Someone has edited B12 - Electro-Soma to "fix" the album title to include the parentheses, as seen on the front cover. So far this is the only edition that has been updated in this way.
Designers Republic was always more than a bit fanciful with their typographic treatments, so I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether the parentheses really belong in the title. However I don't have a strong opinion either way.
There were many argues about how title should be entered on discogs, but RSG §3.1.2 tells all.
It must be entered as it appears on that particular release.
colani
It must be entered as it appears on that particular release.
No. It 'must' not.
Those are guidelines. Not rules set in stone. Every single guideline in the RSG, while there to ensure the database is complete and correct as possible,has an exception somewhere in the DB. Except Rule 1. s are permitted to use a degree of common sense or make judgement calls if they assist the primary aims of the site.
The brackets are a matter of graphic design, not informational. The album isnt called "Open brackets Electro-soma close brackets" after all.
Keeping the brackets does help anyone or anything, No information is lost by their omission. To do so just slavishly and unthinkingly follows the guidelines simply for the sake of doing so. It may also play merry hell with search results and the like.
Please explain what benefit such things serve to s of discogs given that every other discography, reference works and indeed every other mention of the album in print or online will omit the brackets. And also given that several versions of this album appear in the DB and no-one given a second thought to adding the brackets. And believe me IDM is one of the most well-covered styles in the DB - the foundations of the DB were built on it.
Just because you can, doesnt mean you should. Think about that.
I have changed it back based on the above. I have no intention to get into a protracted discussion over this but if anyone wants to stand by their opinion, I strongly recommend they change EVERY relevant version. Not just the one. And that they also be prepared for the reaction that will inevitably result from such changes.
Do it properly or dont do it at all. Inconsistent piecemeal changes to the DB help about as much as incorrect edits.
Thanks for your explanations, but for me the title is (Electro-Soma). I don't see any reason to believe that those parenthesis are not existent.
You've changed the title back to the old version already....ok.
Quick example of common sense at work:
Several of ABBA's releases spell it with the first B backwards. It makes the name look symettrical and aesthetically pleasing on covers.
Does discogs follow this convention? No, of course not. There is no such letter as a backwards 'B' in english (or indeed swedish). The fact it is a graphic design decision is taken as a given.
Would people search the database for the backwards 'B' spelling of the name and be disappointed? Of course not, that would be bloody stupid.
colani
I don't see any reason to believe that those parenthesis are not existent.
*sigh*
No-one is saying they are non-existent. What I am saying is that they are part of the graphic design of the cover, NOT part of the title itself. If there were two purple bananas either side of the title, would you add them to the title on discogs? The title is 'Electro-Soma'. People know this to be true. The brackets are there for aesthetic reasons by the designers of the artwork, not informational.
While we have guidelines, people would do well to know that we are permitted to occasionally use our brains. We are not compelled to fly in the face of common sense.
The release is still for sale from Warp and Bleep and clearly they don't use the brackets in their listings so I think that's a fairly strong indication. And (most) of what J5 said. ;-)
Wow, Jayfive, I'm surprised that someone with your discogs experience is saying things like that.
First of all, if we had reversed B on our keyboards we should enter it. Later, discogs is not built on Your common sense, but on guidelines.
If you still believe that you are right, please take a look at Underworld ANV http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/Underw-orld-Born-Slippy/release/78034
taken from....please guess....the front cover. :)
Will you change it using your common sense than; just like you did with the B12 title ? :)
And Underworld is listed everywhere else as Underworld, not Underw Orld.
Hey, I think we're going too far with this discussion, If someone will C vote your change, I won't protest :)
That's a mistake surely, maybe an example of blindly following guidelines. Other versions of that release with similar artwork don't use that name, did it happen when it was merged? But anyway if it's an ANV it would still be readily findable in a search. Two dumbs don't make a smart. ;-)
Underworld was in this state before merge. And that submission with a vast discussion was removed after merge.....
Anyway, Underworld ANV was introduced there by a top discogs (sorry, I don't his nick).
colani
'm surprised that someone with your discogs experience is saying things like that.
What, you mean suggesting we actually use some intelligence rather than operating in the DB like unthinking robots? That the gudelines, by their very nature, are flexible and not an absolute?
colani
First of all, if we had reversed B on our keyboards we should enter it.
No. Rubbish. Absolutely ridiculous. And serves no purpose whatsoever. This is why not one release in the database is like that. Do you not understand the whole 'following guidelines simply for the sake of it' thing I referred to earlier? Likewise do you not understand what a design choice is?
You say these things should be done, but do not say why other than 'the guidelines say so'. I think this speaks volumes.
colani
Later, discogs is not built on Your common sense, but on guidelines.
It is built on BOTH. To follow the guidelines to the letter beyond all reason makes no sense and runs contrary to one of the purposes of the site. That being to make it useful for its s. Yes we aim to be complete and correct but when that means it is more difficult for s to (amongst other things) search the database then common sense should...must...be used.
What, in short, is the point of making things more awkward for s to have changes that benefit precisely no-one?
And as for s being aware of such aesthetic choices, well we have these things called 'images' and 'release notes' - not sure if youve heard of them.
colani
Will you change it using your common sense than; just like you did with the B12 title ? :)
Yes. Already have. Graphic design choice. Not deliberate or accidental spelling of artist name. In this case to make the cover look like it was printed using mis-aligned printing equipment or something
That those changes were made is absolutely appalling. Mass outbreak of stupid right there.
Jayfive
Yes. Already have. Graphic design choice. Not deliberate or accidental spelling of artist name. In this case to make the cover look like it was printed using mis-aligned printing equipment or something
mjb
Designers Republic was always more than a bit fanciful with their typographic treatments, so I'm somewhat skeptical as to whether the parentheses really belong in the title.
well, a good way to examine whether or not it was a graphic design choice would be to compare this release to the others from the artificial intelligence series which DR applied the same graphic template to the disc face/labels (and any other applicable sections of the artwork) and see if the titles were handled in similar fashion on those releases:
the odd one out is FUSE – Dimension Intrusion since it's artwork from the original Plus 8 release edition was ported over to Warp's release edition, and they must have liked it so much that they didnt do much to it other than paste a warp logo and cat# onto it.
so the brackets seem to be part of a consistent design motif, rather than a conscious part of the release title.
colani
Let's this thread to point it to others willing to change title of some releases of above series.
These are some of the very first entries in discogs (look at the release numbers). If anyone was prepared to change them they would have been changed. Not once in 13 years has this occurred in any case.
No. It should not. Again, read what has been posted above carefully. I do not understand how you have not understood the discussion at the first attempt.
The brackets are a matter of graphic design. This is covered in some detail.
Like the others I urge you to try and understand that the guidelines are just that - guidelines. Not rules. We do not have to slavishly follow them to the letter if it is not common sense to do so.
There are no brackets in the title of the release. They are just added on the cover as a matter of graphic design and aesthetics. Nowhere else in print or on the internet do these brackets appear - up to and including the artists and labels own web presence.
I am at a loss as to why so many people do not understand this very simple concept. I have removed the brackets from the release and the edit was voted correct by an experienced . At least one person understand that this website isnt solely about following what the guidelines say and what exactly its entries are used for.
I strongly disagree with Jayfive. I do believe that 3.1.2 (as on release) does apply in this case. There are no Unicode or special characters and there is no good reason not to enter this as it appears.
timetogo
I do believe that 3.1.2 (as on release) does apply in this case.
But it doesnt HAVE to. We can overlook such things for the sake of clarity and sheer common sense.
The release is called Electro-Soma. Not "Open Brackets Electro-Soma Close Brackets". Any sensible person knows and understands the difference between the name of a release and the graphic design/aesthetics used to present it.
No-one benefits from adding them. Its just this automatic mindless following of the guidelines simply for the sake of doing so. And I object to such wrong-headed nonsense with every fibre of my being.
And these are submissions added by and maintained by some of the most dedicated s on the site, in over a decade no-one has changed or even considered changing these releases. We've managed to get this far without it being an issue.
Jayfive
The release is called Electro-Soma. Not "Open Brackets Electro-Soma Close Brackets".
That's because nobody pronounces parentheses or brackets. "Any sensible person knows and understands..." this. FWIW, I don't find your arguments sensible.
The Database benefits from accurately reflecting what is on the release.
Jayfive
And these are submissions added by and maintained by some of the most dedicated s on the site, in over a decade no-one has changed or even considered changing these releases.
Just because something has always been done one way doesn't make it the best way. Discogs isn't static. Improvements of all sorts are made over time.
timetogo
Try ignoring them and see how far that gets you
Nobody is ignoring anything. This is about interpretation. I am saying the guidelines which is being quoted over and over with relentless regularity does not (or does not need to) apply.
timetogo
They are rules whether we call them that or not.
No. No they are not. EVERY guideline (except Rule 1) has exceptions within the database. If we followed the guidelines to the letter beyond all reason the database would be MUCH the worse for it.
We are allowed to use our brains. Why are people so afraid of this? I mean we make judgement calls on other things every single day for pities sake.
timetogo
FWIW, I don't find your arguments sensible.
Oh what, its sensible that these brackets are *really* part of the title? Does that really make any sense at all given that nowhere else are they used or even referred to?
timetogo
The Database benefits from accurately reflecting what is on the release.
No it doesnt. Its just mindless parroting. No data or meaning is lost. The release has images, the graphic design element can plainly be seen. All this is perfectly fine because, and this might be a shock, the average discogs isn't an idiot.
Why is common sense such an anathema to people? Can you not think for yourselves? Can you not see that 'as on release' isnt always the most sensible option?
You DO NOT have to follow the guidelines beyond all reason.
timetogo
Just because something has always been done one way doesn't make it the best way. Discogs isn't static. Improvements of all sorts are made over time.
Not understanding the difference between an actual title and the elements used as part of graphic design is not an improvement.
Those that have submitted and maintained these submissions (including several different version within an MR) without issue for over a decade understand this.
timetogo
I do use my brain and do not slavishly follow the dictates of jayfive.
Im not asking anyone to follow anything. The edit button is right there. Im in no position to get in an edit war nor will I exercise my voting ability. But know that anyone who changes that one release is compelled to change them all. So good luck with that.
So far no-one has changed either the B12 nor the underworld release. Given the number of interested parties on the respective release, this I think speak volumes.
timetogo
o need to become insulting just because we disagree on this one issue.
I am not being insulting. I am speaking in very general - it was 'we' after all. I am tempering my language at great length to be objective about this, especially when the Shadow of the Banhammer remains.
Either way, Ive made my position clear. Dont agree? Then put your currency where your piehole is and make the changes :)
Look at what PabloPlato posted - the use of the parentheses is common to most of the Warp AI series and is part of the design, NOT the actual title. It is not the title.
The intention (the spirit of the law if you like) of the guideline that suggests using what's on the cover is to get as close to what is commonly understood as the title as possible. In these cases it's clear what that is and it doesn't include the brackets. Don't be too literal, think about what the point of the database is.
timetogo
That's because nobody pronounces parentheses or brackets. "Any sensible person knows and understands..." this. FWIW, I don't find your arguments sensible.
if a tie breaker is needed, one could always reference official sources.
the Warp20 (1989-2009) book lists the title for the B12 (and all the other Artificial Intelligence releases) without parentheses, though interestingly enough, without the dash as well :/
"Electro Soma" and not "Electro-Soma"
so, the one thing we can be sure of is that the parentheses are not intended to be part of the title.
now, none of the other AI releases with more than one word in the title use a dash, so the dash is unlikely to be a part of the design, but now we must argue whether or not to include the dash, as none of the official sources include the dash in reference to the album's title.
also the B12 webpage is of no help in this matter, as they would rather focus on current and past releases on the B12 imprint rather than coasting on their warp legacy - they barely mention warp.
PabloPlato
the brackets seem to be part of a consistent design motif, rather than a conscious part of the release title.
AmazingDiscoveries
The release is still for sale from Warp and Bleep and clearly they don't use the brackets in their listings
So the conclusion is it is a graphic treatment, and not part of the title. Therefore, the title should be entered without the brackets.
In light of the discussion here, I have updated the guideline:
1.9.3. Transcribing graphic design decisions, such as reverse letters, additional punctuation, letter substitution etc, should be avoided. An exception is the "Metal umlaut", which (due to its widespread use) is acceptable (for example, Motörhead).
nik
Is it a graphic design element, or part of the title?
take a look at my post above linking to external sites - official sources online and in print list the title sans dash, but on the release the dash is included on cover/spines/labels/cd face.
PabloPlato
*gasp* the old warp-net tDR design, god i had almost forgotten how it looked! how did you get that screen cap?
The used warprecords.com and had the url bought from under them like a lot of companies did. Archive has the early url pages archived, but they;re really tricky to navigate and a lot of improvising was needed. The basic page can be found though: http://web.archive.org/web/19990224181039/http://www.warprecords.com/warp/ography/
The page I was looking at was earlier, but it won;t let me link it - so this is from 1999.
