SST GmbH & SST Brüggemann GmbH

How to handle these?
Both profiles say the company can be identified by the runouts via "SST"
Both profiles say to credit them as "Lacquer Cut At"
Both profiles state when they have operated (Brüggemann until Nov. 2016)

It is impossible to know the exact or "real" lacquer cutting date without any official source.
+ they don't add any IDs to their work.

Unfortunately i already did some edits that i need to question myself now.
Thanks to _jules for pointing that out!...i haven't thought about that.

Lets say i have a release from Jan. 2017:
There is a huge possibility the lacquer was cut before.
Should i still add SST GmbH? i guess not, as it is highly likely this was cut while their legal name was SST Brüggemann GmbH.
Even a release from maybe June 2017 or December 2017 might got cut before November 2016.

But what about releases from 2018 and on?
There needs to be a cut at some point IMO!
...it can't be right to keep listing these post mid 2017 releases under SST Brüggemann GmbH while it doesn't exist anymore.

Like to hear some opinions :)

Discussed and decided here...

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/761344#7548615

leeving
Discussed and decided here...

Discussed yes, but decided?

I raised that question of https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/761344#7548615 was not met by many comments.

Mr.Slut
Discussed yes, but decided?

I raised that question of idefix23 myself about 4 months ago, but my contribution in https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/761344#7548615 was not met by many comments.

The thread was marked "Resolved", so yes, it was decided.

And

leeving
so yes, it was decided.

And exactly what was decided?
That's it's difficult in the borderline cases?

The thread was about splitting the company, which was done and -yes- that part was resolved.
One of the last entries there was that sebfact was going to ask Daniel Krieger about these years when the company renaming occured, but I'm not sure, if that was all done and is over with already...

Knowning first hand, there can be somewhat like half a year between the date of the lacquer cut and the actual release of a record. Or even more.
Once the cut is done, the test pressing will be manufactured. Once that is okayed, the pressing will be done. That will usually take another 2-3 months. And if the label does not release the vinyl straight away, it might take another couple of months.

idefix23
Both profiles say the company can be identified by the runouts via "SST"

Why not simply credit SST then ? Saves everyone the difficult task of determining which company should be credited. The SST profile can be used to clarify the name changes of the company.

Mr.Slut
And exactly what was decided?
That's it's difficult in the borderline cases?

The thread was about splitting the company, which was done and -yes- that part was resolved.
One of the last entries there was that sebfact was going to ask Daniel Krieger about these years when the company renaming occured, but I'm not sure, if that was all done and is over with already...

Knowning first hand, there can be somewhat like half a year between the date of the lacquer cut and the actual release of a record. Or even more.
Once the cut is done, the test pressing will be manufactured. Once that is okayed, the pressing will be done. That will usually take another 2-3 months. And if the label does not release the vinyl straight away, it might take another couple of months.

Feel free to argue your case in that thread, no point in having another thread over the same subject.

The arbitrary cut-off date was discussed in that thread, and is already used for a few different companies that changed names.

andrenafulva
Just as we do for Optimal Media Production / Optimal Media GmbH or Gramofonové Závody / GZ Digital Media / GZ Media.

Identify the correct company as far as we can. I agree to create a new company. For companies credited by name on release we separate 'X' and 'X Ltd' even though those might be the same thing, just because a legal designator has meaning; so as we know this company has changed in name due to a significant ownership change, we should record this change as far as we can.

I was torn between keeping the company names we have and using SST only. For both there are valid arguments pro and con.

After another correspondence with Daniel Krieger, he would actually prefer one LCCN "SST" instead of the two companies we have now.

So, I am now leaning towards SST in favour of the two company names. It's as derived from the runouts (simplicity!) and neatly groups all releases under 1 profile (continuity!)

sebfact
So, I am now leaning towards SST in favour of the two company names. It's as derived from the runouts (simplicity!) and neatly groups all releases under 1 profile (continuity!)

Why would we treat this company differently from either GZ Media?

andrenafulva
Why would we treat this company differently from either Optimal Media Production / Optimal Media GmbH or Gramofonové Závody / GZ Digital Media / GZ Media?

Because we have to touch the releases anyway. AFAICS, the other plants aren't directly credited in the runouts, while there is "SST" found. However, both options are fine with me.

Part of me wants to say it really makes no difference to me. SST is SST. What name they actually do business as really makes no difference in the credit.
Notes can easily give the timeline of when the company changed hands and the names they were doing business as.

But we don't do this for any other company if they switch names.

The other companies aren't mentioned by name in the runouts, but they are all still derived from the runouts.
Deriving SST Brüggemann GmbH or SST GmbH from SST in the runouts is essentially the same thing as deriving Optimal Media Production / Optimal Media GmbH from an Optimal cat#. Both have an arbitrary cut off date for which company we credit.

sebfact
Because we have to touch the releases anyway. AFAICS, the other plants aren't directly credited in the runouts, while there is "SST" found. However, both options are fine with me.

Apologies; I thought you meant crediting everything to SST Brüggemann GmbH.

If the proposal is to credit all releases with 'SST' in the runouts to SST (3), I'm happy with that.

of all the times i have credited SST Brüggemann GmbH i have never seen the full name
anywhere on a release, so SST seems a better name even if not the full company name.
the weird bit is this :
i have according to discogs 31 releases on SST Brüggemann GmbH but i also have 74
credits for SST (8) so quite a few releases that credit SST (8) don't have the company credits
by the looks :)
(i don't own any releases after the year 2000 either so they are not on the other SST GMBH page either)

after checking them all on SST (8) page i can only find one without the company credit
https://www.discogs.sie.com/Illegal-District-My-Dream/release/46737

i am leaving it unchanged till the discussion finalizes so the decided credit will be used
but it still leaves me asking, where the hell are the other 42 that don't have the company credit?

sebfact
After another correspondence with Daniel Krieger, he would actually prefer one LCCN "SST" instead of the two companies we have now.

Reiterated by Daniel. He'd be fine with SST (3) because it would allow to have the whole SST cutting history in one place. The company names are for legal reasons only.

And, as pointed out, the cut-off is difficult to call (even he couldn't tell).

+1
I'm all for calling this entity the way it's identifying itself on releases + making submitting easier for everyone

_jules
+1
I'm all for calling this entity the way it's identifying itself on releases + making submitting easier for everyone

Agreed

And because it was decided to change all SST Alias' to ANVs here, the change could be done at the same time.

For me an arbitrary cut off date is better than having an incorrect/informal company name.

This is how it was already decided, so nothing has to change.

I also see how merging would just be easier going forward, so it really makes no difference to me.

The difference would be within an facility and their owner, there are several examples out there. Most common one, GZ has been GZ since 50's. Then it changed name twice, but still facilities and machinery were, i guess, the same. Other companies may have changed legal entity (in Italy we do have a lots, srl snc spa whatever) which are chaged for business reasons.
There should be a new concept in discogs referring to a facility (studio, pressing plant...) under a common name/brand without legal status for all the "-at" LCCNs, then link the facility to a company entry as a parent label maybe. Or have a sort of LCCNs ANV that may look like "operated by", optional.

Example:
Lacquer-cut-at: SST >> operated by: SST GmbH
Pressed-at: GZ >> operated by: GZ Media

I think it was discussed several times in the past already, but i didn't follow the threads.

I also think it's a good idea to keep them all under one profile.
I've never seen a written SST Brüggemann GmbH credit.
Most of the time these credits are derived from the runouts where only SST is etched.

So we did away with Christa Brüggemann - https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/743281

She's not listed here anymore.

blind_squirrel
So we did away with Christa Brüggemann - SST (8)?

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/743281

She's not listed here anymore.

Still there for me...

SST - (image) - (from 1971 until May 2011)
S, H or HS? H
Add a company: Lacquer Cut At - SST Brüggemann GmbH
Example: Ricky King - Verde

aHH...I see what you mean. I think that may have been a mistake.

I'll ping sebfact

N/m I posted before the edit. Thanks

blind_squirrel
Shouldn't it be saying Lacquer Cut By - SST (8)?

I would think so...this thread or the "Mass Edit - Daniel Krieger and other SST "aliases"" thread wasn't meant to change her credit, unless this was discussed in a separate thread.

https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/771959

blind_squirrel
So we did away with Christa Brüggemann - SST (8)?

No, that was a mistake.
SST - (from 1971 until May 2011)
S, H or HS? H
Add a company: Lacquer Cut At - SST Brüggemann GmbH
Add a credit: Lacquer Cut By - Chris Brüggemann
Example: Ricky King - Verde

sebfact
No, that was a mistake.

Thanks!

sebfact
SST - (from 1971 until May 2011)

Actually not decided yet, hence it should be Lacquer Cut By - SST (8) for the time being

sebfact, can we conclude this by saying that when SST appears, SST should be added ?
I would say so, but both topics aren't really clear or concluded.

jweijde
Why not simply credit SST then ? Saves everyone the difficult task of determining which company should be credited. The SST profile can be used to clarify the name changes of the company.

That is possible, but some want to determine/credit more than what's clear on first sight. This non-mandatory info should of course be added in the most factual correct way possible.

Actually, it is one of the strong points of discogs that we can provide more exact info as literally present on a release.
(Of course, info should not be added where doubt is present, in these cases we should indeed stick to what we can see)

Dr.SultanAszazin
some want to determine/credit more than what's clear on first sight. This non-mandatory info should of course be added in the most factual correct way possible.

SST is what's on the release, so it's factual and correct.

Dr.SultanAszazin
it is one of the strong points of discogs that we can provide more exact info as literally present on a release.

Using SST doesn't rule this out. You can still have the profile explain history, name changes etc. in more detail.

jweijde
Using SST doesn't rule this out. You can still have the profile explain history, name changes etc. in more detail.

I'm not against the use of SST, but additionally, it might be entered in more detail where it can be traced down adequately.

jweijde
sebfact, can we conclude this by saying that when SST appears, SST should be added ?

Not sure what you mean, change all SST Brüggemann etc. entries to just SST?

sebfact
change all SST Brüggemann etc. entries to just SST?

What I mean is, credit SST when SST is found. If that means all SST Brüggemann etc. entries need to be changed, then yes.

sebfact
change all SST Brüggemann etc. entries to just SST?

-1
SST (3) can be used for cases where there is doubt or for rookie submitting, to be updated by a more experienced later

It would be big a loss to convert all releases where there is no doubt what the precise company is, to a generic credit that does not tell more than what is obvious.
Actually, it would be removing data, which is an incorrect edit.

sebfact
change all SST Brüggemann etc. entries to just SST?

-1

Dr.SultanAszazin
It would be big a loss to convert all releases where there is no doubt what the precise company is, to a generic credit that does not tell more than what is obvious.

sebfact
change all SST Brüggemann etc. entries to just SST?

-1

jweijde
sebfactchange all SST Brüggemann etc. entries to just SST?

What I mean is, credit SST when SST is found. If that means all SST Brüggemann etc. entries need to be changed, then yes.

Another -1 here

Dr.SultanAszazin
It would be big a loss to convert all releases where there is no doubt what the precise company is, to a generic credit that does not tell more than what is obvious.

I disagree that it is "a big loss". You credit SST and can check the SST profile to see which company was active at the time, if you're interested in that. Having three separate entries for what is essentially the same credit is really unnecessary, especially when there will be an entry named SST anyway.
It's not essential or required for the database to have entries that have the exact company name, when that name isn't mentioned on the release at all. Requiring s to juggle around with release dates, pressing dates and maybe even mastering dates and requiring them to check profiles everytime, just to determine the correct company, is making things unnecessarily complicated.

We credit what's found in the matrix in the majority of cases and it's the general practice. I don't see why this should make this yet another exception.

So we should merge GZ Media into one entity like lets say "GZ" ?

Apart from joking above I disagree with jweijde here.

sanberg101
merge into one entity like lets say "GZ" ?

I checked the profiles and a few releases and going by them, it doesn't seem like Gramofonové Závody, GZ Digital Media and GZ Media are always credited as "GZ".
The entity we're discussing here, SST, seems to be always credited as SST in the matrix.
So you're comparing apples and oranges here.

jweijde
It's not essential or required for the database to have entries that have the exact company name, when that name isn't mentioned on the release at all. Requiring s to juggle around with release dates, pressing dates and maybe even mastering dates and requiring them to check profiles everytime, just to determine the correct company, is making things unnecessarily complicated.

Agreed. See also The Lacquer Channel vs. The Lacquer Channel Limited.

jweijde
It's not essential or required for the database to have entries that have the exact company name, when that name isn't mentioned on the release at all. Requiring s to juggle around with release dates, pressing dates and maybe even mastering dates and requiring them to check profiles everytime, just to determine the correct company, is making things unnecessarily complicated.

Yup. Exactly.
And this "company" / lacquer cutter is always credited as SST on releases, that's how that company / lacquer cutter should be known here, with successive incorporations / legal names in profile with a nice and informative timeline.

And, no, once again, GZ and Optimal are completely different situations as they can be found credited with full legal or complete or current or whatever we want to call them names.

sebfact
change all SST Brüggemann etc. entries to just SST?

-1

Dr.SultanAszazin
SST Brüggemann GmbH for where it can be determined it is this one
SST GmbH for where it can be determined it is this one
SST (3) can be used for cases where there is doubt or for rookie submitting, to be updated by a more experienced later
It would be big a loss to convert all releases where there is no doubt what the precise company is, to a generic credit that does not tell more than what is obvious.
Actually, it would be removing data, which is an incorrect edit.

^ This.

jweijde
I disagree that it is "a big loss".

That's because you don't care about it, but others do.

A release should simply show as much information as is available. It makes no sense making information in releases much less precise. Especially if the correct information is available. Removing the exact company name in the credits is an impossible move within the guidelines, it is removing correct information. Adding both just SST + the correct company makes no sense at all.

We document releases, revealing as much factual information as possible.
We don't just echo what's on a release, although it is a good start for a submission.

And it makes no sense at all that for any release, anyone should check a profile to reveal certain information again & again, while it is revealed at sight when it can be added by a contributor.

Actually, the whole proposition to merge two different companies makes no sense at all.
Are you planning on merging all John Smith entries too because they appear the same on different releases?

These profiles stands for 2 entities, the ultimate goal is: one profile <=> one entity. Not one profile for 2 entities.

If you really want it to be entered -as on release- (which is quite nonsense for runout signatures), it should be SST (3) for SST Brüggemann GmbH & SST (4) for SST GmbH.

But renaming existing profiles should only be done when there is a real good, urging reason to do so.
That does not seem to be the case here. The used names are correct & clear and far more easy for submitting than using SST (3) + SST (4) for the same.

Ask the development team for LNV/CNV, or a single type of profile for all entities so we have generic NV's. In that case you can start entering "SST Brüggemann GmbH NV SST" & "SST GmbH NV SST", as-on-release. Just as we do with artists.

Dr.SultanAszazin
We document releases, revealing as much factual information as possible.
We don't just echo what's on a release, although it is a good start for a submission.

We are supposed to enter the data on this site "as closely to the release as possible" RSG §1.1.2
On top of that, the information we're talking about here is non-required. So that makes it even more important that data entry is as easy as possible. Which means it's best to use SST and not the company names that don't appear on any releases.

Dr.SultanAszazin
And it makes no sense at all that for any release, anyone should check a profile to reveal certain information again & again, while it is revealed at sight when it can be added by a contributor.

Now everyone who wants to submit an SST release should check the profiles already so what's the difference ?
Plus, I believe only a small group of s is actually interested in this and by their nature, these people are more likely to check profiles already.

Dr.SultanAszazin
A profile stands for an entity, the ultimate goal is: one profile <=> one entity.

That's not the case on Discogs. There are plenty of entries that represent multiple entities. For example, a label brand on one release may be credited as manufacturer on another release. Label and manufacturer both end up on the same page (take Columbia for example, or CBS).

The deciding factor is: do they share the same name ? In this case they do, because they're credited as SST all the time.

Dr.SultanAszazin
If you really want it to be entered -as on release- (which is quite nonsense for runout signatures), it should be SST (3) for SST Brüggemann GmbH & SST (4) for SST GmbH.

No, they should all be on SST (3) because it's one and the same entity. The profile can be used to explain there were two companies that used this.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Ask the development team for LNV/CNV, or a single type of profile for all entities so we have generic NV's. In that case you can start entering "SST Brüggemann GmbH NV SST" & "SST GmbH NV SST", as-on-release. Just as we do with artists.

I'm not going to pull that dead horse.

jweijde
We are supposed to enter the data on this site "as closely to the release as possible" RSG §1.1.2

Uhm, that has never counted for the linked fields. The RSG is more than 1.1.2.
+ that RSG is not about adding extra information after research. It completely irrelevant to this case.

jweijde
the information we're talking about here is non-required.

But allowed, so there is no reason to merge the existing profiles for the two SST entities, or disallow s to enter them in the future.

jweijde
data entry is as easy as possible.

Than don't enter non-required data...
Submitting can be done on a basic level and a more advanced & detailed level. Everyone is free to choose. Only a few required fields are required.

jweijde
Now everyone who wants to submit an SST release should check the profiles already so what's the difference ?

The difference is only the submitter of that specific information needs to check the profile, not anyone else using the data afterwards.

jweijde
only a small group of s is actually interested in this and by their nature

Indeed, and those people do not want to have to for each release what the conclusions were, so they add the information.
Those not interested should not care about it.

jweijde
That's not the case on Discogs. There are plenty of entries that represent multiple entities. For example, a label brand

Yes, a brand. But we handle a brand as a separate entity because of that.
But this specific case is about actual ed legal entities, companies.

jweijde
The deciding factor is: do they share the same name ?

No, one is named and ed as SST Brüggemann GmbH, the other SST GmbH.

jweijde
they should all be on SST (3) because it's one and the same entity.

They are one and the same entity in case they are still ed on the same number as SST Brüggemann GmbH.
I cannot check this anywhere...

jweijde
The profile can be used to explain there were two companies that used this.

And the correct company name can be added to the lccn.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Uhm, that has never counted for the linked fields. The RSG is more than 1.1.2.
+ that RSG is not about adding extra information after research. It completely irrelevant to this case.

Never counted for linked fields ? That's new to me. It is a general guideline so it applies to anything that is entered on this site. There also isn't an exclusion for "adding information after research".

jweijde
data entry should be as easy as possible

Dr.SultanAszazin
Than don't enter non-required data...
Submitting can be done on a basic level and a more advanced & detailed level. Everyone is free to choose. Only a few required fields are required.

No, anyone should be able to enter all data, not only the required data. Entering non-required data shouldn't be up to a select group of experts. The easier it is to enter the non-required data, the more people will actually do it!

Dr.SultanAszazin
Yes, a brand. But we handle a brand as a separate entity because of that.

No. If one release has a Universal logo, and another has a credit like "Distributed by Universal" then both releases will be on the same page.

jweijde
The deciding factor is: do they share the same name?

Dr.SultanAszazin
No, one is named and ed as SST Brüggemann GmbH, the other SST GmbH.

It is not about how a company is legally ed. It is about the name used for the credit on the actual release.
In this case, all releases credit SST, not SST Bruggemann GmbH or SST GmbH. So the credit should go to SST because that's the name on the releases.

jweijde
Never counted for linked fields ?

Indeed. Name variations for the same entity still should be entered in any linked field under the same name. the ANV field is used to enter as on release. For the companies, the notes are used to reflect the exact wording on the release.

If one name is used by 2 entities: we use 2 different profiles.

It is the case now today, it was the case 10 years back.

jweijde
No, anyone should be able to enter all data, not only the required data. Entering non-required data shouldn't be up to a select group of experts. The easier it is to enter the non-required data, the more people will actually do it!

If the child is too young to eat without help, should we let it prepare the food???

Anyone can submit non-required data, but it should be correct.
The more detailed, factual and exact the data is, the better. If you want to dumb-submit, and think it is an effort too much to check a profile (especially today with the automatic suggestions), I really wonder what you want to do here?

One is free to look find out something, but it cannot be entered as such. Well: maybe we should forbid forum topics where runouts are analyzed to determine the correct cutting facility & pressing plant???
Shall I give you the list of companies we enter derived from the runouts, better never appeared as such???
A few pages long, that list is...
And if we determine a pressing plant which is not mentioned by name on the release, but we can recognize by the traces the pressing machine leaves on a disc, this information should be removed???

You cannot submit correctly if reading a profile is too much. Quality cannot be achieved by laziness.
It even hasn't got anything to do with "expert" "difficult" or "advanced". There is only the question: what effort are you willing to do. If none, just don't enter anything.
If sloppy information is the goal, scan/photograph your collection & use ocr to index them in a spreadsheet or database program.

jweijde
No. If one release has a Universal logo, and another has a credit like "Distributed by Universal" then both releases will be on the same page.

Indeed.

But what is the comparison with this case??? Here no trademark appears. Trademarks can represent a whole branch of companies. Trademarks can keep existing after the companies behind it change.

But as I said before: signatures or other patterns in the runouts used to determine cutting facilities are always advanced information which need interpretation. Trying to make this easy is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.

jweijde
It is not about how a company is legally ed. It is about the name used for the credit on the actual release.

Straight bullshit: it is about determine the most correct profile. Cutting facilities do not use trademarks, so don't handle their signature as a trademark.
If you enter anything that appears as verbatim in linked fields, we end up in a mess.

jweijde
In this case, all releases credit SST, not SST Bruggemann GmbH or SST GmbH. So the credit should go to SST because that's the name on the releases.

SST isn't a credit, it's a signature used by a certain facility, above that, sometimes the signature has extra characters depending on the exact engineer.
That's where you are wrong, you handle a signature as it would be a trademark.

--

And above all: whatever you say: Entering the exact company derrived from the runouts is more complete information the just entering a generic signature -> thus removing that information (merging) is removing valid information, worth an EI vote in case someone deliberately starts removing that information.

If you want to enter things without any brain effort, do it, but do not touch any data that was previously entered correct and is more precise. It is simply not an option to remove 2 valid profiles & merge them.

What you seem to be missing here is that the main principle on this site is to enter what's on the release. The information on the release is the primary source. The name present on the releases is SST. So that is what we are supposed to enter. There is no need enter the legal name of a company, when that legal name doesn't appear on the release at all.

Dr.SultanAszazin
And above all: whatever you say: Entering the exact company derrived from the runouts is more complete information the just entering a generic signature -> thus removing that information (merging) is removing valid information, worth an EI vote in case someone deliberately starts removing that information.

There is nothing at all wrong with entering SST. It is not just "a generic signature". It is the name or branding used on the release and how the company chose to refer to itself. There is no requirement at all to convert that into a legal name of a company because that legal name does not appear on the relesae at all. In fact, this is hardly ever done. Just check the list that is on the Discogs wiki. Also site management's stance is that we enter what's found in the matrix. For that reason, we also enter the URLs that are found in a matrix. Hence: just enter what's on the release, which is SST.

The SST profile can be used to outline the history and the legal names of the companies that used the SST branding.

jweijde
There is nothing at all wrong with entering SST. It is not just "a generic signature". It is the name or branding used on the release and how the company chose to refer to itself. There is no requirement at all to convert that into a legal name of a company because that legal name does not appear on the relesae at all.

So you suggest using 320 or 670 For Lacquer Cut at the german or dutch Phonogram facilities despite we know that the facilities worked under different names during the time of their existence?

Or should we use only P instead of Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Pitman as that is the way the company choses to credit themself on release?

seehaas
Or should we use only P instead of Columbia Records Pressing Plant

Or the same P for Philips Phonografische Industrie (as appears on MMS/Copncert Hall records)?

jweijde
enter what's on the release.

indeed: in titles, notes and ANV fields.
In linked fields we separate different entities with the same name (you know, by using (2), (3), ...
Companies were asked (since its introduction) to only use 1 profile per single entity and enter the way it appears in the notes
Same for labels/trademarks -> same is 1 profile, not the same is 2 different profiles

But it's like a hanging LP: always the same few people who try to bend the RSG to no more than "just enter what's on release", while guidelines clearly do not ask to just do that. They only state the main source is the release. And why is that stated? Because from the very start of discogs very doubtful information was entered in cases where web information, photographs, books, etc. were used as primary source.

It has nothing to do with discogs not meant to document more of a release than what is found on the release. It's just a clear statement that every submission must start from the physical release, and never from a secondary source.

jweijde
There is nothing at all wrong with entering SST.

Which I said before: in case a submitter cannot (or does not want) to determine the exact company, I'm not against using SST(3). Other contributors can determine the exact entity and replace it later.
But not the other way around. Changing more precise information into more generic information is an EI edit.

jweijde
is the name or branding used on the release

1st It is not a branding or name. Actually it is meant as reference to the actual cutting engineer in the first place. And from the name of the engineer, we can determine the cutting facility.

jweijde
how the company chose to refer to itself

The company refers to itself always with SST GmbH or SST Brüggemann GmbH. Never otherwise that I have seen anywhere.
SST is not a logo, not a branding, it is a series of characters in the runouts which help us to determine the cutting engineer and/or facility.

Just as: 320 670 380 for PRS, as seehaas points out
Just as we can use pressing rings to determine a pressing plant
just as we use the typical way father-mother-stamper are numbered for vinyl pressed in Baarn
...
sorry examples are countless
It does work well, but yes, you have to know what you do. (It's impossible, or worthless if you do not know what you enter)

Your proposition is to do a lobotomy on discogs.

jweijde
just enter what's on the release,

Sorry, I will never take part in such a stupid approach.

On-release is to determine differences between versions.
The linked fields are to group releases properly -> which does involve interpretation

If you don't understand this, it really doesn't make sense to discuss this further.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Your proposition is to do a lobotomy on discogs.

+1

seehaas
So you suggest using 320 or 670 For Lacquer Cut at the german or dutch Phonogram facilities despite we know that the facilities worked under different names during the time of their existence?

It wouldn't be a big issue to me, although I do see why it would be better to have entries with a more meaningful name, in this case. SST by the way, is not a numeric reference so not comparable.

seehaas
Or should we use only P instead of Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Pitman as that is the way the company choses to credit themself on release?

This is not comparable to SST. "P" is a symbolic reference. Apparently it refers to the location (Pitman) and not to a company. This is why using "Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Pitman" for this is acceptable. SST however is a clear reference to a company, that even calls itself SST. "SST" is the branding used and how they chose to refer to themselves and they I've read elsewhere that they seem to be OK with using SST on Discogs:

sebfact
After another correspondence with Daniel Krieger, he would actually prefer one LCCN "SST" instead of the two companies we have now.

Using SST as credit on Discogs is not incorrect. It is the branding used on the release. Management has already ruled earlier (re: URL-branding) that entering what's found in the matrix is fine (maybe nik can reaffirm this ?). Requiring s to extrapolate that branding to company names that aren't on the release at all is making things unnecessarily complicated. Even more so, considering there'd be an entry called "SST" anyway!

jweijde
enter what's on the release.

Dr.SultanAszazin
indeed: in titles, notes and ANV fields.

"As on release" is not limited to these fields. Otherwise you could enter whatever company name you'd like, for example.
Also note, that information that can be entered in other available fields, should not be entered in the release notes.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Companies were asked (since its introduction) to only use 1 profile per single entity and enter the way it appears in the notes

If I correctly, this is only allowed when the name on the release is considered a slight variation of the name that already exists on Discogs (e.g. EMI Records Limited vs EMI Records Ltd.)
What you (and others) are suggesting here is quite the opposite. The releases mention "SST" and only that. There doesn't seem to be anything in the guidelines that suggests it is fine to relegate "SST" - a credit actually on the release - to the Release Notes and enter "SST GmbH" or "SST Bruggemann GmbH" which aren't mentioned on the release at all, instead.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Same for labels/trademarks -> same is 1 profile, not the same is 2 different profiles

Difference being that these labels/trademarks still have to be on the release, and are. Contrary to SST GmbH or SST Brugemann GmbH. Aside from minor variations.

Dr.SultanAszazin
Changing more precise information into more generic information is an EI edit.

Completely depends on the situation. In this case SST is actually on the release and the 'more precise information' you are seeking can also be found when this information is recorded in the SST profile instead.

Dr.SultanAszazin
It is not a branding or name. Actually it is meant as reference to the actual cutting engineer in the first place. And from the name of the engineer, we can determine the cutting facility.

It is not. The engineer is Daniel Krieger. The company is called SST, legally known as SST GmbH or SST Bruggemann GmbH. The reference found is "SST" so it refers to the company, not to the engineer. SST is the branding used here, in the same way as all those URL-brands, like www.takt.eu that we now enter.

Dr.SultanAszazin
The company refers to itself always with SST GmbH or SST Brüggemann GmbH. Never otherwise that I have seen anywhere.

Never on the actual releases though.

Dr.SultanAszazin
On-release is to determine differences between versions.
The linked fields are to group releases properly -> which does involve interpretation

The purpose of 'as on release' is mainly to make sure the data is entered as closely to the release as possible. This will result in entries that can be identified better, so owners and sellers can find the correct item. It also results in less rework being needed later on. Lastly, It makes data entry easier for everybody.
Entering data into the linked fields does require some interpretation, in the way that you'll need to select the correct entry on Discogs. The correct entry is the one that matches the data on the release. In this case that would definitely be SST. "SST" will be an existing entry on Discogs and is also what's actually on the release. There is no need or requirement to extrapolate the information in such a case. If you don't agree, I suggest you read the thread about URL-brands which basically is about the same thing.