Box, compilation, re-issue Pt 2

Following up on this thread from 2 years ago:

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/forums/topic/234933

nik mentioned that two albums combined in a compilation should be entered as:

1xcd album
1xcd album

rather than

2xcd compilation.

I am wondering if there has been any further thought about this in the case of
Whitney Houston - My Love Is Your Love / I Look To You

The guidelines quote
6.1.2. Quantity (Qty) - this is used to note the number of items that is included with the release, in the particular following format.
Which suggests to me that 2xcd compilation is acceptable despite 'logic' of two separate albums. Does anyone want 14 separate cd entries in this: Hunters & Collectors - Horn Of Plenty

Also does a box set count if it is an outer sleeve containing 2 cd jewel cases? I don't think so... I consider a box to be packaging which can be completely sealed

adrian-79
Also does a box set count if it is an outer sleeve containing 2 cd jewel cases?

It's a box. A slipcase is a small box within which fits jewel cases or card sleeved CDs. Unless there's no bottom to the box, then it's an o-sleeve.

On the main topic, yes Nik has intervened on similar threads since and has always said much the same.

adrian-79
Does anyone want 14 separate cd entries in this: Hunters & Collectors - Horn Of Plenty

I do.

The contributor of this release also I think:

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=2902998#latest

Eviltoastman
On the main topic, yes Nik has intervened on similar threads since and has always said much the same.

In that case, should the guidelines be updated to reflect this? RSG §6.1.2. 2 x CD - for a two CD release

adrian-79
In that case, should the guidelines be updated to reflect this? RSG §6.1.2. 2 x CD - for a two CD release

No need for a Guideline update. It clearly says that those are "common examples". To list all examples would be impossible.

adrian-79
In that case, should the guidelines be updated to reflect this? RSG §6.1.2. 2 x CD - for a two CD release

No, because it's correct for most 2cd albums. It's generally advanced s who concern themselves with such bumflufferies.

Eviltoastman
bumflufferies

That's a new word for me. I like it.

Eviltoastman
It's generally advanced s who concern themselves with such bumflufferies.

Isn't that why the forums are so popular?

In this thread, nik agrees that the concise option is valid
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/225081

I note this release has been entered as 2 separate lps, which I also disagree with
Pink Floyd - A Nice Pair since it was repackaged as a double lp compilation in its own right.

adrian-79
repackaged as a double lp compilation in its own right.

That is specifically what the "all media , compilation" line addresses.

Eviltoastman
That is specifically what the "all media , compilation" line addresses.

The point is that it is 2x lp.

adrian-79
In this thread, nik agrees that the concise option is valid
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/225081

Later said :
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/forums/topic/234933#5215030294697336111a5d4d

adrian-79
In this thread, nik agrees that the concise option is valid
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/225081

^^ Interestingly, in the meantime I have changed my mind as opposed to what I have stated in that old thread. That's life, I guess… :)

adrian-79
Does anyone want 14 separate cd entries in this: Hunters & Collectors - Horn Of Plenty

Yes, that would seem correct to me.

adrian-79
The point is that it is 2x lp.

Alone that would be correct, but not stating all the facts (perhaps for the convenience of a ing argument). The full facts are that you have 1xLP, Album + 1xLP, Album. You would only be correct should you disregard the album tag. The two albums are then compiled in this release giving rise to the need of a third format tag - "All media, Compilation".

Eviltoastman
Alone that would be correct, but not stating all the facts (perhaps for the convenience of a ing argument)

No... Whitney Houston - My Love Is Your Love / I Look To You in that it is not comprised of two complete separate albums. You can't pull the first lp out of A Nice Pair and say you have a complete The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn.

I just read this more recent thread...

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/5215158c9469733cfcfaf4e9#5215158c9469733cfcfaf4b4

That Kergillian makes a very good argument.

As it stands the guidelines RSG §6.1.2 state Quantity (Qty) - this is used to note the number of items that is included with the release, in the particular following format.

Therefore if you have 5 items that share the same format, you MUST put the quantity as 5.
Any other interpretation is contrary to the guidelines as they stand.

adrian-79
Therefore if you have 5 items that share the same format, you MUST put the quantity as 5.
Any other interpretation is contrary to the guidelines as they stand.

Hi adrien, with respect that is absolutely contrary to basic arithmetic and you're misreading the guideline too!
1x5 = 5 = 1+1+1+1+1 = 2+2+1 = 1+1+3 = 2+3

In the Pink Floyd case we have:
1x + 1y = compilation z (x = Pipers At Dawn. Y = A Saucerful Of Secrets and z = (the two combined to form z) A Nice Pair.

So here we have a truer sum than the one you advocate.
1x + 1y ≠ 2.

What this means is that the drawn out method of entering the release is the only true correct method. However we all acknowledge, or crouch and arch our backs to make allowance for it to be entered on one line if you wish. We call it "less complete" but in truth is wholly incorrect in mathematical and in actual . We manufacture it to be okay (but less okay that the complete method) by employing this:
1x + 1y = 2 (1x +1y). We falsify things that way to appease those who take issue with the other method.

adrian-79
nik mentioned that two albums combined in a compilation should be entered as:

1xcd album
1xcd album

rather than

2xcd compilation.

Does anyone want 14 separate cd entries in this: Hunters & Collectors - Horn Of Plenty

As above, that would be correct.

Two examples for correctly tagged 2xCD compilations:

Mutazione (Italian Electronic & New Wave Underground 1980-1988)

They should be distinguishable from so called "2-fers" such as Kylie Minogue / Impossible Princess. Using the same format line for both would not properly display the different structure of the releases.

Was just discussing this via Request and was told to do it # x LP as there is no reason to stretch out the situation.

And I agree. It looks confusing with the repetition and besides the tracklisting will ultimately show the separate albums. And the format in parenthesis on the artist page will also be useless because all you see is the same format repeated.

To say this was 'OK' or logical was a bad call by the db mgr, imho.

Granted, these are separate albums but they make up one release.

Tokeowave
and was told to do it # x LP as there is no reason to stretch out the situation.

So depicting the format incorrectly is fine by them? Who of the staff said this?

Amsreddevil
So depicting the format incorrectly is fine by them? Who of the staff said this?

I'd like to see an official staff statement here as well. Otherwise we're going round in circles.

Was the individual aware of the database managers previous comment on the situation when they commented? Just to advise that any backward move from a the more complete method of entry to the simpler method will result in the appropriate vote in accordance with RSG §14.1.4 unless there is an official staff statement confirming the points raise above. I have filed my own SR as this contradicts at least six previous statements by nik preferring the more complete method.

Eviltoastman
I have filed my own SR

Thanks, this is getting ridiculous. If this is yet another 180 by management....

Just to make this specific point. I have nothing against the more concise method being used. I don't mind it being used. What I do not want is the more complete version being found on a release and dumbed down and stripped based on a private SR from an anonymous staff member who may or may not have been fully informed of the situation or perhaps has been speaking specifically about a new submission in draft or another specific example. That should not occur especially when considering the amount of opinion that went into Nik's decision, the weighing of so many arguments and opinions and consistently coming to the conclusion I mention above.

However, the opposite is true of the concise method should be acceptable. If the concise method is used, then subsequent editors/advanced s should be free to enter the format fully.

Amsreddevil
So depicting the format incorrectly is fine by them?

Explain how it's even incorrect?

First we have to acknowledge that these are compilations and make up ONE RELEASE. All the media that are of the same format ought to go on one line (otherwise its messy, confusing because of the repetition and useless if you want to see the format at-a-glance because space is limited on label and artist pages and it gets cut off). Then we are denoting how many of those in the qty field. Then we show the content in the tracklisting.

Is there some deep technical reason it has to be stretched out this way? Is it so it'll show in the 'correct' section in the artist page? If so, sorry, there's got to be a better way like tweak the back end code. In fact, it should show up in the compilation section.

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/Fleetwood-Mac-Fleetwood-Mac-1969-To-1972/release/4881914

Look at this example? This thing comes with a 7", look for the release in the artist page? The listing looks like this:

Fleetwood Mac: 1969 To 1972 (LP, Album, RE, RM + LP, Album, RE, RM + LP, Album,)

What kind of garbage is at the end of the title? What is that? The format is incomplete, you can't tell at-a-glance what that's all about and the 7" is totally omitted.

But I'll say this: if that is the way to go...put it in the guidelines already. If it isn't there, it ain't for real and the db mgr still have reservations about it, imo.

The staff member that responded to my SR was not nik, I can confirm.

Tokeowave
What kind of garbage is at the end of the title? What is that? The format is incomplete, you can't tell at-a-glance what that's all about and the 7" is totally omitted.

This isn't a problem with the submission. This is a matter of how it displays in the master release. You can immediately see that this contains multiple items. Clicking on it confirms it. We're concerned chiefly with each individual submission first. We worry about the master release display second. Could it look better? yes. That's something the dev team can mull over. One solution could be to leave the display as it is, but hovering over it shows the rest of the format in a small pop-up box.

Well they have to figure out a BETTER way to denote different albums within a release, not this repetitious way subbing wise and display wise.

Edit: how about regardless of how we enter it, either by qty or multiple lines, the display should appear with # x format + format, discription, free text field.

Tokeowave
Explain how it's even incorrect?

For Kylie Minogue - Kylie Minogue

They are bundled in a Discbox Slider as a compilation, but are 2 seperate albums, thus this is how they should be listed in the format, and compilation at the end to show the two albums are packed as compilation. Listing them as 2 x CD, Compilation would be incorrect.

... and this:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/522dae065e75a7296b6a53df#522deea1aba9e83f13215b26

Eviltoastman
In the Pink Floyd case we have:
1x + 1y = compilation z (x = Pipers At Dawn. Y = A Saucerful Of Secrets and z = (the two combined to form z) A Nice Pair.

Nice try, but your algebra needs a little work. Firstly we need to consider that both x and y are both the same format Vinyl LP. The fact that they have different names does not change their format.

Also there is the principle of algebraic reduction.
As an example
x+x+x+y+y=3x+2y
To say the long way of writing the equation is more correct or somehow provides more information is nonsense and mathematically unsound.

Amsreddevil
but are 2 seperate albums, thus this is how they should be listed in the format

That is what the notes are for, not the format box. If a package contains 1xcd album + 1xcd album, this becomes 2xcd albums. The only way they wouldn't be treated equally would be if one album had an additional format tag (eg: reissue) making it different.

Tokeowave
Well they have to figure out a BETTER way to denote different albums within a release, not this repetitious way subbing wise and display wise.

I don't see why a simple comment in the notes saying "individually packaged" is inadequate. Brevity is the key.
Is there a magic lamp we can rub to make an appear?

adrian-79
Is there a magic lamp we can rub to make an appear?

https://discogs.librosgratis.biz//new

adrian-79
The fact that they have different names does not change their format.

Nice try, but your reasoning needs a little work. :P

adrian-79
To say the long way of writing the equation is more correct or somehow provides more information is nonsense and mathematically unsound.

As we've discussed in the past a couple of times with nik, the Format field structure allows for a limited hierarchy. And hierarchy is what we're actually achieving by splitting to individual discs when logically possible.
A format like

1 × CD, Album, Reissue
1 × CD, Album, Reissue
All Media, Compilation

… displays exactly that: a hierarchy

(A counter-example: when a 2CD contains 3 albums and one of them is split over both discs, each disc cannot be a logical reissue of an individual album; the logical format is then 2×CD, Compilation. The individual albums will be only apparent by using index tracks or notes. See e.g. Cymande - The Message)

adrian-79
If a package contains 1xcd album + 1xcd album, this becomes 2xcd albums.

If it would really say "2×CD, Albums", you may have a point.
Since it doesn't, by looking at the format "2×CD, Album" only, one must assume that this is 1 album spanning over 2 discs. Which is logically incorrect, because each disc is (was) a standalone album.

adrian-79
That is what the notes are for, not the format box.

So the format field should not be used for formats?

adrian-79
Is there a magic lamp we can rub to make an appear?

You're one of those people who just will not accept anything anyone tells you until a manager steps in and says the exact same thing, aren't you?

funny my Fleetwood Mac box set found its way here. I too agree it should be entered in Discigs as 4xLp 1x7".
why? because the albums are not for sale on their own for starters. yes the packaging "replicates" the originals, but it is a collection of their work in one package and is even labeled with marketing material as such...but I cannot go out and buy any of those specific pressings, they are unique to this set. the Beatles boxes were also marketed as 16lp and those are available by themselves. funny how often discogs wants things done by marketing, but not this.

it just looks like trash when looking at the listings though.

adrian-79
Nice try, but your algebra needs a little work. Firstly we need to consider that both x and y are both the same format Vinyl LP.

Hi Adrien. I explained why this is mathematically flawed as it assumed both LPs are the same - are they the same album? The anser is no as they cannot both be X. As Loukash advises:

loukash
Nice try, but your reasoning needs a little work. :P

And this is because:

Eviltoastman
adrian-79The point is that it is 2x lp.

Alone that would be correct, but not stating all the facts (perhaps for the convenience of a ing argument). The full facts are that you have 1xLP, Album + 1xLP, Album. You would only be correct should you disregard the album tag

And therefore:

Eviltoastman
In the Pink Floyd case we have:
1x + 1y = compilation z (x = Pipers At Dawn. Y = A Saucerful Of Secrets and z = (the two combined to form z) A Nice Pair.

So here we have a truer sum than the one you advocate.
1x + 1y ≠ 2.

What this means is that the drawn out method of entering the release is the only true correct method. However we all acknowledge, or crouch and arch our backs to make allowance for it to be entered on one line if you wish. We call it "less complete" but in truth is wholly incorrect in mathematical and in actual . We manufacture it to be okay (but less okay that the complete method) by employing this:
1x + 1y = 2 (1x +1y). We falsify things that way to appease those who take issue with the other method.

I don't want to come across as aggressive, and I am typing this taking care not to appear so, but you have displayed a logic which only works if we ignore key details and only concentrate on the base structures and not the detail of how the whole is comprised.Yes there may be two LPs, but they are separate albums. The all media or Boxed tags bring them together. It's a simple matter which enhances the sub so it;s more truthful. Denying it is based on an aesthetic preference which robs the submission of detail. How it looks on the master release page is an issue, but not unassailable. Advocating that we cut data on the main submission page is contrary to the idea of accuracy and detail that we strive for.

You've also misread guidelines too. I would recommend that you enter these in the simplistic manner you advocate - which though being "less complete" (a term which is quite kind) is still allowed, if not preferred. Then, if a seasoned wishes to upgrade the submission in due course as part of a greater edit then they ought to be free to make the adjustment in accordance with nik's previous advice.

I'd also like to repeat that I have already filed a request.

Hi folks. Sorry about the confusion. Obviously we are all human (apart from DiscogsUpdateBot) and no one can know every thread / decision / discussion.

I have updated the guidelines at http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/52151d0b9469733cfcfc8bda#522ee60dc131f35274be1048 to make the current position clearer.

Excellent. Thank you nik.

Yes, I disagree with the outcome but thank you nik

I disagree with the outcome as it displays not properly in the main releases page.
But thanks for clearance.

nik
I have updated the guidelines

Thanks!

slur
it displays not properly in the main releases page

Then please post a feature request in the Development forum, addressed at the Discogs frontend programmers to fix it.

Not convinced the expanded method actually gives more useful data....example: Various - Classical Music: 25 Legendary Albums For The Perfect Collection

What if a release has both an LP & CD with the same album how should format be entered ?
example: Fire! - (Without Noticing)

Internaut
Not convinced the expanded method actually gives more useful data

Even on the release page: it's a display issue, not a data issue.
The database is able to do the math all alone. Someone in Portland, Orgeon just has to program it to count all occurrences of "CD, Album", and display the result "25".
(Apart from other issues with your 25×CD submission, because you tend to take Nik's advices very literally just to prove a "point"… ;)

n-f-r
What if a release has both an LP & CD with the same album how should format be entered ?

Like this: Jindra Holubec - Valerij Dubjanin
I.e. in your example the tracklist positions and the use of index track are incorrect.
I don't think that "All Media" is always necessary, although in your example it makes sense because of the "Limited Edition" attribute which logically applies to the sum of both formats.

so did I just read that both are okay, but the expanded is preferred? sounds like that will forever keep the debate going.

locuslarsen
so did I just read that both are okay, but the expanded is preferred? sounds like that will forever keep the debate going.

In what way? It seems very straightforward.

locuslarsen
so did I just read that both are okay, but the expanded is preferred? sounds like that will forever keep the debate going.

Yes, on a closer look it sounds a bit too ambivalent.
But we shouldn't be splitting hair over semantics. "Preferred" means what it means.

In other words, as far as I understand it, the "simple solution" is valid in that sense that it apparently shouldn't justify a "needs changes" vote (for the time being).
And similarly, a valid split into an "expanded" format should be always accepted as the "better solution".

In other other words: if we encounter a submission which has e.g. a "2×CD, Compilation" format and which fulfills all necessary criteria for a "1×CD, Album, Reissue; 1×CD, Album, Reissue; All Media, Compilation", we should simply update to the "expanded" format accordingly.

Eviltoastman
It seems very straightforward.

loukash
on a closer look it sounds a bit too ambivalent.
But we shouldn't be splitting hair over semantics. "Preferred" means what it means.

Yet another ambiguous guideline. Having the chance here to make it more than clear what to use, not to give a 'preferred' option but just the one option that is obligatory.

loukash
In other other words: if we encounter a submission which has e.g. a "2×CD, Compilation" format and which fulfills all necessary criteria for a "1×CD, Album, Reissue; 1×CD, Album, Reissue; All Media, Compilation", we should simply update to the "expanded" format accordingly.

This is what is so annoying. Why on earth have 2 options when 1 (correct) should be chosen and stuck too. This is still not a good outcome. It makes it easier for everyone in the end if they know 100% what is correct to use. Please make up your mind and stick with just the one (correct) = the expanded format nik.

Amsreddevil
Yet another ambiguous guideline. Having the chance here to make it more than clear what to use, not to give a 'preferred' option but just the one option that is obligatory.

Why are you so angry? You've been given a choice of two with the knowledge that using the simpler option may result in someone editing it to the more complex option. It's not ambiguous.

It cannot be interpreted any other way. You may use either, but one is preferred.

Amsreddevil
This is what is so annoying. Why on earth have 2 options when 1 (correct) should be chosen and stuck too.

It give less advanced s who cannot grasp the detailed format entry a chance to submit without any problems. Such concessions cannot be considered bad unless you seek to make things elitist and specialist. this cannot be desirable.

Amsreddevil
This is still not a good outcome.

On the contrary, I think it's the best solution and since it's been in place in the forums for two years it also works without a problem.

Amsreddevil
Please make up your mind and stick with just the one (correct) = the expanded format nik.

Again, why so angry? The concise/compromise method is not a terminal issue. I think sometimes that you need some perspective. I rarely see you approach matters calmly or rationally. Contrary to how this may feel, your blood may boil Amsred, but no one else is at war.

Eviltoastman
Why are you so angry?

I am not angry, I am annoyed, because

Eviltoastman
You may use either, but one is preferred.

Eviltoastman
It give less advanced s who cannot grasp the detailed format entry a chance to submit without any problems.

So lets give new s an option to fill in 'everything' and easier way - track-listing: Add just the first track to make it easier, somebody else can add the rest of the tracks later. Leave off the remix credits, they are already mentioned in the remix, someone can add that later, etc.

Stick to one thing, that will make it easier for new s. Giving people a choice only leads to confusion, and last (and certainly not least), to not add it in expanded form is just plain incorrect.

Amsreddevil
So lets give new s an option to fill in 'everything' and easier way - track-listing: Add just the first track to make it easier, somebody else can add the rest of the tracks later.

With respect, that's a rather base 'aunt sally'. If we can keep this on topic and not throw out straw men to attack.

Amsreddevil
Stick to one thing, that will make it easier for new s. Giving people a choice only leads to confusion,

(Aunt Sally of my own) This is what the soviets said. ;)
Seriously though, a choice of A or B should not be confusing. If that causes someone consternation, I'd be very surprised.

Amsreddevil
not add it in expanded form is just plain incorrect.

Mathematically and logically speaking, I agree as I have written above and in several of the linked threads. However according to the guidelines, both a re correct. It;s not unreasonable to offer such a basic choice. (edit) We already offer a similar choice when selecting trackpositions. We are free to use the positions on the release (preffered) or the Discogs standard positions.

Eviltoastman
Mathematically and logically speaking, I agree as I have written above and in several of the linked threads. However according to the guidelines, both a re correct. It;s not unreasonable to offer such a basic choice.

So, in the advent of a 2lp double album set pressed on two different coloured vinyls, it would be entered as:
Vinyl LP Red
Vinyl LP Green
All media Album

How does the database know that this is a 2xLP and not 2x individual LPs packaged together?

adrian-79
How does the database know that this is a 2xLP and not 2x individual LPs packaged together?

2xLP:

1 × Vinyl, LP, Red
1 × Vinyl, LP, Green
All Media, Album

2x individual LPs packaged together:

1 × Vinyl, LP, Album, Red
1 × Vinyl, LP, Album, Green
All Media, Compilation

As I said, the possibilities to display a format hierarchy are rather limited, but nonetheless they exist.

adrian-79
How does the database know that this is a 2xLP and not 2x individual LPs packaged together?

This is how:

adrian-79
All media Album

This indicates it's one album spread over two different colour LPs.
Otherwise the format would be
Vinyl, LP, Album, Red
Vinyl, LP, Album, Green

Edit:
Foiled again by loukash. Damn you.

The intent of the guideline change was to put in there what is already the methodology on the site.

The compact method is logically wrong, but we also have to accept that there are a lot of preexisting releases in the database using the format in this way. Further, the expanded method may be problematical for new s and / or cause a clumsy display on large box sets. I think taking steps toward a better way (both regarding data entry and display methods) is the best way to figure out what we need to do to develop and improve things.

nik
cause a clumsy display on large box sets

This cannot be emphasised enough. Whilst it may be desireable to enter them full with regular releases, when you have some releases with upwards of 20* CDs/records then it should be entered compactly.

*20 discs/records is an arbitrary figure and by no means definitive, but I chose it as I felt it comfortably exceeded the norm and made the point.

nik
The intent of the guideline change was to put in there what is already the methodology on the site.

The compact method is logically wrong, but we also have to accept that there are a lot of preexisting releases in the database using the format in this way. Further, the expanded method may be problematical for new s and / or cause a clumsy display on large box sets. I think taking steps toward a better way (both regarding data entry and display methods) is the best way to figure out what we need to do to develop and improve things.

How about a field for overall disc numbers, and that is what could be displayed.

Perhaps if "box set" is one of the format additions, that in the master release view or artist page view it could simply say "Box Set2 and nothing else with a hover point that is displayed if you hover over the work box set - similar to here...but on a box set obviously.
http://screencast.com/t/wU8iO8Lxyqr4

How to list 2 albums on 1 CD ?

1x CD, Album, Album
All Media Compiltion ?

1x CD, Album, Album, Compilation ?

1x CD Compilation ?

Waldlicht
1x CD Compilation

This

Waldlicht
How to list 2 albums on 1 CD ?

1x CD, Album, Album
All Media Compiltion ?

1x CD, Album, Album, Compilation ?

1x CD Compilation ?

It depends on the example being considered.
It can either be 1xCD, Album Compilation
or 1xCD, Compilation.

Waldlicht
How to list 2 albums on 1 CD ?

1x CD, Album, Album
All Media Compiltion ?

1x CD, Album, Album, Compilation ?

1x CD Compilation ?

Currently we're usually sticking to "1 × CD, Compilation", with Index Tracks if applicable, plus explanation in the notes.

But I vaguely recall a similar discussion with Nik where he stated that a format like "1 × CD, Album, Album, Compilation" might be logically and hierarchically consistent, even though it looks strange.

loukash
But I vaguely recall a similar discussion with Nik where he stated that a format like "1 × CD, Album, Album, Compilation" might be logically and hierarchically consistent, even though it looks strange

Various - Four Old Seven Inches On A Twelve Inch would be "1 × CD, EP, EP, EP, EP, Album, Compilation"

Bleucch... if the webpage did automatically compact the format I wouldn't see the problem with this method, but I don't see any benefits from 'improved accuracy' here, it just seems pretentious and long winded

Eviltoastman
This cannot be emphasised enough. Whilst it may be desireable to enter them full with regular releases, when you have some releases with upwards of 20* CDs/records then it should be entered compactly.

Isn't this the exact opposite of everything you've been saying?

locuslarsen
How about a field for overall disc numbers, and that is what could be displayed.

I agree.

adrian-79
Various - Four Old Seven Inches On A Twelve Inch would be "1 × CD, EP, EP, EP, EP, Album, Compilation"

Bleucch... if the webpage did automatically compact the format I wouldn't see the problem with this method, but I don't see any benefits from 'improved accuracy' here, it just seems pretentious and long winded

Good point. :)
Yes, there are obvious usability limits to this approach at this time.

adrian-79
Eviltoastman - "This cannot be emphasised enough. Whilst it may be desirable to enter them full with regular releases, when you have some releases with upwards of 20* CDs/records then it should be entered compactly."
Isn't this the exact opposite of everything you've been saying?

The comment you have quoted is a direct reference to atypical releases and not in keeping with the discussion prior. It's not the exact opposite of everything I've been saying because I've been writing exclusively on typical releases. Incidentally, my view on using a condensed version for massive releases and a full an complete entry method for more typical releases is one I've shared in these forums in the many threads where we have discussed this exact same issue previously.

You omit the fact that whilst I prefer the complete version, I also advocate the use of the concise/simple method for people who struggle with this topic or simply are not competent or experienced enough to do it properly.

Is this Format

Box Set, Compilation
CD, Album
CD, Album

correct, or must it be:

CD, Album
CD, Album
All Media, Box Set, Compilation

?

Box set and all media would not be used together. If there's a boix, use box set and don;t use all media.

Waldlicht
Box Set, Compilation
CD, Album
CD, Album

That seems inorrect to me as the listing says "!double jewel case. no box or slipcase is mentioned or pictured. =Two albums wrapped up and compiled in a double jewlcase:
CD, Album, Reissue
CD, Album, Reissue
All Media, Compilation.

Eviltoastman
Box set and all media would not be used together.

Yup - thats right per:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/formatslist