Short Catalogue numbers (Bolded sub cat #) DGVIR100 Distribution code?

* Edited to amend the thread title to include Short (Bolded) Catalogue Number element
Hi,
I dont think it is but I am no expert.
The-Screen-Behind-The-Mirror

DGVIR100 is listed as the catalogue number as it is on lots of the other versions of this release.
Whilst razorby may be right, the website he cites does give a release date as he entered, I cant find any reference on the site to DGVIR100 being a Distribution code so I dont know where this data is coming from. I've given them a link to
RSG §5.2.f and RSG RSG §5.2.g and as they seem to know the guidelines I thought they would be a bit more proactive making sure data conforms to them... unless they have evidence for DGVIR100 that they are keeping to themselves!

I'd rather the user reverted it unless they can provide evidence, I will do it if theres no evidence forthcoming.
So seeking informed thoughts on the nature of DGVIR100.
Cheers

That's a catalog number, not a distribution code.

See this thread for example: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/209730

Looks like a standard EMI barcode grid:
• international catalog number (same digits as barcode but with different spacing) and with the legacy shorter form of the catalog number in boldface
• UPC-A or EAN-13 barcode (UPC-A in this example)
• UK catalog number sometimes prefaced with "UK:" (the UK always had their own system of article numbering, I think for chart purposes)
• usually a French price code ("F:" then the code)
• sometimes other region-specific cat#s

Presumably if you ran a shop in the UK, you'd place an order for DGVIR100 and this is what you'd get: the same thing the French or German shop got when they ordered 72438486022 or 8486062

Traditionally we put both the international and UK cat#s in the main cat# fields, and the price code in BAOI, and we ignore the boldface. The only thing that has changed in recent years is we are now discouraged from assuming actual UK distribution based solely on the presence of the UK cat#, so Europe is the preferred country tag for this now. (Whole other can of worms.)

8 48606 2 it's short catalogue number

razorby
8 48606 2 it's short catalogue number

Extrapolated from the longer number.
I don't believe we add the shorter number when it is only contained within the longer number.
It can be noted in the notes which part is bold.

Thanks andygrayrecords... if razorby has a copy where it is a stand alone catalogue number then his is a different release.
The subset of the existing catalogue number isnt printed anywhere on the release as freestanding text so its not a catalogue number in its own right as far as Discogs is concerned - RSG §4.7.1, RSG §4.7.5 are the relevent guidelines I think.

4.7.3. If the catalog number appears in different formats on the release (for example "ABC-001" and "abc1"), or there are two or more catalog numbers, enter all the versions of the catalog number in separate catalog number fields.

short catalogue number 8 48606 2 printed on the spine, on the back cover, on the booklet, on the cd

razorby If you have 8 48606 2 as a stand alone catalogue number printed on the spine, booklet, CD face, back cover NOT as an integral part of the catalogue number that is printed on the spine, CD face, booklet (or any other location anywhere on the entire package) as 7243 8 48606 2 2 you dont have this release.

Note that RSG §4.7.3 doesnt apply as it is talking about formats for the catalogue numbers as per the example given - not font being bold.

So as andygrayrecords has explained to you, you can add a comment in Notes saying some bits of the catalogue number are printed in bold, you can call it a "short catalogue number" there if you want, but it isnt a seperate label catalogue number unless its printed as a stand alone piece of data.

Maybe we could ask Diognes_The_Fox mjb Myriad or baldorr or any other authorative users ( andygrayrecords is another) to comment on whether a catalogue number wholly printed within the body of another catalogue number is really a seperate catalogue number and that might be of assistance to us to resolve this rather than have it drag on. (Apologies for pinging the above but Idont see a resolution forthcoming without additional intervention / input for razorby).

bobpitman
whether a catalogue number wholly printed within the body of another catalogue number is really a seperate catalogue number

This is really an EMI thing.
Sometimes (not always) the boldened shortened number will be printed in addition to the longer number on the disc, but not always.

EMI experts: Opdiner, Rossmichael should be able to confirm this.

Whether we're extrapolating short numbers from a long number, only Diognes can answer that, or maybe mjb or el_duro may have a forum topic they can quote.

bobpitman
DGVIR100.

That's a cat # optimised for the UK.

bobpitman
8 48606 2

It's bold on the spine, it's a cat # for other European countries (Spain liked these condensed ones as an example).

So three cat#s

8 48606 2
DGVIR100
7243 8 48606 2 2

andygrayrecords
Whether we're extrapolating short numbers from a long number, only Diognes can answer that, or maybe mjb or el_duro may have a forum topic they can quote.

Sorry, no forum topic at hand but extrapolating bolded numbers from a long number should be avoided, IIRC.

andygrayrecords
I don't believe we add the shorter number when it is only contained within the longer number.
It can be noted in the notes which part is bold.

That's how I handle those numbers, based on the outcome of a forum discussion I remember. Not sure though if this still stands.

I stand corrected, the consensus (?) is to also put the short number and to add a note that it appears in bold as part of the long number.

https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/397849

https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/399121

https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/417098

el_duro
I stand corrected, the consensus (?) is to also put the short number and to add a note that it appears in bold as part of the long number.

Yeah, it was all part of EMI's drive to ensure their catalogue could be sold in as many countries as possible whilst pressing in as few plants as possible = rationalisation.

That solution makes sense that el_duro mentioned. I haven’t dealt much with EMI, but you’ll see this on ECM records a lot with the “ECM 0000” cat# followed by another “000 0000” number. Sometimes they are right next to each other but we always add them separately.

Fair enough. I'll readd razorbys data as per Opdiners recommendations. If your not learning you are dead!
Thanks for the input

mjb
traditionally...we ignore the boldface

I wrote that here because that's what I have been seeing people do lately. But if it is allowed, then... never mind.

mjb
mjb
traditionally...we ignore the boldface

Thanks mjb. Et al.