KailoKyra wrote:
Nexy wrote:

The rings seem incomplete, can you check them please.

I see something else next to the IFPI (a datetime), I guess this is what's missing ? I'll try to add it and change my post this weekend.

When doing verifications, I think it is helpful to compare your results for ringcodes and other data with the existing entries.  For example:  http://redump.org/disc/37450/

You can see the two existing ringcodes have additional text after P01, such as 20030225 2029 @@ 4.  Now, just because that is the case doesn't ALWAYS guarantee that your particular verification will have the data or even necessarily follow the exact same format, but often they do.  So it is kind of an at-a-glance way to see if you might have missed something.

Just a tip to help with future verifications.

Askavenger wrote:

I checked again, did not find anything new, there is only that long serial

Two more pictures added:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rOl6J … hE2C4A8kX2
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kx9I9 … UYY7k9Uwvs

Askavenger - this is a DVD-9 disc and thus has 2 mastering codes, one for each layer.  These particular ones are a bit strange and unique because the codes overlap, one of which is in reverse.  If you look closely at the code, you can see that there is a clockwise code, that is MD019WE04, and then there is a counter-clockwise code (in reverse), that is MD019WD05.  The 4 and the 5 overlap in the image, so it's difficult to see that but it shows up well in your second picture.

So the correct mastering codes are:


If you look at the current redump listing: http://redump.org/disc/42762/
You can see that this matches the #2 ring.

It's a bit of a strange one, but hopefully this will be helpful when you look at DVD-9 discs in the future.  Some of them are in different lines on the ring, and some of them are strange and overlap like this, giving the appearance of just one code.

Let us know if you have any other questions.

Jackal --- I do see your point regarding the naming when looking at it from a global perspective.  I guess the challenge here is what should come first as the guiding principle for naming?  On the one hand, when looking at it from a global perspective, the sorting makes sense looking at what you shared.  On the other hand, when looking in a particular region, the numbering and sorting doesn't really make much sense. 

So I think both perspectives have some merit and aren't completely illogical. 

However, let's look at another sample of this concept.  When you look at a game that is released in multiple regions, but has slightly different names (whether due to language, or even just other regional changes), we ultimately choose the name of the item by that region's "correct" localized name, as opposed to matching all of the titles just to have a sort of worldwide consistency.  So from that perspective, user7's sugggestion is a bit more consistent with that ideology. 

I realize the difference here stems from the discs themselves having the copied disc art with a number that doesn't seem to match up to that region's sleeve / info.  So I can see somewhat the alternative perspective.  But traditionally speaking, when I'm looking at an individual submission and looking at that particular item for that particular region, it seems logical to me at least, to try to pick the best name that applies most to that particular region.  I think this is something that there just may be different viewpoints on.

How about we all stop with the snarky comments and calling each other's actions clusterfucks and just focus on the conversation about proper submission / database conventions.  We can do so without getting all accusatory and negative with each other.  Thank you.

I understand some of the reasoning behind going strictly with what is on a disc - and I also understand that from a quality control / accuracy and ease of consistent submissions standpoint, that does streamline things and make it a bit easier. 

However, I'm also inclined to agree with user7 in this instance because there is solid logical reasoning for why naming them the way he suggests is more clear in a way, and better represents what those discs truly are.  I am ALL for adding comments and additional details that explain variances and such. 

As a user, when I am viewing and using the redump database, I'm looking at a disc and I want the title to tell me truly what the disc is.  If the disc is a game called Fire: Pass the Torch [hypothetical game], and the disc has an error that says Fire: Ass the Torch, whereas all of the packaging and everything else is "Pass the Torch" - do we name it "Ass the Torch" in the database because it is literally on the disc, though it truly misrepresents what the game is? I do realize that is a somewhat ludicrous example, but hopefully it illustrates the point.

Another example is this one:

The serial listed on the disc is 972227, but it is an error and should be 97227.  I believe the 'true' serial for this release is 97227.  While the issue is noted in the comments, personally, I think the database should be 97227, as the extra digit one is completely erroneous.

I know it's a difficult balance, because creating exceptions based on unique situations does make this more challenging.  But I also think it can provide other value and usefulness as well.  Some of things will just have to evaluated on a case by case scenario. 

IF you disagree with the above and have strong logical reasons for not doing so - that is completely fair - then please share those thoughts so we can hash it out and come to some finality on the issue and move forward - that would be great!

Please post the logs when you can.  Thanks!


(6 replies, posted in Fixes & additions)

F1ReB4LL wrote:
Madroms wrote:
F1ReB4LL wrote:

Fixed. Also, regarding this and other DVD Videos with this ringcode type - shouldn't the A0 part be in the toolstamp section?

nope, it is not a toolstamp, laser branded like the rest of the ring code.

Erm... Absolutely the same font? These are surely toolstamps on PS2 discs - http://redump.org/disc/12596/, other DVD Videos were also added treating these as toolstamps - http://redump.org/disc/35061/

F1ReB4LL - I can all but guarantee that Madroms is correct in this instance.  I have several of these types of DVD-Video discs and I have already run across several of them (including Namco ones, and for PS2 games), that have A0<TAB>1 as the latter part of the mastering code, and definitely not the toolstamp.

For reference, here is another one:

Also - there is absolutely no consistency in these video discs.  I've run across some that have 3 mastering lines, with different pieces on the same line having different fonts.  Some of them are wild looking.


Thank you for your verifications.  Although, please submit the log files along with your verifications.  Those are needed to verify some of the data.

Just let me know if you have any questions.  Thank you!


(21 replies, posted in General discussion)

F1ReB4LL wrote:

So what happens if a game is released on multiple systems, but the disc's release was just accompanied by a certain system?

Only that certain system should be mentioned, then, if it's somehow tied to only one of the ports.

It looks sloppy as hell and not part of the item's official title.

The region tags, various "(Alt)" and similar tags aren't the parts of the title as well, it's not an argument. The title part ends before the region tag.

I have several promotional DVDs that cover numerous different systems.  For example, I have store demonstration DVDs that cover games across 3, 4, sometimes even more systems. 

Perhaps the discussion here is more on dvds released WITH certain game releases, I don't know.

Regarding the file-naming, I'm inclined to agree with user7 and Jackal here that the current system does seem to create a really long and sloppy/complicated name.  Rather than passive aggressive attacks going both ways, surely we can come up with some solutions here that will please everyone.


(2 replies, posted in Guests & account requests)

Bumpity bump smile Please add Mr. robot

If time and willingness were completely unlimited commodities, having all original dumpers check all of their games for that space could theoretically be a possibility.  But neither are unlimited unfortunately.  If people truly want to check them, sure that's great, obviously it will improve accuracy.  But I don't think it is significant enough of an issue to reach out to everyone and have them do so, when there are...more pressing things they might be attending to.

Since protocols like this have changed over time, and even currently accepted protocols haven't always been consistently communicated to both dumpers and mods, there will definitely be inconsistencies like this in the database. 

There are countless "issues" with the mould codes in the database such as this.  For example, many people submitted mould codes by adding "IFPI" even if it wasn't on the disc because that's what they were told to do.  Some people were told to capitalize IFPI even if it was lowercase. 

I do think it's good to be consistent going forward, and I certainly have no problem with correcting the previous inconsistencies as they arise, but I doubt in this case that people are going to want to go back and check all of that, and I'm certainly not reaching out to them to do so because I think it is a...secondary / tertiary / lower priority issue at the moment. 

I verified even some of Fireball's Saturn discs where he had a space and I didn't.  Who knows whether his original was "correct" or added under the previous protocol.

Kamen Rider ^ added.  confirmed details with OP in discord smile Thanks!

Agree 100%.  He would be a great addition, and currently we don't really have anyone who is the 'point' person or expert on PSP.  We need more mods, and as long as the specific individuals are committed and detail-oriented, good people, it is all good.

RE: aj's comments.  I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from.  Plus, I understand the importance of giving someone the ability to make modifications/submissions to a database.  Consistency and quality control are very important. 

I focus on quality over quantity, and if I'm allowed to assist here, I'm not going to change anything that is outside of my comfort zone.  Initially, there shouldn't be a problem with errors in submissions because if I don't understand something well, I'm going to educate myself first and become very familiar with the systems. 

The nuance and experience of working on thousands of discs is absolutely helpful, but I don't think that should be a reason not to allow someone to help who is able and willing, especially if they understand (and I do) not to mess around with things they don't fully understand.

I'm not necessarily trying to sell myself here - ultimately the powers that be are going to do what they want - but I do want to assure you I don't plan on going in here and making a mess of things.

I'd like to add here --- I really would like to assist this project in any way that I can.  One way that I feel like I can help us, is by assisting with some of the more administrative tasks such as cleaning up already added submissions in the forum, following up on forgotten items, etc. 

In addition, I would also be more than willing to learn the ropes regarding adding submissions, and would love to assist there as well if I can.  I know that I haven't been in redump very long, but I am very committed to this project and I am very detail-oriented.  For me, this is not about control or power or credit - I just know that we are behind with the amount of work needing to be done, and rather than complain about it without offering any help, I would like to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and I am willing to do the work. 

If you have any questions, please let me know.


(1 replies, posted in General discussion)


I know I'm not a mod and therefore don't have to deal with adding dumps or verifications, but I wondered - do you all think it would be easier to track and manage everything if there were either:

* Separate sections for new dumps, vs. verifications
* Separate sections for main dump categories based on the team who adds (sony, nintendo, microsoft, other, etc.)

Perhaps you have already explored this before or don't want to complicate things - but I just wondered if maybe having different sections a bit would make it easier for mods to go through and make sure things don't slip through the cracks.  I know if I were processing them, having just a few categories as opposed to a huge dump folder, might make it a little easier.

Again, not really my problem, so just an idea to consider.

Thanks as always, to all the mods who are taking the time to process all this stuff!



(2 replies, posted in Guests & account requests)

Idk if this helps or not but in case it does, this is a friend of mine and I can vouch for him - he has a plextor and wants to help out smile


I am requesting a wiki account so that I can update purchases as I make them to avoid other people from making unnecessary purchases.  I have been adding mostly PS2 demos, and still have some more, as well as several Asia releases.

Please let me know if you have any questions!