"Version" on Reggae releases

On many Reggae releases the tracklists are given as

A1) Example
B1) Version

I guess for discogs means that

A1) Example
B1) Example (Version)

Correct?

DonHergeFan
On many Reggae releases the tracklists are given as

A: Track Title
B: Version

if as such on release (mostly 7", no cover, only labels printed as such)
imho it should be entered as on release,
as anyone only remotely into that genre will understand ..
(the B side being something like a dub of A, or vocal version, vocal-less version, riddim only, or the likes)

sometimes though the side B artist is different, so of course needs to be added ..
sometimes "Version" is wrongly entered in to B artist field though .

Im no reggae expert but personally I take 'version' in the context used to be synonymous with 'remix'.

For 7" with one track per side Discogs tracks are named:

A)
B)

About the Version-thing - though I'm not shure - the most important rule on Discogs is that you submit "As is" on release. Meaning if the title on release says just "Version" - then you submit that as is.

Though this may seem less of a good idea when searching for titles, it has the benefits that submitters are not guessing titles - and that it will justify a release better if e.g. a release version with the B side / Dub side title spelled out also exists. This way differences are spotted easy.

Jayfive
Im no reggae expert but personally I take 'version' in the context used to be synonymous with 'remix'.

Likewise.

It should be -

A - Title
B - Title (Version)

- no different to any other genres (which are also fandangled to discogs' rules -- see "remix")

PS: Think of the larger picture where, in future, we'll have a lot of tunes named just "Version" or "Dub" or "Remix" in the database. Useless to anyone.

gboe
the most important rule on Discogs is that you submit "As is" on release. Meaning if the title on release says just "Version" - then you submit that as is.

Guideline, not rule. There is scope for flexibility for these things. Theres nothing to be gained by simply added as per release solely to follow that guideline when:

hmvh
in future, we'll have a lot of tunes named just "Version" or "Dub" or "Remix" in the database. Useless to anyone.

'Version' is not the name of the track, it is a description in the same way as 'Remix'.

For sure the name of the track should be appended to it:

A1) Example
B1) Example (Version)

Otherwise, for a start, when we have Master Track, we would see in the track list for an artist:

A Track Name
Dub
Dub
Dub
More Track Names
Some More Names
Version
Version
Version
Version
Version

Quite useless. A version, dub, or remix always refers back to the original track.

gboe
the most important rule on Discogs is that you submit "As is" on release.

That is not true. It isn't even an overall guideline. 'As on release' is a useful phrase to keep in mind in some instances, but it is in no way the be all and end all of how to transcribe information from a release to Discogs. There are lots of ways and reasons why the information has to be 'interpreted' and formatted correctly.

gboe
For 7" with one track per side Discogs tracks are named:

A)
B)

In this case "A1" and "B1" as on release is ok, see guidelines.

nik
'Version' is not the name of the track, it is a description in the same way as 'Remix'

From Discogs year zero most people have subbed these as on release so
I'd suggest posting a link to this to any of the reggae groups and also adding it to the subbing guidelines. Many reggae 12"s also have an uncredited version after the track, sometimes with dead wax between them but mostly running straight into each other - what's the deal there?

reallygood
Many reggae 12"s also have an uncredited version after the track, sometimes with dead wax between them but mostly running straight into each other -what's the deal there?

My first thought personally would be to make use of the release notes detailing just that.

Another thought - there will now be 100's if not 1000's of reggae subs which were voted correct[as on label] when listed which now are needing edits [and I'll bet after the edit someone will vote Needs Minor Changes because it is no longer is as on label] 8)

For all the subs I've made, I have always thought the ruling is / was whatever the label states is what it gets listed as. So, for all those Reggae tunes with
A Example
B Version
That's the way I've put it down. It's straight forward that B is a version of A.

I'm not so keen on the "interpretation" of track listings, no matter how simple.
I'd be keen to revert this thought to - Do as it states on the label (no matter how crap this may be as a piece of information). We have the notes section to state anything really significant.

The current guidelines are very clear IMHO, they even use the word 'Version':

http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-trk.html#Title

12.4.1. Discogs requires full track titles, the standard format is: "Name Of Track (Version)". Where versions of tracks are included which have the same track title but do not have version titles, mention this in Release Notes. Tracks with no title should be listed as "Untitled". Abbreviations and capitalization follow the usual rules.

reallygood
Many reggae 12"s also have an uncredited version after the track, sometimes with dead wax between them but mostly running straight into each other - what's the deal there?

It depends if it is always part of that 'track' or not, notes seem ok in this case I think, unless there is other usage of either half of the track as a stand-alone item.

All-Vinyl-Experience
I'm not so keen on the "interpretation" of track listings, no matter how simple.
I'd be keen to revert this thought to - Do as it states on the label (no matter how crap this may be as a piece of information). We have the notes section to state anything really significant.

Sorry, but this is useless. All these tracks are not called just 'Version'... they are a versions of something, same as all the remix track which we have correctly interpreted since almost day 1 on Discogs as "Title (Remix)".

All-Vinyl-Experience
I'm not so keen on the "interpretation" of track listings, no matter how simple.

I find it very hard to believe there are thousands and thousands of tracks that are called "Version".

nik
'Version' is not the name of the track, it is a description in the same way as 'Remix'.

For sure the name of the track should be appended to it:

A1) Example
B1) Example (Version)

Otherwise, for a start, when we have Master Track, we would see in the track list for an artist:

A Track Name
Dub
Dub
Dub
More Track Names
Some More Names
Version
Version
Version
Version
Version

Quite useless. A version, dub, or remix always refers back to the original track.

Good call nik. Apart form anything else, how else to tell if a track is actually called version? See for example - Fugazi - Red Medicine T9

See D. Maximillian - My Story for examples of the messy tracklistings that can result from not doing it the way you advise.

I think the best compromise between "correctness" and "as-on-releaseness" would be to enter the tracklisting as

hmvh
A - Title
B - Title (Version)

and stating in the release notes that track B is simply listed as "Version" on the release.

reallygood
Many reggae 12"s also have an uncredited version after the track, sometimes with dead wax between them but mostly running straight into each other - what's the deal there?

If the two versions are really sequenced without any cut and sound like they're just one long track, then IMO it would be interpretation to decide they're actually two distinct tracks, so it would be better to leave the tracklisting as on release.

If there's a long silence that makes obvious the two tracks are distinct, I think the second one should be listed as an Untitled track (ie. "A1 - Main Track Name, A2 - Untitled") and in release notes it should be noted that A2 is not listed on the release (and that it's an alternative version of A1, if it is the case).

Not just Reggae releases - Scritti Politti - Wood Beez / Absolute - see back cover image

StaticGuru
I find it very hard to believe there are thousands and thousands of tracks that are called "Version".

My point was / is that if A) was called "Version" we'd be stuffed. However, we've got the track title (99% of the time) in A, so by calling B "Version" - as it states on the label does no harm and reflects what is [stated] on the release. There is a notes box should it not be clear!

I'm sure someone out there will be able to point to a very early time when "Remix" was used. However, as far as I'm aware, this was bought to the fore through the 80's to hype sales (thinking Frankie Goes To Hollywood). Prior to this stuff was remixed but not to the point of becoming a totally different track. A remix was - take the vocals off or change it to stereo! Now remix is more, chop-it-up-twist-it-mix-it and I'll take a tune and make it appeal to a dance floor - Remixed by BobsyerUnkle.

Where's Swagski? My rants aren't as eloquent, but I hope you understand?

All-Vinyl-Experience
My point was / is that if A) was called "Version" we'd be stuffed. However, we've got the track title (99% of the time) in A, so by calling B "Version" - as it states on the label does no harm and reflects what is [stated] on the release. There is a notes box should it not be clear!

The "as on release" mentality should only go so far. The track's title is not "Version", therefore it should not be listed as such.

StaticGuru
I find it very hard to believe there are thousands and thousands of tracks that are called "Version".

try looking at the reggae 7"'s!

nik
The current guidelines are very clear IMHO, they even use the word 'Version'

I've always interpreted this as equivelent to something like Track Title (Radio Edit)

just to be crystal clear - from the reggae pov Version is always just the rhythm track from the main title and not a remix as such.
I can see why it needs to be entered as Track Title (Version)if just Version is on the release but I think something specific about this needs to added to the subbing guidelines

reallygood
try looking at the reggae 7"'s!

Your point being... ?

reallygood
I can see why it needs to be entered as Track Title (Version)if just Version is on the release but I think something specific about this needs to added to the subbing guidelines

+1

StaticGuru
The "as on release" mentality should only go so far.

"Interpretation me lud."

StaticGuru
Your point being... ?

I have a shelf of Reggae 7's and there must be hundreds on the DB that have been voted correct that will/should need changing? Hundreds of subs where Oglitters have failed to interpret the submission guidelines. So, clarity is needed in the guidelines, ruling out any interpretations, second guessing or just plain making it up as you go along! The quantity of subs with "Version" in as a second track and as stated on the label proves the point that the guidelines aren't clear.

^

StaticGuru
Your point being... ?

^ just that there are an awful lot and they've always previously just been entered as Version

often times the A side will have a track title and vocals, the B side will be the instrumental and showcase the riddim - sometimes with a different artist given (ie; taxi gang). these riddims are not exclusive to the release though, as usually the riddim will be used as the backing track for a variety of singers/rappers/toasters/whathaveyou. treating it as an instrumental of that specific A side track is kinda not right as it applies to a variety of A side tracks over various releases.

here's a bunch of 7"s where the a side is built on the same riddim (Mad Ants), and the b side showcases that same riddim, probably using the same pressing plate across all the releases.

Bling Dawg - Rule The World

technically, the riddim "version" is the original, and the vocal A side would be the "remix"

Sizzla - Hype should be entered as 'Version (Mad Ants)' I would say

double-happiness
Wayne Wonder / Surprise (3) - Got To Be should be entered as 'Version: Mad Ants', as shown, no?

indeed

double-happiness
Sizzla - Hype should be entered as 'Version (Mad Ants)' I would say

perhaps - that one is open to interpretation (subtitle or just title on 2 lines?)

All-Vinyl-Experience
clarity is needed in the guidelines, ruling out any interpretations, second guessing or just plain making it up as you go along!

Hi - I think the guidelines are clear, please let me know if there is an ambiguity I haven't spotted:

12.4.1. Discogs requires full track titles, the standard format is: "Name Of Track (Version)".

double-happiness
Wayne Wonder / Surprise (3) - Got To Be should be entered as 'Version: Mad Ants', as shown, no?
Sizzla - Hype should be entered as 'Version (Mad Ants)' I would say

'Mad Ants' is the name of the riddim, so they should both be:

Mad Ants (Version).

reallygood
they've always previously just been entered as Version

Incorrectly.

PabloPlato
here's a bunch of 7"s where the a side is built on the same riddim (Mad Ants),

How to tell (in general) whether that 'Mad Ants' is a title or band/artist?

I can't understand where the problem is. The instrumental is usually called Version. It appears as such (and very often id doesn't appear at all) or as Dub. It is then the Dub Version. So should we updates thousands of 7" with the right riddim name because it is exactly the same track on the B side of various records???

4_trade_or_swap
So should we updates thousands of 7" with the right riddim name because it is exactly the same track on the B side of various records???

No, but you can update them as you see them.

No-one is asking anyone to go on a quest to fix all these things.

Hi - I think the guidelines are clear, please let me know if there is an ambiguity I haven't spotted:
[quote=nik][/quote]
I don't think you've missed anything, but it could be clearer? For example, "12.4.1. Discogs requires full track titles, the standard format is: "Name Of Track (Version) - if no track name is stated and has "version" or "dub" printed, please add title to clarify. "

There may be a more eloquent way of stating this!

djindio
How to tell (in general) whether that 'Mad Ants' is a title or band/artist?

it's a fairly popular riddim - it's just one of the few things you glean through your exposure to reggae

nik
'Mad Ants' is the name of the riddim, so they should both be:

Mad Ants (Version).

In that particular case, I think it should be left as on release.
The meaning isn't that the track is a version of Mad Ants, but that Mad Ants is the "version" of the A-side. In case the title should be completed, IMO it would logically give something like "ATrackTitle (Version: Mad Ants)" but that would be IMO over the top.

0frg
In that particular case, I think it should be left as on release.

You say 'left as on release', but one of the releases nik was referring to - Wayne Wonder / Surprise (3) - Got To Be - has just 'Version' entered in the tracklisting, whilst the images show 'Version: Mad Ants'.

DonHergeFan
A1) Example
B1) Version

and you are sure the "version" is not a different track. I one release the Version is not a version from the other track.
also there may be more than one track A1, A2, B, how can you know the version is a version from A1 or A2 ?...

I love your short sighted views when you give replies :)

PabloPlato
it's a fairly popular riddim - it's just one of the few things you glean through your exposure to reggae

ok. It's got me thinking though, Back in the day Rappin' Duke, and just for the sake of this question let's say that unlike reality, he had used the existing instrumental in full, unaltered, and had released it an album then later on 12" with the instrumental on the B side. Let's say the B-side got labeled 'Tag', and this became a trend where hundreds of hip hop releases ended up with a track described as 'Tag'.

What would be the simplest way to handle this? 'Tag' is not a title but a commonly used description applied to a reused existing instrumental. What would be the simplest (least amount of hoops for s to have to jump through) way for this to be delt with for the database?

(edit:typo)

djindio
How to tell (in general) whether that 'Mad Ants' is a title or band/artist?

Unfortunately, that is down to knowledge of the genre.

All-Vinyl-Experience
it could be clearer? For example, "12.4.1. Discogs requires full track titles, the standard format is: "Name Of Track (Version) - if no track name is stated and has "version" or "dub" printed, please add title to clarify.

How about this:

Discogs requires full track titles. The standard format is "Name Of Track (Version)". Sometimes a track will just be listed as 'Remix', 'Dub', 'Version' or similar, but this will usually refer back to the track title of the release (if a single) or the preceding track. Please add the full track title in these cases.

nik
'Mad Ants' is the name of the riddim, so they should both be:

Mad Ants (Version).

0frg
In that particular case, I think it should be left as on release.
The meaning isn't that the track is a version of Mad Ants, but that Mad Ants is the "version" of the A-side. In case the title should be completed, IMO it would logically give something like "ATrackTitle (Version: Mad Ants)" but that would be IMO over the top.

Sorry, I don't agree. The B side is an instrumental. These instrumentals are called 'Riddims'. They have their own name. Often, the B side will be the version of the riddim used for the A side track. Often, they are different mixes of the riddim, hence 'version'.

"Riddim Name (Version)" is the correct way to denote this.

"ATrackTitle (Version: Riddim Name)" is not correct, as the riddim is a stand alone work with it's own title.

djindio
. Let's say the B-side got labeled 'Tag', and this became a trend where hundreds of hip hop releases ended up with a track described as 'Tag'.

What would be the simplest way to handle this? 'Tag' is not a title but a commonly used description applied to a reused existing instrumental. What would be the simplest (least amount of hoops for s to have to jump through) way for this to be delt with for the database?

I'm not sure about this, I was unaware of the practice. For sure, thousands of tracks called 'Tag' is useless.

nik
These instrumentals are called 'Riddims'. They have their own name. Often, the B side will be the version of the riddim used for the A side track. Often, they are different mixes of the riddim, hence 'version'.

OK, I thought the "Version" was always exactly the same instrumental track. If the basic riddim is actually sequenced and arranged differently each time, I agree "Riddim Name (Version)" would be the best way to credit these tracks.

nik
"Riddim Name (Version)" is the correct way to denote this

John McEnroe moment here - for this to happen you'd have to restrict anyone except hardcore reggae specialists from subbing reggae 7"s - the actual name of the riddim is[with very few exceptions] never printed on the release. We sell a lot of reggae - currently I have approx 500- 600 singles not on Discogs to sub - but I know the riddim names for a only handful.

ps. If I travel back in time and sabotage DonHergeFan's computer do you think this thread would disappear?

9228289
and you are sure the "version" is not a different track.

By listening to the track you will likely hear whether it's a version of the A track or not.

reallygood
If I travel back in time and sabotage DonHergeFan's computer do you think this thread would disappear?

o_0

reallygood
John McEnroe moment here - for this to happen you'd have to restrict anyone except hardcore reggae specialists from subbing reggae 7"s - the actual name of the riddim is[with very few exceptions] never printed on the release. We sell a lot of reggae - currently I have approx 500- 600 singles not on Discogs to sub - but I know the riddim names for a only handful.

From what I understand, this should be the way to enter the title when the riddim is named on the release - like on Sizzla - Hype. When it's not, and the version is just titled "Version", then the title should be entered as "TrackName (Version)".

0frg
From what I understand, this should be the way to enter the title when the riddim is named on the release - like on Sizzla - Hype.

in theory yes but when it's printed like that how many subbers are going to know if that's the riddim name or the artist who did the track? there are going to be riddims entered in the artist box for sure

Discogs requires full track titles. The standard format is "Name Of Track (Version)". Sometimes a track will just be listed as 'Remix', 'Dub', 'Version' or similar, but this will usually refer back to the track title of the release (if a single) or the preceding track. Please add the full track title in these cases.

Sorry nik. Can't quote using mobile! But, yes, this is clear. Cheers.

What are we trying to accomplish here?

You are asking the subber to interpret information?

For the record as one who has submitted 3000+ JA 7" singles to Discogs, I would rather stick to what is actually printed on the label as opposed to offering a guess (educated or otherwise) as to what the producers intended to actually call the track, aside of course form using "Version".

My suggestion, leave this topic alone.

WeedMusic
You are asking the subber to interpret information?

Sure.

0frg
I thought the "Version" was always exactly the same instrumental track.

i thought so too - is it always the case that the riddims will be arranged differently?

WeedMusic
I would rather stick to what is actually printed on the label

In a perfect world everything printed on the label would be correct. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world.

reallygood
for this to happen you'd have to restrict anyone except hardcore reggae specialists from subbing reggae 7"s - the actual name of the riddim is[with very few exceptions] never printed on the release. We sell a lot of reggae - currently I have approx 500- 600 singles not on Discogs to sub - but I know the riddim names for a only handful.

I am not saying the riddim name should / must be added. It was just that the example was using a riddim name. If it just says 'Version', then the A side track should be the title, and 'Version' goes in parentheses.

reallygood
when it's printed like that how many subbers are going to know if that's the riddim name or the artist who did the track? there are going to be riddims entered in the artist box for sure

I don't think that is something we can avoid, are there examples of that happening?

WeedMusic
What are we trying to accomplish here?

You are asking the subber to interpret information?

All information must be transcribed from the release to the database. People who do the layout for record covers / labels do not have the exact Discogs structure in mind when they write the information on the artwork. Often, we have to interpret the intention. It is clear in this case, just the same as with 'Remix', that the intention is not to make a million tracks called 'Version', but to indicate the track is a version of the A side or preceding track.

WeedMusic
For the record as one who has submitted 3000+ JA 7" singles to Discogs, I would rather stick to what is actually printed on the label as opposed to offering a guess (educated or otherwise) as to what the producers intended to actually call the track, aside of course form using "Version".

My suggestion, leave this topic alone.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. We need the track information to stand up by itself per track. That means in these cases we need to make a basic interpretation of what is meant when we see a track called just 'Version' or 'Remix'. We have done this with 'Remix' throughout the life of the site, without major problems to my knowledge. We should for sure do this for Jamaican releases as well.

PabloPlato
is it always the case that the riddims will be arranged differently?

To be honest, I don't know if it is always the case. We need someone who has a lot of Jamaican 7" on the same riddim with versions on the B side to confirm this.

it's not a good idea, nik.
shortly:

- a riddim can be used by different producers in differenty years with different arrangement
- a riddim can be similar to another riddim, often the differences are very vauge
- the version it's often a completely different instrmental (and at the end you will have track wrongly called, the opposite of your aimes)

why couldn't we leave these thing in release notes?
I agree with Weedmusic. and the fact that "we did this for remix" it's not an answer.

nik
are there examples of that happening?

http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3284212&diff=11

what about in instances like these, where a prolific producer/group are responsible for the riddim and therefore get credited on the b side - would you still interpret the track listing to be A Side Title (Riddim Name Version)?

Powerman - We Nuh Eat Pork

4_trade_or_swap

- a riddim can be used by different producers in differenty years with different arrangement
- a riddim can be similar to another riddim, often the differences are very vauge

I don't understand how these are arguments for or against the discussion we are having?

4_trade_or_swap
- the version it's often a completely different instrmental (and at the end you will have track wrongly called, the opposite of your aimes)

That strikes me as errata then, and I would sincerely doubt it is 'often' the case.

4_trade_or_swap
why couldn't we leave these thing in release notes?

Because the proper full song titles are a fundamental part of the database, and are going to be more important moving forward. These tracks proper title is not 'variation'!

PabloPlato
what about in instances like these, where a prolific producer/group are responsible for the riddim and therefore get credited on the b side - would you still interpret the track listing to be A Side Title (Riddim Name Version)?

No. Where the riddim name is given, that is fine as the title.

"Version Step Up" = "Step Up (Version)"

nik
"Version Step Up" = "Step Up (Version)"

why re-arrange the way it is presented though? is that necessary?

perhaps in these cases it should be left as on release.
There are also a few instances of remixes where the word "Remix" isn't put between brackets and/or before the title, for instance track 1-8 here: Tekno Warriors. As long as it makes sense it might be better to leave it as is.

DonHergeFan
By listening to the track you will likely hear whether it's a version of the A track or not.

I learned here in discogs that you never need not to listen any record when you submit. so you have to take a closer look on the groove perhaps?
;)
as on release is always the best way to go. then there will be no question when the next owner comes. like is there "Version Step Up" or "Step Up (Version)" written on the record you submitted?

9228289
as on release is always the best way to go.

Even when it's incorrect?

9228289
as on release is always the best way to go.

Wrong, this a music database, not an artwork transcription database. This Reggae Version issue may be a complicated case but blindly following what's printed on the release is simply taking the easy way out.

nik
"Version Step Up" = "Step Up (Version)"

PabloPlato
why re-arrange the way it is presented though? is that necessary?

Some of the Jamaican releases are notorious for spelling mistakes and other such errata. We should do our best to 'get it straight'. On this release, there is a version of the Step Up riddim. The title of the track is not literally "Version Step Up", but "A version of Step Up". We list this as "Step Up (Version)" as that is the sites chosen format for title / subtitle.

9228289
as on release is always the best way to go

'As on release' has turned into a meme here. It is not a guideline. We have to transfer the information from the release to the database, translating what it says on the release to what it actually means.

nik
Some of the Jamaican releases are notorious for spelling mistakes and other such errata. We should do our best to 'get it straight'. On this release, there is a version of the Step Up riddim. The title of the track is not literally "Version Step Up", but "A version of Step Up". We list this as "Step Up (Version)" as that is the sites chosen format for title / subtitle.

fine then.

i wont be picking up any more reggae 7"s from now on just so i can avoid having to submit them and figuring out how to "get it straight" ;p

sometimes the information on the release is the information to identify whether all the others do own the same or a different release. we know very well there are pre-releases, white-label, test pressings, main releases, unofficial releases, reissues and sorry I forgot some in between. so when we do not add "as on release" as the rule is by now, we have to find a way to identify the records beside the main fields for information.
-
so we will add the main information (=as on release) into the release notes or only to submission notes or is there no need to point out the difference between database information and "as on release" ?
-
whats a meme?

9228289
so we will add the main information (=as on release) into the release notes or only to submission notes or is there no need to point out the difference between database information and "as on release" ?

Of course there is - Errors, Missing, and Conflicting Information, 1.7.1. Therefore this goes into tracklisting
B - Step Up (Version)
and this into Release Notes:
Track B is printed as "Version Step Up"
[quote=9228289] whats a meme?[/quote]
Meme.

spelling_bot
Of course there is - Errors, Missing, and Conflicting Information, 1.7.1. Therefore this goes into tracklisting
B - Step Up (Version)
and this into Release Notes:
Track B is printed as "Version Step Up"

now we come to the point - thank you!

1.) s do mistakes and you can never describe all kind of possible mistakes. one mistake is to forget adding this additional information to the Release Notes.
2.) s often do not care after some time. I feel we all know this, you ask the original submitter and there is no reply. also all the s "in collection" did not care about the mistakes and do not react also when you place item for removal (or NM)
3.) most important is the way all the s expect how the data in the database is listed. in my opinion one entry to the database is expected as a mirror image of the item. we have lots of images added but we read the extracted information (=discogs database information) and only few s will ever compare the images with the entered information. by far not all s are Discogs-submitters with all our guidelines know-how.
s read at a high percentage only the main fields. when there is something written in the release notes the attention and interest will drop down to under 50%
4.) @ 1.7.1. as far as I know it is not required to listen to a record when submitting. we can add factory sealed items. so how can you know what is actually pressed on such record?
at this point please also go up to pt. 1.)
also:
1.3.1.a. Required = Tracklisting
1.3.1.b. Optional = Release Notes
(http://discogs.programascracks.com/help/submission-guidelines-release-notes.html)

resume: Please think it over, "as on release" should be found in the main fields of the database. we learned this already with the catalog number.
conclusions and any kind of subjective information can go to the release notes and to the Reviews & Discussion. It will be a normal process to add or change the release notes but it will always be a greater intervention to chenge something in the main fields
(here: Tracklisting/Title)

The first thing to do is to use the search engine to check that your item isn't already in the database, otherwise you'll waste your time trying to enter it all again! If it isn't here yet, you can enter it.

...keep it short and simple!

So, now thousands and thousands of (reggae) releases have to be edited like this one?
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3323333#latest

Sjamone
So, now thousands and thousands of (reggae) releases have to be edited like this one?
http://discogs.programascracks.com/history?release=3323333#latest

Yes, whenever possible, thanks!

PabloPlato
i wont be picking up any more reggae 7"s from now on just so i can avoid having to submit them and figuring out how to "get it straight" ;p

Submitters are only expected to do their best, not to spend hours researching things. The important thing is a 'proper way' is established, and followed by those more knowledgeable, when it is practical to do so.

9228289
Please think it over, "as on release" should be found in the main fields of the database. we learned this already with the catalog number.

It is established practice on this site to extrapolate the full track title from the fragments that are sometimes found on releases. That is completely different from altering catalog numbers, where it is highly advantageous to enter them verbatim. I have not come across any issues with adding full track titles, nor with following the "Title (Subtitle)" format for the site. There is no reason that reggae releases should be exempt from this, it has just slipped under the radar.