A "logo" is NOT a company. Why are users adding them as such?

Also... a "series" is NOT a company.

A "brand" is not a company, either...

I feel like there should be a facultative "Series" field with its own categories of "sub-companies" similar to what is used on discogs, so far the way roles are handled is underdevelopped and it leads to messy entries.
I don't like the use of the term brand either, I feel like "Published by" or "Publisher" would be better, and using aliases or sub-categories for name variations would help with duplicate entries.

Because there is no way to add such a label or series withough using the role field as I indicated above. As long as submission forms remain incomplete issues like these will keep happening.

Why not use the NOTES field?

discogs uses the company section for series.

EK if you want to get rid of each series credit good luck there would be about 1'000+ of them.

I never said 'get rid' of series. HOWEVER! Series are not companies - and for the sake of accuracy should not be listed as such.

And why compare filmogs to discogs? Apples to oranges...

EK wrote_:

I never said 'get rid' of series. HOWEVER! Series are not companies - and for the sake of accuracy should not be listed as such.

And why compare filmogs to discogs? Apples to oranges...

because this is a sub database off of discogs.

you require a discogs account to use filmogs, which is a sub off of the main one.

We've well trodden the ground about Discogs/Filmogs, although things are changing and each sub-site (Filmogs, Bookogs, Gearogs) are starting to develop into their own thing with a structure that fits the subjects they are cataloguing.

I agree EK_ that Series are not companies, and it probably wouldn't break a developer to split Series out into its own field.

For "logos" these were attributed as "brands" even before I joined many years ago, although I don't think its the best descriptor for these I have failed to think of any thing better.

Always up for something different but any changes like this would now likely require server-side changes (via a "bot") to update the amount of releases.

Notes field doesn't work because its not linked/index properly. For a series to be of any use to anyone it should have its own central page that links to all items in said series. Notes fields should be for describing properties of the release that aren't already covered by a field in the form.

i think there should be a drop down for the company field. it could include: brand, series, production company, film studio, distributor, but it could also include roles for copyright, licensed to, licensed from, etc, etc.

Yes drop down menu like credits would be great.

There ARE better solutions. There is an online database that handles this issue beautifully.

BRAND, LOGO, SERIES are NOT COMPANIES. Having a drop-down in the company field does absolutely nothing to change that.

EK wrote_:

There is an online database that handles this issue beautifully.

Can you post a link?

I really don't mind 'series' being in 'companies', effectively a series is handled by an individual/section within a company, who take specific control of that sub-brand. So it is little different than the numerous sub-divisions that already proliferate within the majors/mini-majors. They are a way to ringfence material for industry and consumer alike in what would otherwise be a pool too vast to find things easily.

EK wrote_:

NOT A COMPANY

https://www.filmo.gs/company/332857-digitally-mastered-wide-screen

they are printed on the spine of both releases.

I have to side with EK_ on this one, this appears to be nothing more than a logo for a technical feature.

DenkiGroove wrote:

I have to side with EK_ on this one, this appears to be nothing more than a logo for a technical feature.

yeah i forgot to add i had no clue what they were i never added the releases only checked the images.

WHAT IS THE STATUS ON THIS ISSUE - "WHAT IS CONSIDERED A 'COMPANY'?"

LOGOS
BRANDS
SERIES
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

__KE wrote_:

WHAT IS THE STATUS ON THIS ISSUE - "WHAT IS CONSIDERED A 'COMPANY'?"

LOGOS
BRANDS
SERIES
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

For now EK they have been allowed.

HAS 'STAFF' COMMENTED ON THIS?

__KE wrote_:

HAS 'STAFF' COMMENTED ON THIS?

Not from what i can recall, they have just allowed it.

Hi,
Unfortunately this issues doesn't have a quick resolution and we're struggling to get the resources to address it. We're still hoping to be able to look at it soon.

_KE, Would you mind turning off caps-lock? It's kinda jarring. Thanks

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.