I've not heard anything yet about my radical editing of the two Queen album issues, but it's early yet. One of the entries I simply dismantled with the idea I will get it removed completely eventually. It has no pictures, no sales history, and is just a waste. But I don't want to ruffle any feathers for no good reason. I could let it die hanging in the wind with no action.
The box would be empty and they would fill the box from any European country so no they weren't specially pressed for the boxes but I still consider them an original release by Scandinavian Music Club! However they could have listed them there but blocked from been sold on the site as people still want them to be in their collections and it would stop people from loading them onto the web site again, which I have seen happen before!
Ok, but are some of those exact type of boxes allowed and some not? Or did some just slip by and should have not been listed, and so you feel that other one should be free and clear as well?
Discogs’ definition of country of origin is problematic. Many small European labels don’t manufacture CDs in the country of the label, while many large U.S. labels manufacture their CDs in Mexico. Europe seems more appropriate if a label is making separate versions for the UK and US. So I use the country where the label is based most of the time, not a continent or region.
Beatle reissues on Capitol in 1983 were pressed on translucent vinyl. Some 1978 pressings were too. As far as 1983 records go I don't know what other Capitol artists had their records on the same vinyl. I would imaging others besides the Beatles did. There is a thread about Quietex vinyl somewhere in the forum that might be more helpful.
I am not arguing. Just pointing out they exist. The Beatles - Abbey Road Read the notes. It says some are translucent but my feeling is the majority of the 1983 Beatle reissues are translucent. All the 1983s I have are translucent. The person who wrote the note misspells see as seed. The other point is that the 1986 pressings done at the Allied plant in Los Angeles with the same rainbow label are not translucent. Some earlier 1978 pressings on the Purple Dome label are done on the same type of translucent vinyl. I was just remarking that my note about my entry being opaque got deleted is all.
I've resolved the data issues myself already, no need for your (or anyone's) help or input on these particular entries. I've still had no disputes at all with my edits, not one peep. As I said, I think that adding matrixes, adding fresh good quality pix to go along with the other bolder changes one makes keeps things somewhat cool. And being sure that you are you are 100% correct helps too.
based on what you've said in this thread i'm not so sure that's right. some of the edits you described may very well be subject to further scrutiny and potentially reverted or voted upon. but you do you.
What's not right, Being sure that you are you are 100% correct, or adding missing matrix, and great quality pictures of the item(s). I'm tired of seeing my LPs that I own (and have owned multiple copies of in some cases), with ratty entries. Especially the ones I plan to sell in the very near future, and I expect $100+ per LP. So that is why I don't need your approval even if that sounds arrogant. Btw, what Discogs submissions and database entries and edits have you been involved with? Do you also enter really great pictures for missing them? Or are you more of a matrix data-entry type?
