Denying correct database information

[ignition365]

I'm not stressing it anymore, I just created a new entry for it.

I was more pointing out that there is three records now, instead of 2.

[mrfoxhound]

I'm not stressing it anymore, I just created a new entry for it.

I was more pointing out that there is three records now, instead of 2.

Yeah, that happens when you tell someone "They should instead leave that record be and create a new one" instead of using a comma to add another UPC to an existing page in order to avoid multiple entries.

[ignition365]

I'm not stressing it anymore, I just created a new entry for it.

I was more pointing out that there is three records now, instead of 2.

Yeah, that happens when you tell someone "They should instead leave that record be and create a new one" instead of using a comma to add another UPC to an existing page in order to avoid multiple entries.

I'm certain that the database is not formatted to accept multiple entries for a field.  Also, different UPCs do generally mean different products.  In some manner.

[mrfoxhound]

I'm not stressing it anymore, I just created a new entry for it.

I was more pointing out that there is three records now, instead of 2.

Yeah, that happens when you tell someone "They should instead leave that record be and create a new one" instead of using a comma to add another UPC to an existing page in order to avoid multiple entries.

I'm certain that the database is not formatted to accept multiple entries for a field.  Also, different UPCs do generally mean different products.  In some manner.

What do you suggest we do? Changing the the info isn't allowed, adding other barcodes and item numbers to an existing entry with a comma to separate them isn't allowed and now you're making a stink out of multiple entries despite them having different item numbers and barcodes. There seems to be no consensus here in the community. You guys have to make up your mind. Constantly dealing with stuff like this has discouraged me from editing any more entries on this website. It seems as if the database staff isn't even in sync with the database rules since they're approving things that apparently aren't supposed to be approved. That's how we get into a mess like this. I do something that keeps getting approved and I figure what I'm doing is correct, then one gets denied and I wonder why and then we find out it was wrong all along.

[ignition365]

I'm not stressing it anymore, I just created a new entry for it.

I was more pointing out that there is three records now, instead of 2.

Yeah, that happens when you tell someone "They should instead leave that record be and create a new one" instead of using a comma to add another UPC to an existing page in order to avoid multiple entries.

I'm certain that the database is not formatted to accept multiple entries for a field.  Also, different UPCs do generally mean different products.  In some manner.

What do you suggest we do? Changing the the info isn't allowed, adding other barcodes and item numbers to an existing entry with a comma to separate them isn't allowed and now you're making a stink out of multiple entries despite them having different item numbers and barcodes. There seems to be no consensus here in the community. You guys have to make up your mind. Constantly dealing with stuff like this has discouraged me from editing any more entries on this website. It seems as if the database staff isn't even in sync with the database rules since they're approving things that apparently aren't supposed to be approved. That's how we get into a mess like this. I do something that keeps getting approved and I assume it's okay, then one gets denied and I wonder why and then we find out it was wrong all along.

MY SUGGESTION?  I'd say we determine what is the real difference between the 3 UPCs, and have 3 different listings if they are indeed different.  From what I've seen though, the 3 different UPCs don't have different information or formatting on the back art.

I think, that if the 3 UPC's have different information, it should be 3 different items and they should be identified as such.  MGS:LC Launch edition, second print, third print. 

I'll do more research and identify differences if I can.


http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/XeAAAOSwyjBW7j5M/s-l1600.jpg
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/VEcAAOSwLVZVxQXc/s-l1600.jpg
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/8zwAAOSw3mpXEBVC/s-l1600.jpg

[mrfoxhound]

I'm not stressing it anymore, I just created a new entry for it.

I was more pointing out that there is three records now, instead of 2.

Yeah, that happens when you tell someone "They should instead leave that record be and create a new one" instead of using a comma to add another UPC to an existing page in order to avoid multiple entries.

I'm certain that the database is not formatted to accept multiple entries for a field.  Also, different UPCs do generally mean different products.  In some manner.

What do you suggest we do? Changing the the info isn't allowed, adding other barcodes and item numbers to an existing entry with a comma to separate them isn't allowed and now you're making a stink out of multiple entries despite them having different item numbers and barcodes. There seems to be no consensus here in the community. You guys have to make up your mind. Constantly dealing with stuff like this has discouraged me from editing any more entries on this website. It seems as if the database staff isn't even in sync with the database rules since they're approving things that apparently aren't supposed to be approved. That's how we get into a mess like this. I do something that keeps getting approved and I assume it's okay, then one gets denied and I wonder why and then we find out it was wrong all along.

MY SUGGESTION?  I'd say we determine what is the real difference between the 3 UPCs, and have 3 different listings if they are indeed different.  From what I've seen though, the 3 different UPCs have different information or formatting on the back art.

I think, that if the 3 UPC's have different information, it should be 3 different items and they should be identified as such.  MGS:LC Launch edition, second print, third print. 

I'll do more research and identify differences if I can.

I doubt you'll find any difference that warrants multiple entries but here's my entry copy to help you just in case:
http://i.imgur.com/NkxfgwI.jpg

[ignition365]

All 3 look identical to me.  The only differences are right at the barcode.

[fazerco]

And the item numbers 

[mrfoxhound]

And the item numbers 

Sure but he's talking about the back art differences, not the spine where the item numbers are displayed. Unless you're talking about the numbers displayed above the bardcode and if that's the item number then gee, we've been inputting incorrect info in the database the entire time.

[fazerco]

If a item is different put it in the database. You might not see what others can see. And a different upc is a difference. My gues is a reprint, but here [EU] you can see the (different copyright) year on the package, and i dont see it with the links in this thread atm.

Edit:
btw, dont edit so much, i thought i read something different first.

[mrfoxhound]

If a item is different put it in the database. You might not see what others can see. And a different upc is a difference. My gues is a reprint, but here [EU] you can see the (different copyright) year on the package, and i dont see it with the links in this thread atm.

Thanks for clearing up that dilemma and contributing to this thread, a mod can now close this thread since you figured it out for us.

[karyann]

Locking the thread as requested.