Cotillion Music (Inc)

Cotillion Music
Cotillion Music Inc.
Cotillion Music, Inc.

These should be merged - Cotillion Music seems to be the most commonly used name, though Cotillion Music, Inc. is the actual company name.

Any suggestions?

I would say, and it's just my feeling, go with Cotillion Music, Inc., If that's the company name.

By the way, how do YOU find the official company name. I'm having my own Inc. ,Inc. problem here: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/351319

Kergillian
Cotillion Music seems to be the most commonly used name

Well, the fact that this page has the longest list does not necessarily mean that "Cotillion Music" is the most frequently used variant..

Kergillian
These should be merged

And BTW, how can you be sure those are one and the same entities?

Actually, the more I think about it, the less I think merging those kind of variants is a good idea. There are currently at least a handful of threads on that very same topic...
Perhaps "as on release" is indeed the way to go...

yuhann
Perhaps "as on release" is indeed the way to go...

I'm beginning to feel this way myself but I feel this kind of decision has to come from the top. Management need to give us a clearer guideline because "variation is usually unintentional, so you can normally adjust the label name to match the existing Discogs entry" is just too vague.
I never really felt this guideline was flawed, to my shame, but now I realize just how open this is to interpretation and misrepresentation. I mean who's to say that the first entries in the db are correct or representative of what a company/entity is named.
Maybe a better way to go would be "as on release" with a requirement to add any known existing variations of the name to the individual company profiles. However as said this decision, or something similar, needs to come from the top.

EDIT: I'd love to bring my above statement to the attention of the management. Anyone know how I can do that?

tony.lee
Maybe a better way to go would be "as on release" with a requirement to add any known existing variations of the name to the individual company profiles. However as said this decision, or something similar, needs to come from the top.

+1
IMO, all these are CNV (Company Name Variation), as we already use ANV for Artists.
I know nik is not very in favour of this option, this discussion was already raised.
I think the situation becomes more and more urgent looking at so many duplicate company profiles in the Db, sometime only for a dot or a cap variation (ie: inc / Inc. / inc. / etc.).

IMHO, companies are not like artists, in respect of having the ability to adapt their names 'at will & whim'.
A company has a registered title. IMO that is what should be used, with 'as on release' into the Release Notes.
This is an Artist database, encompassing all the nuances of an Artist and the Recording - rather than a Companies database.
Keep the companies simple, plus interconnected where affiliated or regionally variant.
For this thread I suggest Cotillion Music, Inc.
Many folk working there are likely to leave out the comma, or just say "I work at Cotillion" if asked - but that doesn't make it the name.

Edit: Variants (let alone literals) start to get silly
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/351255

swagski
IMO that is what should be used, with 'as on release' into the Release Notes.

Although I like the sound of this, and it's the approach I currently have (because it's considered correct), this doesn't solve the problem of multiple variations of the same company.
I feel the problem is that often times it's not that easy to find the official, or correct company name. Of course many times users don't even try but I'm talking about the ones that do, the ones that care. Even we struggle and (myself in any case) are making mistakes that otherwise we perhaps wouldn't be making.

Edit for spelling mistakes.

tony.lee
this doesn't solve the problem of multiple variations of the same company.

Not sure what you mean by that, but "Limited", "Ltd", "Ltd.", ", Ltd" (for example) and all the rest are, IMHO, just fog.
If the 'first in' happens to be "Bloggs, Ltd." then life is great - but, thereafter, all roads should lead to "Bloggs, Ltd." - which is not the same as their new American company "Bloggs, Inc." if you get my drift...

Cotillion Music, Inc. is the main house publishing company of Atlantic Recording Corporation, formed in the mid-60's after they sold their original publisher Progressive Music something-or-other to Hill & Range. It is frequently abbreviated on Atlantic's own releases as just "Cotillion" - in fact, it seemed to have been Atlantic's practice through much of its history to abbreviate the name of every publisher shown on its releases, so for example Chappell & Co. Inc. would become just Chappell, and Robert Mellin Music Inc. would become just Mellin! Publishers names at many other labels are or were routinely abbreviated, as were record company names for that matter - this is something that I have picked up over many years of collecting. It is probably more common in the CD era where the same products are pressed in one region for worldwide distribution, so it makes sense to abbreviate the names of major publishers or labels which have many international branches.

It seems to me that label name and company name variations are a pressing issue here - perhaps the standard could be that a shortened name should be the primary name for the purposes of the label and company fields, ignoring extensions like "music", "publishing". "songs',"co." "inc" and so on (personally, I would shorten Robert Mellin Music Inc. to "Robert Mellin"), and then if a longer name appears, it can go in the notes so that it is not lost. And "most number of entries in the database" is, frankly, a nonsense - there could be an equal or greater number of releases not yet in the database that tend towards one of the other variants.

I am not saying that the above is a perfect solution, but it could be a starting point, and with any luck the forums could eventually be freed of endless debates of this or the "Island or Island Records" sort.

I agree with the thrust of what you are saying - but my preference is not to 'shorten it' but to give it the correct registered title.
Thus, if an actual variant occurs i.e. a USA branch or a merger, then that has a distinct difference.
Your 'scenario' would suggest they might get 'lumped together' as they may be 'colloquially termed' the same - which they wouldn't be.

wp6345789
...so it makes sense to abbreviate the names of major publishers or labels which have many international branches.

...it makes sense from 'saving loot' in a print-run, but doesn't address our problem of ascertaining the real culprits behind the release ;)

To answer a couple of questions here:

1) They are the same entities because they are all publishers, and there was only one Cotillion publishing entity - Cotillion Music, Inc.

2) nik has said that CNVs are very low on the priority list right now, and in the meantime the way that we handle them is to select the best option through a consensus in the forums, and then preserve the variation(s) in the release notes.

3) I personally prefer to go with either the most common name if there is an overwhelmingly common variation, or the simplest solution that would be the easiest for a user to find when searching for the company name in the db.

In this case, I said that Cotillion Music *seems* to be the most common - but all three are close enough that there is certainly no clear choice as to what would be best in that regard.

Cotillion Music would be inherently the easiest to search for, and would probably be the best choice in that regard.

But Cotillion Music, Inc. is the actual company name, so that may be the better option for some people.

I'm pretty much open to suggestions :)

Kergillian
But Cotillion Music, Inc. is the actual company name, so that may be the better option for some people.

Outside of my own concerns over how we are currently treating company names this, as mentioned higher in the thread, would be my choice.

tony.lee
But Cotillion Music, Inc. is the actual company name, so that may be the better option for some people.

While I strongly back the idea to consolidate all "Cotillion Music Inc" / "Cotillion Music, Inc" / "Cotillion Music Inc." etc. to the (IMO) correct "Cotillion Music, Inc.", I have a problem with moving every "Cotillion Music" entry to "Cotillion Music, Inc.". Apparently there also existed a "Cotillion Music Ltd." and we don't know which Cotillion Music company was factually in charge outside the US. "Cotillion Music" is a good catch-all for cases where we cannot clearly allocate the proper company and that should be kept.

sebfact
I have a problem with moving every "Cotillion Music" entry to "Cotillion Music, Inc.". Apparently there also existed a "Cotillion Music Ltd." and we don't know which Cotillion Music company was factually in charge outside the US.

That's exactly what I was referring to when I said

yuhann
how can you be sure those are one and the same entities?

For instance, how can we be so sure there is no "Cotillion Music (Canada), Inc."? The fact that a database lookup/Google run does not yield any results does not necessarily mean such a branch to be non-existent. Further we should bare in mind that even the most exhaustive corporations register does not list each and every company that ever existed.
The problem with most of us is, we tend to assume too many things in this regard, and I have to admit that I'm guilty of that too.

wp6345789
(personally, I would shorten Robert Mellin Music Inc. to "Robert Mellin"), and then if a longer name appears, it can go in the notes so that it is not lost.

Evolutionarily this would be a retrograde step and I think it's quite safe to assume that nik's intentions are heading into the opposite direction ;)

wp6345789
And "most number of entries in the database" is, frankly, a nonsense - there could be an equal or greater number of releases not yet in the database that tend towards one of the other variants.

Very true indeed.

sebfact
I have a problem with moving every "Cotillion Music" entry to "Cotillion Music, Inc.".

Me three.

yuhann
and I think it's quite safe to assume that  nik's intentions are heading into the opposite direction ;)

Yep.

Kergillian. Nik's views on when we should...

Kergillian
select the best option through a consensus in the forums, and then preserve the variation(s) in the release notes.

...is when it is clearly a variation based on the following qualifiers:

nik
Abbreviations and punctuation differences in the company designation (for example; Limited, LTD., Ltd etc) can usually be takes as simple variations, and the entity linked to the existing variation listed in Discogs.

http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/342942

Ie:
Cotillion Music = Cotillion Music.
Cotillion Music Inc. = Cotillion Music Incorporated.
Cotillion Music, Inc. = Cotillion Music Incorporated.

Two are clearly variants of one entity, the first example is more ambiguous and needs evidence before merging. This is also the case for a lot of the migrations you've done over the last 24 hours which have migrated and merged without discussion.

You'll note that merges are allowed but you need clear evidence supporting the mistake or commonality, if it's not found, you leave well alone. Merging and appending to the notes = losing data. I explain this idea here:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/349553#3284918

Also:

Kergillian
CNVs

The CNV question is irrelevant here, since the application of such a CNV would imply an unequivocal identification of two or more entities, thing we are currently about to question.

With a publishing entity, Inc vs Ltd doesn't mean much - just the suffix appended to the company in another company - but all part of Cotillion Music.

The publishing rights to a song belongs to the publishing entity attached to it (or is administered by it), regardless of branch suffix.

So in a case like this, Cotillion Music is the publishing entity. Whether one release has Inc and another has Ltd does not alter the publishing entity or change any facet of publishing rights ownership...

So if there is a release that has Ltd instead of Inc, it is still part of the same company - and with publishing entities is as often as not a release typo and not even a separate branch.

To be honest, this is even further reason why we need a CNV/Company Alias system. In such a system, we could link any suffix-related companies we didn't want as CNVs as 'Aliases' of one another - but to leave a bajillion similar names completely unconnected remains ridiculous.

For one, people are not properly listing their releases anyhow - they don't use the notes and put the LCCNs will-nilly without checking links.

For two, having a half-dozen different companies without profiles and instructions on where to put your releases just creates confusion.

For three, people are becoming far too neurotic about separating every single variation of company names.

IMO, taking the root name for publishing companies - CompanyName Music - and attaching all variants to that (CompanyName Music Publishing Co.; CompanyName Music Inc.; CompanyName Music Ltd; CompanyName Music Corp.; etc) makes far more sense than separating them all.

We do it with labels already - unless there is a clear identification of separation between them, they are umbrella'd together, and other companies should be the same. IMO the onus should be to identify individuality not to separate it just in case something pops up in the future that warrants it.

yuhann
For instance, how can we be so sure there is no "Cotillion Music (Canada), Inc."?

How can we be sure of any company in the entire database? Once you start going down that path of 'it might exist' then you get into the legacy company territory where people are creating fake companies all over the place simply because of the country they associated the release with...

In the meantime, if you can please undo the changes you made yesterday.

I haven't touched Cotillion - that's why I opened this thread.

Yes, but this thread, with the same/similar issues has been raised:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/351369

I would encourage people to take a look there and offer their opinions. the arguments within this thread transfer to to those issues.

Eviltoastman
Yes, but this thread, with the same/similar issues has been raised:
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/351369

I would encourage people to take a look there and offer their opinions. the arguments within this thread transfer to to those issues.

Completely different scenario. Please leave your comments on that thread instead of unnecessarily clouding this issue. Thanks.

(And as an aside, that issue has a consensus approving the change and the change was voted Correct).

I think you'll find it was not a consensus and in addition to that, their advice runs counter to the guidelines and Nik's prior judgment on very similar issues and his holistic views on the subject matter at hand.

Eviltoastman
I think you'll find it was not a consensus and in addition to that

5 Pro, 1 agreeing in principle but unsure of policy, you against.

That looks like a consensus to me.

Eviltoastman
their advice runs counter to the guidelines and Nik's prior judgment on very similar issues and his holistic views on the subject matter at hand.

Really. So you are personally acquainted with nik's 'holistic views' now? Some ego there, buddy - get over yourself!

Their advice is perfectly in tune with the guidelines, and being long-time database users in good standing, I hold their advice in far higher regard than yours, which is so highly subjective that it's in its own little Discogs microcosm.

yuhann
For instance, how can we be so sure there is no "Cotillion Music (Canada), Inc."?

The biggest problem with this view, is that it is nigh-impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. The argument of:

yuhann
The fact that a database lookup/Google run does not yield any results does not necessarily mean such a branch to be non-existent. Further we should bare in mind that even the most exhaustive corporations register does not list each and every company that ever existed.

would mean that we can never prove that any companies should ever be merged - which is counter to the point of companies and the guidelines.

If it can be reasonably established that such companies do not exist - a comprehensive search, a clear pattern of evidence (ie: two names are found; one name is clearly used for UK releases and another for US; one name for copyright and one for publishing; etc.), then this should be evidence enough.

To put the onus of proving that a hypothetical scenario does not exist onto a submitter is an impossible burden and is not reflective of the guidelines - which purely say that the submitter should show that they are the same - NOT that they should prove that no other hypothetical company exists.

Kergillian
Really. So you are personally acquainted with nik's 'holistic views' now?

Not quite. I simply read his guideline proposal and poaid attention on the forum precedents that he has posted for the last 14 months on this particular subject which gives us a holistic view of the topic at hand.

Kergillian
Their advice is perfectly in tune with the guidelines, and being long-time database users in good standing, I hold their advice in far higher regard than yours

That's fine it were true, but you've not satisfied 4.2.2 and ignored Nik's repeated plea to retain information.

Watch your tone, Kergillian.

valparaiso
I think the situation becomes more and more urgent looking at so many duplicate company profiles in the Db, sometime only for a dot or a cap variation (ie: inc / Inc. / inc. / etc.).

yes, indeed

Eviltoastman
Not quite. I simply read his guideline proposal and poaid attention on the forum precedents that he has posted for the last 14 months on this particular subject which gives us a holistic view of the topic at hand.

Which means that you have an *opinion* on the subject. I've read the same posts and don't come to the same opinion.

Eviltoastman
That's fine it were true, but you've not satisfied 4.2.2 and ignored Nik's repeated plea to retain information.

Watch your tone, Kergillian.

I've done nothing of the sort. And please keep your condescension in check - there is no 'tone' to watch. I hold their opinion in higher regard because they have earned that regard based on my history on this site which pre-dates your by more than three years - and theirs is even longer. You have not earned that regard from me.

swagski
This is an Artist database, encompassing all the nuances of an Artist and the Recording - rather than a Companies database.

it is a release database, and releasing needs both the artists and the companies

Myrkvi174
it is a release database, and releasing needs both the artists and the companies

+1

This is a database for audio-related recordings. Artists are only one aspect of this. The site itself in its FAQ says:

Discogs is a user-built database containing information on artists, labels, and their recordings.

Myrkvi174
it is a release database, and releasing needs both the artists and the companies

Precisely why we should use the release as the primary source of the information and any deviation as per 1.1.2 needs to be quantified properly. Merges need solid citations as per 4.2.2.

Kergillian
1) They are the same entities because they are all publishers, and there was only one Cotillion publishing entity - Cotillion Music, Inc.

Agreed.

Kergillian
preserve the variation(s) in the release notes

Exactly.

Kergillian
Cotillion Music would be inherently the easiest to search for, and would probably be the best choice in that regard.

Agreed.
It's also the oldest entity of the three, and currently it has the most entries.
The legal name "Cotillion Music, Inc." and other variation can be mentioned in the profile for easy searching.

After reading this thread I've had a change of mind.

Cotillion Music would in my opinion be the best choice.

sebfact
"Cotillion Music" is a good catch-all for cases where we cannot clearly allocate the proper company and that should be kept.

A 'catch-all' is fine AND regional or different branches need separation - but shorthand subs (ie sans a comma or full-point) need consolidating.
'Lumping together' when something is obviously different is not good IMHO = http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/351490

Myrkvi174
 swagski
This is an Artist database, encompassing all the nuances of an Artist and the Recording - rather than a Companies database.

it is a release database, and releasing needs both the artists and the companies

Then, following your logic, we need to add the CEO of each company, the tea lady and the myriad of subtleties in a similar fashion to those criteria which back an Artist?
If you are to focus that critically upon a Company, then I need to know the backer, it's diversifications in the coffee industry, the ID of the fiscal planning committee, their parent in Tokyo allied to the steel industry blah, blah -- without which the company couldn't tour or 'go on the road' - just like an Artist (which is what the DB is about)

swagski
Then, following your logic, we need to add the CEO of each company, the tea lady and the myriad of subtleties in a similar fashion to those criteria which back an Artist?

no. following my logic we need to add the companies credited or mentioned on the release. same as with the artists, we don't add their wifes, husbands or dogs (unless credited by thanks on the release)

Myrkvi174
no. following my logic we need to add the companies credited or mentioned on the release. same as with the artists, we don't add their wifes, husbands or dogs (unless credited by thanks on the release)

When you credit a band, I can then go to that page and find out who is in it, their real names, their aliases et al.
So, if we are critically adding companies, then I go to the company page and....
(Which is why I'm anti a Company being an Artist, when it should be a Label tag)
Like this, for example, Ahmet Ertegun
I could do a wholesale write up of a music publishing founder behind the name, their connections to how they made their money, etc - that may not be in the same timeframe as a partner who did a buyout that led to it being driven by a different CEO, for which I'd need a different suffixed sub... aka new mission statement & release criteria, but same company... which may affect the Artist roster... if you get my drift

So what's the verdict here? Do we go with the full merge?

general discussion about names
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/351598

Thanks, but that doesn't answer the question at hand ;)