[mb-style] "[none]" as a cat#?
jacobbrett at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 6 13:17:44 UTC 2011
Calvin Walton-2 wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 05:20 -0700, jacobbrett wrote:
>> >> > On 06/01/2011 10:00 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
>> >> >> I was wondering if it would be useful to adopt something like
>> >> >> to show the difference between "this has no cat#, and I know that"
>> >> >> "I don't know if this has a cat#". Any opinions on the matter?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Are there examples of a Release that has a label but not a cat#?
>> >> > If so, +1
>> >> Quite common for small independents. For example:
>> >> (there are just 3 releases there, but I just remembered it so I still
>> >> have to merge them). Several labels on the same album, some with cat#,
>> >> some without.
>> I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but I note that I've edited at least
>> releases (usually small, independent) that had no printed barcode, but
>> attributed to them online somewhere (Amazon, other retailer or label).
> Yeah; in a some of these cases the "barcode" allocated this way seems to
> be for use in a particular store only, as an internal tracking number. I
> don't think it would be particularly useful to record this type of
> barcode, unless you can find the same number in use at multiple stores
> (Try just googleing the barcode number, and see if what else comes up.)
> Calvin Walton <calvin.walton at kepstin.ca>
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
The latter was true in all cases, as I recall.
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/none-as-a-cat-tp3566370p3576890.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the MusicBrainz-style