**01 M2S3
Mould SID Code: IFPI 2U1X

Thanks you guys, I didn't mean for others to go investigating on my behalf, just thought someone might already know, but appreciate the replies!

mr.dna
I've never seen an SRC pressing with mastering SID codes. I don't mean to infer that they don't exist, and there are many more to look through at the SRC page. But it seems they were in no rush to adopt the system.

Yeah that is what I am pondering, given that this Artifacts release was originally 1994, and SRC possibly not even using mastering sids or being slow to implement them, that the BAOI on this submission could be a likely repress, at least by SRC themself, otherwise if they definitely didn't ever use a mastering SID then it would be WEA pressed. Interesting. Clearly too early to diagnose anything without further investigation and info but I will keep it on my to do list.

brianvy
Popped back for one more reply then off to sleep...

1) The other thread (690110) just seems better to discuss specific wea olyphant logo issues. I'm not particularly interested in belaboring that logo topic.

2) I opened this thread about these specific edits because it was recommended by another .

3) I must say I find it surprising that entering LCCN data & blanking impossible dates, etc. per existing profiles is problematic or even confusing.

ChampionJamesI just figure you might want to ponder how you approach these projects, so that we don't keep having to have these threads every few months.
I appreciate the "page" in the other forum. I always reply when paged... And like I said, I didn't intend for this to become a "project" initially. However, I don't think I've done any inappropriate editing such that this is a "bad" thread...or a "shame on Brian" thread. But perhaps I don't see it the same way.

My interest here is in gleaning more information about WEA Olyphant timeline in a way that is essentially respectful to the community. I hope I haven't been disrespectful in this endeavor.

[And in the end, honestly, maybe I'll be the only one that appreciates or 'accepts' this "pattern". Maybe the "W" & "X" observational post above (and the "Y" & "Z" post to come) was only for my reference. Who knows??? I'm guessing it will at least be helpful on some level.]

I'm still waiting "Y" & "Z" aprox dates. It is very helpfull information

"W" mastering (L901):

WEA Mfg. Olyphant
W1-W4xx: approx 1996
W4xx-W20xx: approx 1997
W20xx-W42xx: approx 1998
W42xx-W46xx: approx 1999 (LBR non-operative for a portion of year?)
W46xx-W67xx: approx 2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"X" mastering (L902):

WEA Mfg. Olyphant
X1-X9xx: approx 1996
X10xx-X38xx: approx 1997
X39xx-X65xx: approx 1998
X66xx-X102xx: approx 1999
X103xx-X144xx: approx 2000
X145xx-X171xx: approx 2001
X172xx-X183xx: approx 2002
X184xx-X200xx: approx 2003

Plant sold, now Cinram, Olyphant, PA
X200xx-X202xx: approx 2003
X203xx-X224xx: approx 2004
X224xx-X252xx: approx 2005
X252xx-X278xx: approx 2006
X278xx-X298xx: approx 2007
X299xx-X311xx: approx 2008
X312xx-X333xx: approx 2009
X333xx-X350xx: approx 2010
X350xx-X368xx: approx 2011
X369xx-X384xx: approx 2012
X385xx-X400xx: approx 2013
X400xx-X417xx: approx 2014
X418xx-X420xx: approx 2015

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Y" mastering (L903):

WEA Mfg. Olyphant
Y1-Y6xx: approx 1996
Y7xx-Y31xx: approx 1997
Y32xx-Y61xx: approx 1998
Y61xx-Y102xx: approx 1999
Y100xx-Y146xx: approx 2000
Y147xx-Y179xx: approx 2001
Y179xx-Y207xx: approx 2002
Y209xx-Y220xx: approx 2003

Plant sold, now Cinram, Olyphant, PA
Y220xx-Y221xx: approx 2003
Y221xx-Y229xx: approx 2004
Y230xx-Y232xx: approx 2005 (LBR non-operative for a portion of year?)
Y242xx-Y244xx: approx 2006 (LBR non-operative for a portion of year?)

LBR now L902:
Y244xx-Y254xx: approx 2007
Y254xx-Y256xx: approx 2008
Y257xx-Y264xx: approx 2009
Y266xx-Y277xx: approx 2010
Y279xx-Y280xx: approx 2011

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Z" mastering (L909):

WEA Mfg. Olyphant
Z00001-Z052xx: approx 2001
Z053xx-Z134xx: approx 2002
Z134xx-Z204xx: approx 2003

Plant sold, now Cinram, Olyphant, PA
Z204xx-Z210xx: approx 2003
Z214xx-Z319xx: approx 2004
Z320xx-Z484xx: approx 2005
Z484xx-Z579xx: approx 2006
Z580xx-Z663xx: approx 2007
Z669xx-Z734xx: approx 2008
Z740xx-Z842xx: approx 2009
Z844xx-Z994xx: approx 2010
Z996xx-Z1084xx: approx 2011
Z1085xx-Z1167xx: approx 2012
Z1172xx-Z1226xx: approx 2013
Z1237xx-Z1318xx: approx 2014
Z1329xx-Z1342xx: approx 2015

Thanks for that. As far as I have seen, the W, X, Y, Z very consistently correspond to SID codes L901, L902, L903, L904; it's apparently identifying the LBR.

Your summaries suggest the digits after these letters are indeed sequential, and are on a per-LBR basis. I was already beginning to suspect this just by comparing release dates of SRC/WEA Mfg. discs in my collection.

Is it safe to assume you would post here if you found any anomalies which do not match the patterns you have observed so far?

Personally, I the idea of adding these codes (with the W X Y or Z prefix) as "catalog numbers" for the relevant company, and blanking "impossible" release dates and adding a note about the earliest possible release date. I've probably done a few of these kinds of edits myself, on the grounds that copyright years are very weak release date evidence. When there is any good reason to doubt them, it is prudent and ed by the guidelines to blank the date field and add a note, if not also apply the Repress tag. (Even if the suspicions of a different date turn out to be wrong, it's something easily fixed and there's really no harm done. Even on original pressings, it's really quite okay to have a blank date field. In my ideal database, we'd have copyright dates properly in their own fields, and any release dates inferred from them would be displayed in a way to indicate they're provisional/unverified.)

However, I also understand the point of view of people like The Postal Service - The District Sleeps Alone Tonight; when such edits are undertaken without much explanation, without guidance in the company profiles, and without in the forums, it is bound to raise some hackles. Again, though, I'm not really sympathetic to retaining copyright years as release dates when manufacturing info (including matrix code or cat# sequences) gives us reason to doubt them, especially in situations where there are apparently-original pressings in the database already.

Diognes_The_Fox
as for dates, it might be best to create a thread with a list of those subs that have questionable dates for now so that the community can help sort things out.

I've been using Discogs lists just to keep track of some of the features of WEA Manufacturing CDs in my collection to see what patterns emerge. I do occasionally run into some odd cases, and having the list helps quite a bit. Maybe brianvy can start keeping a list of WEA Mfg. CDs whose matrix codes cast doubt on copyright years as release dates?

mjb
I've been using Discogs lists just to keep track of some of the features of WEA Manufacturing CDs in my collection to see what patterns emerge. I do occasionally run into some odd cases, and having the list helps quite a bit. Maybe brianvy can start keeping a list of WEA Mfg. CDs whose matrix codes cast doubt on copyright years as release dates?

might also be a good page for https://reference.discogslabs.com/

Here are some 40+ titles with implausable release dates currently based on copyright:

https://www.discogs.sie.com/lists/Implausible-Cinram-Olyphant-PA-Release-Dates/331945

Eviltoastman
Why people use "Glass mastered by" when the release neither credits "glass mastered by" or that it was the only role in the manufacturing that was undertaken is a complete mystery to me.

Why shouldn't Glass Mastered At be used even if it wasn't the only manufacturing role, as long as there is evidence that the disc was glass mastered at the specific company? We credit other companies for each role, such as Recorded At, Mixed At, Engineered At, etc.

With all due respect, simply linking to this eighty-two post thread as a presumed explanation of release edits is ive-aggressive.
Various - San Francisco Roots
Thank you,

J

amoebasinger your release it's clearly an Olyphant matrix, besides IFPI L909 indicates that too: http://home.lyse.net/bki/met/ifpi-codes.html

Not the point. Obviously.

J

brianvy made some updates to the release and linked this informational forum thread. That's how things are usually handled on updates that are considered mass edit updates.

In this case there was nothing negative that happened towards you or your submission, just some more information that was added. I don't understand what's ive-aggressive about adding more information to a release?

This is a good thing!

I have to agree with baldorr, brianvy's edit notes were perfectly suitable and linking to a (lengthy, yes, but informative) thread is a great help.

Diognes_The_Fox
might also be a good page for https://reference.discogslabs.com/

IMHO it is not worth the effort in the wiki's current state (not ing image s).

mjb
IMHO it is not worth the effort in the wiki's current state (not ing image s).

I'll inquire into this.

I asked the following question on this thread nearly a year ago:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/699750#6982851

brianvy
But I'm wondering... there are 2 distinct glass masterings represented on this single submission, both pressed by WEA Mfg. Olyphant. Should variants 2 & 3 be split into a new submission? Opinions?

Eviltoastman
Abso-fu...
Yes ;)

It was relating to the following release:
Aphex Twin - Windowlicker - Glass Mastered At – WEA Mfg. Olyphant – W4292
and led directly to the creation of this LCCN "variant":
Aphex Twin - Windowlicker - Glass Mastered At – WEA Mfg. Olyphant – W4323

Since inquiring about the release above, this is the approach myself and other s have taken when encountering differing Olyphant mastering LCCN #'s found on the same submission. I have encountered no complaints related to this until a week ago. A new forum post regarding this matter was created here:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/740518

The logic in separating these different master #'s is that the different numbers indicate not only a different point in time but also potential different audio and/or data mastering properties (see relevant examples here):
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/740518?page=1#7348274

sorry to ask here but I think is no need for me open new post, I have matrix infos ifpi L902 X36762 3 R2 529258-2 01 M0S1, only this, is no logo. If I understand correct, is for Cinram, Olyphant, PA? And ad number X36762 for number company?

Yes it is...

My copy of X (5) - Los Angeles has:
- the wea mfg Olyphant logo in the matrix --> according to the WEA Mfg. Olyphant profile it was mastered there
- "WEA mfg./CA" stamped in the hub --> according to the WEA Mfg. Commerce profile it was pressed there
- "CI/CA" stamped in the matrix --> according to the Cinram, Commerce, CA profile it was also pressed there...

Which one should I believe?

Just a guess... but this is probably a transitional late 2003 era pressing from Cinram, Commerce, CA using ??leftover hub?? from when the company was called WEA Mfg. Commerce. FYI, in your submission above I don't see any note of "WEA mfg./CA" stamped in the hub.

brianvy
Just a guess... but this is probably a transitional late 2003 era pressing from Cinram, Commerce, CA using ??leftover hub?? from when the company was called WEA Mfg. Commerce. FYI, in your submission above I don't see any note of "WEA mfg./CA" stamped in the hub.

Thanks, I fixed it.

Cinram, Olyphant, PA). Am I mistaken?

It seems there is something unusual going on with these Music Connection pressings. Instead of a "wea mfg. OLYPHANT" logo in the matrix they have "Music Connection" text. And pressings seem to range from:
Jul 2001 (Z03127) Orb* - Auntie Aubrey's Excursions Beyond The Call Of Duty Part 2: The Orb Remix Project
to
Oct 2003 (Z21850) Erick Morillo - Subliminal Winter Sessions
with "Z" mastering (L909) and IFPI 2U** SID codes indicating that they were mastered and/or pressed at the Olyphant location. The dates would seem to indicate that WEA was still the plant owner from 2001-2003. IMO, the Z21850 # above actually correlates with a 2004 Cinram pressing, still at the Olyphant location:
Z214xx-Z319xx: approx 2004

There are even a couple with Music Connection text and "Y" mastering (L903) and IFPI 2U** SID codes:
2001 (Y16817) Various - Hot Tracks 20-4 - Mainstream Dance
Nov 2001 (Y17646) Various - Radioactive Rhythm Crossover Series - November 2001

All of this indicates that WEA Mfg. Olyphant.
Starting in 2004, Music Connection seems to have moved to a relationship with a different company given the different mastering / mould SID codes found here, for example:
2004 Dream Theater - Official Bootleg: When Dream And Day Unite Demos 1987-1989 - Mastering SID Code: IFPI LM07 / Mould SID Code: IFPI F011

If a release has CI in matrix with WEA Mfg. Olyphant logo present;
We credit as Glass Mastered At Cinram, Olyphant, PA. No worries up until this point.
I always place the catalogue# to WEA Mfg. Olyphant only.
However I see a lot of releases placing the catalogue# for both WEA Mfg. Olyphant should be the only company getting the catalogue#.
I believe this should be re-written / re-phrased in Cinram, Olyphant, PA profile.

I agree. If there is any WEA Mfg. Olyphant logo present, the only company that gets the LCCN # is WEA Mfg. Olyphant. I believe this was agreed earlier in this thread but perhaps it wasn't properly added to the Cinram, Olyphant, PA profile?

Can you help with this release? https://www.discogs.sie.com/Apoptygma-Berzerk-Harmonizer/release/208099

I've thought that Z5703 is wrongly added but there is an image of matrix proving this pressing cat#.
So, in one submission there are 2 variants with Z5703 and 2 variants with Z05703.