Weird question:
Added the double lp version of Empyrium - Where at Night the Wood Grouse Plays. The additional notes didn't carry over. Fine. Let me add it manually. --Copy, paste, save. The notes still don't appear! Tried multiple times, with no luck.

If the additional notes are identical to the parent they don't show up by design. Best to just leave them on the parent, no need to carry it over to all child entries unless it is something worth noting and/or unique to that version.

What do we do if the release year for a version is not known? I seem to come across it fairly regularly with albums on larger labels and usually tends to be the most common version. For instance I was going to add the S/T Metal Church CD that I own with barcode 07559604712 but I can't find the year. Discogs estimates 1997-2003.

Mention it in the additional notes.

A general notice: Keep your wits about you on Discogs. Lots of duplicate entries due to oversights and/or user error. Don't take it at face value; scrutinizing is wise.

Not true, that's a bug.

Everytime I finally feel like I know what I am doing HellBlazer reminds me that I don't.

Sorry if the following suggestion has been raised. Some of the releases of a label may not be metal so they cannot be found here. However, I think that a label page should list all its releases, regardless metal or not. In this way, the catalogue number will not jump. We should add the feature to allow adding non-metal releases to label's page, the only difference being that it doesn't have a hyperlink (just like non-metal bands associated to an artist).

As a matter of fact, it has come up before.

Mind you, I'm not aware of the owners' thoughts on this, but I suspect they share mine.

Yeah, well, that's the intended behavior at the moment. Maybe I'll add an option to override the original line-up at some point, but for now that's how it is.



Fixed.



Yep.

Also, mods and knights, there is now a "make parent" button (next to the "add version" one on child pages) to make a particular version the parent release. As usual, let me know of any problem with it here.

That may be so, but this can be compensated by hiding non-metal releases by default, thus showing the metal releases only. I have been adding catalog numbers to Chinese labels these days, and I check to make sure that every eligible release (version) can be found here. The problem is, other users may want to do the same thing, and when he sees that there is a gap in the catalog number, he needs to find out whether this is a missing release/version that should be added, or it is simply an non-eligible release (e.g. non-metal, compilation). When the label is obscure and inactive, this is not going to be an easy job. If we allow these non-eligible releases to appear, filling in the gaps of catalog numbers, it will save the time of other users who go over a label's releases.

Good metal labels that release few non-metal albums deserve a complete discography, don't they?

The moderators can exclude some all-too-famous non-metal labels like Warner Bros., as well as those 1-metal-50-punk labels, from the proposal.

Opinions?

I really fail to see how gaplessness of catalogue numbers is relevant to anything. Saving contributors' time I sort of understand, but does it have any value besides that? Seems to me it doesn't, it just sort of looks like circular reasoning, "for contributors because of contributors", a to-do list. Also, all contributors don't work like that. Plus including/excluding random labels wouldn't make much sense (and including them all would mean at very least hundreds of thousands of releases). And well, ultimately, that's what label catalogues are for, while MA's interest is elsewhere. Aesthetically, I'm not bothered at slightest by it, and even if I were it shouldn't matter.


Not really, I don't think so. I don't think that the releases which aren't archived here are relevant even as a simple list. I clearly don't consider labels as important as you do (and deserving is a nice ambiguous word with subjective values), but I still think that the current label pages do have a good amount of information that is only related to the labels themselves.

And arbitrary inclusions and exclusions cause so much collateral agony that they shouldn't be done lightly. Nah, I don't think this is a good idea.

I think it would be useless and irrelevant. We're not here to cater to labels and do their promotion for them for the sake of completeness. For me, this is the equivalent of adding side projects from non well known metal bands simply because some people would like the information to be archived.

"make parent" button


I'm sorry, but that sounds like a gigantic clusterfuck. We're not going to try to moderate which labels should have all of their release roster listed and which shouldn't.

I just don't see the big issue with gaps in the catalog numbers. I really don't. As far as we are concerned, there are no gaps in that regard anyway. We don't have that field to always get nice and complete lists for label pages (not primarily, anyway), but to have that information accompany respective releases by metal bands (and to provide a comprehensive overview with all the relevant data for a label's listed releases). Gapless listings are not the ultimate goal, they are a nice-to-have consequence of listing metal bands and their releases.

This reminds me of other, similar suggestions to broaden the site's scope, things that seem nice and neat and sensible at first glance, but just serve to add a huge element to the site that is really quite outside its chosen subject matter. Like allowing dummy entries for the similar artists tab. This is simply not what the site focuses on and we will not indulge it with a feature and a complicated set of arbitrary rules to go with it.

Is this correct?
http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Me ... lis/224351

Or should the MP3 stuff on the 3rd disk be added as separate entries on the tracklist side?

Yeah I don't see how that warrants clogging the additional notes. Plus an "mp3 CD" should still be listed as CD format. I would have added them to the tracklisting and saved the additional notes for the performance delineation alone.

I am probably a bit of a newb, but I was editing my release information (adding some extra information, I did not know that my old band was on MA archives but I stumbled upon it). But after saving, it appears that it says that it has multiple versions which is not the case.
http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Ro ... est/160718
I am sorry for this, but it is the first time I am editing anything and I thought editing was different than using the button add another version.

You used the 'add a version' feature to apply your changes instead of just editing the parent version. Note that your current ranking on the site precludes you from complete access in any regard.

ok, I didn't mean to, my bad. I think that I have been pressing some buttons due to the fact I have limited access, so I will re-read all the manuals first for future additions.

This. Keep in mind that the tracklist tab should reflect the actual physical content as best as possible. There's an MP3 CD included, a bit unusual, but it has a real tracklist.

For some reason, when I added another version of Crack the Skye, it added 4 duplicates at the same time: http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Ma ... kye/430941
Is this a common glitch?

I've seen similar complaints, but most people seem to be attributing it to connection/browser issues on their end. This hasn't happened to me personally.

My understanding is that, the default version of an album (i.e., the version shown when you click the title) should be the "regular" version. Any limited, special, die-hard versions, if released simultaneously, should appear in "other versions". If I see a special version of an album is made default, while the regular version is not added, should I report it or simply add the regular version?

Example: Gnome > Silent Scream. The default version shown here is ZDR 012-S (limited edition, 2CD). The normal version is ZDR 012 (1CD). See label's website.

Add the correct regular version as a child entry, and then use the new "make parent" feature to swap the two. Your line of thinking is correct regarding what is considered the default.

If you haven't used it yet, the button for it is here (only visible on child entries, naturally):


For the rest of you without the access, flag a report after adding the correct version (be sure to specify!).

I haven't been doing any updates really since HB added that button, what rank is it available to?

Like I said, I've been away from this for a bit...

Well, it took some time, but the "same songs on each side" checkbox is up, so you can now set that flag for tapes that have the same tracklist repeating on side B.

apologies if it's been asked before (it probably has), but flexi discs go under "vinyl" or "other"?

I would say vinyl, and specify flexi disc in the version description.

okies, thanks

http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/El ... 1986/47822

The two versions of this release should probably change place with each other. How is that done? Though I haven't seen a case like this until now.

I fixed it for you, flag a report in the future for these, we expect them.

*sighs* There are upwards of 9000 double-sided releases that have all their songs entered on side A, due to (I assume in most cases) people not dragging the "side B" row to the correct position. So, yeah... if you're bored: http://www.metal-archives.com/todo/single-side-albums

I probably just missed this somewhere along the way but in light of HB's post just above what are we to do for things like this http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/1349/Slaves/406949 it's a single sided vinyl with only one song. If I check the 'same songs on both sides' button it gives it a side B. Should I just add single sided to the notes or is there something I missed?

If the b-side is empty, it's just fine as it is right now. Neither a b-side nor the checkbox for repeating material are obligatory.

Ok cool, I didn't know if I was just missing a single sided option or something like that, thanks.

Yeah, it's possible that some releases in that list are legitimately single-sided, but most probably aren't.

HB - for the same songs on each side thing - wouldn't it be better to clear out the times for the B side if the box is checked? While in reality the tape is double the length because the songs are duplicated on both sides - that's not really the intention in the end. So if four songs equal 10:00 on the first side - then duplicate the tracks on the second side but leave out the times, making the tape a total of 10:00 still? That would seem closer to maintaining the intended duration - I think.