Correct me if I am wrong:

RELEASE PACKAGING is NOT part of the FORMAT of the playback media.

Isn't the Free Text area intended for the indexer to add additional details about the FORMAT?


I changed my submissions to the free text area a week ago.

Bumped. Again, anyone? (Thanks to Marco717 for reply!)

I've been using the "Free text" area for technical specs such as BD-25/50 and Single/Dual Layer, and the "Description" field for special edition/packaging/cut information.

As far as I know there's no consensus how to use these fields though, and I've seen people use different methods. The last related discussion I'm aware of is this:

I just hate seeing titles like "Snatch Blu-ray Best Buy Limited Edition SteelBook"... that is not the title, and this is not eBay. :P

Actually, it is the title of the product that is being marketed and sold.

The feature content title (aka FILM) may or may not be same as the title of the item being sold (aka RELEASE).

I know you often go to the extreme with your arguments, but so far I have not seen a single release where the title printed on the release would've been "Snatch Blu-ray Best Buy Limited Edition SteelBook" (or similar).

From the guidelines: "Enter the title as close to the way it appears on the object as possible".

The "Best Buy Exclusive" is often information on a sticker. AFAIK, stickers don't count as part of a release title, neither does the format logo. I understand that users want certain data to be visible, but it should be achieved in some other way than just cramming everything into the title field.

You might be worried about the data users enter to the format FTF, I'm worried about the data users enter to the title field.

Again, bumped.

How does the physical packaging of a product relate to the FORMAT of the media contained?

"SteelBook" "digipak" "slipcase" etc. should not be listed within FORMAT.

"Box Set" describes PACKAGING, not FORMAT of the playable media.

If Discogs is any indication, packaging that differentiates multiple variants of an otherwise identical edition is acceptable. A lot of records in the same edition have different color sleeves. People mention, for example, "Orange Sleeve" or "Blue Sleeve" in the FTF all the time. It simply makes scanning through the list of variants easier.

Admittedly, there's less likelihood of DIY/independent film releases with ten different sleeve color variants as there is with records. But, again, if that is the case, the FTF helps to quickly identify the edition as well as the format, and the deeper technical specs of it.

Personally, I am not a fan of people putting generic terms like "slipcase" and "clamshell" in the free text field, so I'm sort of on your side (and the site's, according to its own wiki). I don't even bother mentioning generic packaging in notes. I see it as understood, a bit like "black vinyl" on Discogs. I only mention atypical packaging (big box, book box, et al.) in notes.

But it makes sense in the case of two essentially identical editions of a release that come out as part of the same production run. In this situation, where there may be one edition in generic/standard packaging, and one in a SteelBook, I think "SteelBook" is or ought to be acceptable for quick browsing.

That said, multiple editions released simultaneously are usually marketed differently. Something in a SB might be marketed alongside the generically-packaged edition as a "deluxe" or "die-hard" edition, in which case, I think those terms would suffice in place of packaging descriptors.

In fact, I would prefer them used in the FTF, and packaging variations be mentioned in Notes. It's something to be considered on a case-by-case basis. But, for what it's worth, I think most cases would be in yours/my own favor, regarding not having packaging in the FTF.

I am sorry if this was overly wordy. I'm trying to cover all the bases here in my indecisive devil's advocate game.

Wouldn’t it be easy to create a package field to enter the type of case, keepcase, snapper, etc. maybe add a box you can tick if it has a slip sleeve or not... I agree that strictly format should not be the field for packaging though I also see the benefits of it being there.

"1 x VHS, In Very Fine Condition"


Correct me if I am wrong:

The CONDITION of the release for sale is NOT part of the FORMAT of the playback media.

You are right, that sort of information should definitely go on the sales listing page for that particular item.

"Widescreen" should not be put in the Free Text area of FORMAT. That has nothing to do with the format of the playback media.

Bumped again - users are adding things like "Digipak box-set" in either FORMAT Description or Free Text.

Can we get STAFF to determine what exactly FORMAT field is or is not?

users are adding things like "Digipak box-set" in either FORMAT Description or Free Text.

I would suggest a dropdown for formats like on discogs.

Select “All Media” -> tick box for “Box Set”

Packaging is not format.

I think oteis' idea of a dropdown list is realistic. At the moment you can filter on only 10 different formats when browsing through all releases. When a new format needs to be added it can be done by Filmogs moderators/staff.

By the way, what is the format: "DVD (Germany)"? Apart from the language, is the media itself different from DVD's in the rest of the world? more than 200 releases have been added with this format.

A dropdown for format is definitely a workable solution. We should be able to implement this very soon and bring a lot more consistency.
I quite like having a description of the packaging included - should this be restricted to the notes field only?

Yes. Again, packaging is not part of the FORMAT.

DVD (Germany) is NOT a unique FORMAT. User started doing this to designate where the RELEASE was sold.

I quite like having a description of the packaging included - should this be restricted to the notes field only?

I hope not. Packaging is a huge part of the physical product. There are so many different prints with different packaging. Like on discogs it’s easy to find the correct version because packaging is added to format. And yes EK_ I am aware that technically packaging is not a Format, but I just think the two go hand in hand.

At least you realize it is incorrect, but I suppose it doesn't matter one way or another. Users will do whatever they want. Lames.

DVD (Germany) is not a unique format and will be merged with DVDs, but I'm also with oteis on packaging being a huge part of the physical item.

It IS a part of the physical item, but, again, packaging is not a format. Packaging SHOULD be noted, just not in the format field.

The Filmogs staff have the final say so on this. Clearly define what each field is and what data is acceptable in each field. With examples. Simple, right?

Format should now be a dropdown, take a look:
Let us know if you think any formats are missing.

We've also had a thought on the packaging. We feel that the arguments for having that be its own field (one where you could add multiples) like format make sense. We are thinking a drop down with the most common options and an optional free text field for all the special edition packaging items.

Perhaps we could use this thread to build out a list of the most common packaging formats? I'll start:

  • Standard (is there a name for the most common version, the equivalent of a jewel case?)
  • Slipcase
  • Digipak
  • Clamshell

Good start!

The formats "Blu-ray 3D" and "4K Ultra HD" are missing from the drop-down menu.
The list doesn't seem to be sorted. Maybe it can be sorted on most to least common format? Or alphabetically is an option.

The standard packaging for DVD/Blu-ray is called a "Keep case". Some other ones:

Are 8mm and super8 the equivalent?

Wondering if these should be moved to Super8 or if 8mm should be its own format:

The formats "Blu-ray 3D" and "4K Ultra HD" are missing from the drop-down menu.

Yes, we weren't quite sure what to do there. Should they have their own format or do they go under Blu-ray?

I did move the Blu-ray 3D ones to the blu-ray format and added the 3d part as a description.

Thanks for the drop down on formats! Looks great, but indeed is still missing a few. I think Blu-ray 3D and 4K Ultra need to have their own entry. Some more missing are: CD-i , VCD and I think there are also some Enhanced CD’s in the database.

The older dvd’s were released in Super-Jewelcase and Snap-Case.

Does the format need both the "description" (which you can add multiple off) and a "free text" field? Would a single description/free text field do just as well?

Currently the "free text" field is used more. So I suggest merging the content of the "description" fields into that.

I think Blu-ray 3D and 4K Ultra HD need to have their own entry.

Agreed. Even though they are basically Blu-rays, I think it's good to have them as they are marketed as separate formats, and there are plenty of cases where all three versions exist (Blu-ray, Blu-ray 3D and 4K Ultra HD).

Would a single description/free text field do just as well?

I think a single field would be enough, though IIRC originally they were meant for different things. The free text field was more for the technical details of the format (DVD5, BD-50, dual layer, etc.) while the description field was for things like Special/Limited Edition.

But this distinction seems to be very unintuitive, so I wouldn't mind clarifying the situation a bit.

+1 for CDi
+1 for VCD

don't forget:
HD DVD/DVD Twin Format - (HD DVD layer and DVD layer on same side of disc)
Blu-ray/DVD Combo Disc - (incorrectly called 'flipper' disc; BD layer and DVD layer on opposite sides)
HD DVD/DVD Combo Disc - (incorrectly called 'flipper' disc; HD DVD layer and DVD layer on opposite sides)

  • I've asked this before: How should an XBOX 360 disc be indexed? There is a particular release that has an exclusive anime episode (not part of game play; bonus feature).

There are also formats for GameBoy Video (cartridge); Juice Box ("Media Chip"); VideoNow (proprietary disc) - etc.

Should Enhanced CD and CD-i both feature? Is the former a parent category of the latter?

Formats that fall under the "enhanced CD" category include mixed mode CD (Yellow Book CD-ROM/Red Book CD-DA), CD-i, CD-i Ready, and CD-Extra/CD-Plus (Blue Book, also called simply Enhanced Music CD or E-CD).[2]

Re dual formats or combo discs we included dvd plus in there. But do things like EK_ mentions above deserve their own format or could you list them as two discs and add a note?

Should Enhanced CD and CD-i both feature?

Yes, please. Cd-i was an actual format for films. Enhanced cd’s are just cd’s with cd-rom content which could include music videos or other content.

RE: DualDisc//HD DVD/DVD Twin Format// HD DVD/DVD and Blu-ray/DVD Combo Disc

No, you cannot list as TWO individual discs - as it is a SINGLE PHYSICAL ITEM.

NOTE: A user already attempted to do that and those entries had to be corrected.

Think about the marketplace also. BUT does Discogs/Filmogs take any responsibility for items listed and sold as something they are not?

No, you cannot list as TWO individual discs - as it is a SINGLE PHYSICAL ITEM.

I think it can be thought of both ways. Its a single physical item yes, but two different formats. And nobody has a "Dual disc" player, so arguably it might be clearer to state the formats and note that it is a single disc. Perhaps the way a format can contain multiple descriptions now it should be possible to add multiple types instead.

I cannot use the ADD ONE LIKE THIS feature for a RELEASE with HD DVD/DVD Twin Format.

These discs ARE NOT two discs. It is a single disc - plus it is physically different than either a DVD or HD DVD.

One would not index a DualDisc as 1xDVD and 1xCD. The Twin Format and Combo Format discs are their own things.

Oh yeah...was DVD-A in the format list? Those discs can have video.

Added those dual formats. Though I still think they are potentially more confusing. They are their own things you are correct EK_, but your points don't really address any of the concerns raised in my questions. Perhaps we can implement a technical solution to filtering on them in an organised way.

Also added more information about them to the wiki. Check it out and add more detail or granularity if you think it need it.

It still seems that users cannot get the FORMAT correct - EVEN WITH THE DROP DOWN MENU.

Blu-ray/DVD Combo Disc IS NOT THE SAME AS A Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy Combo Pack. A recent entry lists FORMAT as 3 x Blu-ray/DVD Combo Disc. INCORRECT. Lame.

This was my concern with the confusion of the dual formats as mentioned above. I would imagine confusion is a more likely culprit than malice. Perhaps the wiki information could be clarified, will take a look.

Fixing it and letting the submitter know via notes/comments seems to me like the most constructive approach.

Someone can link this to wiki (Blu-ray/DVD Combo Disc)

I can upload image of inserts explaining the HD DVD/DVD Twin Format disc and the HD DVD/DVD Combo Disc, if interested.

@ Kalli:
The action of splitting the format "Blu-ray 3D" into "Blu-ray" and free text field "3D" was performed on all releases containing this format. Can it be reverted? I see the format "Blu-ray 3D" is added to the Format drop-down list.

Otherwise it would be difficult to trace and contact all the submitters of these releases to revert them (I submitted only 4 Blu-ray 3D releases).

That is a mess. Might as well use 'optical disc' and then put everything in free text.

@ EK: exactly. Especially when free text already existed, the "3D" is now added after the free text with a space in between.

I hope Kalli can revert the change, otherwise I will revert my submissions manually. I think in total there were around 250 Blu-ray 3D releases in the database.

@bobsmith1987: Yes, that 3d change can be reverted and done in bulk. I will try and get that done in the next couple of days.

We have just released a change that combines the free text and description fields into one description field. Let me know if you see any problems with these fields.

Furthermore packaging has been added as a required field. See the special thread and wiki for that information.

I don't understand why the packaging should be a required field while picture of the item itself is not....

Use an actual image of the physical item NOT a ripped pic from retailer website

RELEASES are not be indexed from websites only. User should have the physical release.

@bobsmith1987: Changed the format type on those 3d blu-rays. I might have missed some, only got up til about 140. If you notice some that are missing, please point them out and I can see if I can't bulk update them rather than it having to be a manual job.

Thanks! My (5) Blu-ray 3D submissions are successfully reverted, also the ones which already contained ‘free text’. It has been moved to the field ‘description’, which is now the only available text field.
I don’t know about the other Blu-ray 3D releases, if I remember correctly there were around 250 of them (but could be wrong).

How should I enter DVD-ROM now, as it's not included in the list?

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.