But even “years of service” we won’t be able to tell. We don’t know from “1996–1998” that they had three years of service. With “mathemetical” rounding to nearest whole number, we get anywhere from 1 to 3 years, depending on where in ’96 and ’98 the label was founded respectively disbanded. With “age”(?) rounding, we would be at 2 years at the most (if you’re born on 1996‐1‐1 you’d turn 3 on 1999‐1‐1 and still be considered 2 y.o. on 1998‐12‐31). I’m pretty sure labels use the same rounding algorithm as artists which I’m pretty sure was designed for people artists for which it’d be most natural to use the latter, but even if we use the “mathematical” rounding to nearest whole number, the probability of “2” being correct is about 50% with “1” and “3” being at 25% each. In both of these scenarios, “2” is the best option to show.

If you want a more accurate date, you need to give the system more accurate information (e.g., the months of founding and disbanding the label)—at “year” accuracy, saying that it lasted for 2 years is the most accurate we can say.

The “years of service” doesn’t make sense to me. There’s no way this label existed for three (whole) years.