But don’t you also have the same problem with “place” when they change buildings at the pressing plant? That German location in Hanover moved the building more than once, which means you can’t be sure which building it was pressed in and need a new Place every time they change building. Details which are not on the CD.
Whichever method is used leads to a loss of exact clarity. So we can only go by what is printed on the actual discs, backed up with other external dating details.
I don’t think a building should be credited. They pressed all the time in Langenhagen, near Hanover. More detailed information, new machines, new buildings … I don’t think that even possible.
But that is what a Place is? Look at the documentation. A place is a building which is why you are renaming it instead of making new ones. Places are aimed at Concert Halls, Theatres where performances happen. And they are well documented. When there is a fire and they move down the street a new Place is created in MB as per the guidelines.
This is part of why I am confused about why the swap from Labels with their built in history to Places. Anyway - I gotta dash. Back later. Fascinating discussion as always. 
Not if it’s a complex of buildings and the actual building is unknown. Example: “Wiener Stadthalle” has several buildings, but they are mostly unspecified.
I haven’t dealt with this stuff much, but just a note: we do explicitly have a place type “Pressing plant” (“A place (generally a factory) at which physical media are manufactured.”), so I’d expect the plant itself to be entered as a place if known. The company doing the pressing (“pressed by X at pressing plant Y”) would be a label.
Yes, but should the plant be named after its last owner? Or one of its owners (EMI Uden wasn’t the last)? I would prefer a more “generic” name. That would make it less confusing.
The most recent name is generally used for the main name of an entity, with previous names entered as aliases. If you think it would help other editors you could also list the previous names in the disambiguation comment. The edits you’ve made on the Technicolor Pressing Plant look good.
This will also get confusing when the company goes bankrupt before closing the pressing operation. The South African label I was working on a few days ago were using EMI Uden glass masters and printing them in their own pressing plant in South Africa. They then merged with another company. That company is now also defunct and no pressing now occurs at that plant any more. So the Place now becomes somewhere with a very misleading name.
Only relying on a Seach Hint to match it is going to make it hard for people to find it as a place. That search hint will not be displayed when there is a match. (I find that trouble when looking for Concert venues with new sponsors)
With the older method when Labels were being renamed meaning create a new label at least it was still possible to get a match on that label name even though it is now defunct.
That seems to imply we can now enter both? I have been told off before for entering a Place and an Event because “the Event tells you where the Place is”. Isn’t this a similar case here? The Place is the location the Label operates from?
That’s what troubles me too. The most recent name may not be it’s last name, if the plant is still operational. And in case of EMI Uden, it would not be adequate if it’s named “Mediamotion Manufacturing”. Of course, there can be exceptions from the general rule.
This is why I like the way that a Label is unique for each owner of the plant. They can be found separately, but the links are still there for the “renamed to…” and “renamed from…” relationships so you can see who owns it now.
It would be so much clearer if the Place could be allowed separate places for each change of owner, but that would break the guidelines for places.
I don’t think we are discouraged from using release-label manufactured relationships.
What makes you think so?
Label (and Area) are easier to edit, following what is printed.
My main goal is disambiguation of the releases.
Not a real interest in factories outside of this identification purpose.
I’m not discouraged, I’ve credited this release “manufactured by” Sony DADC Austria AG (label) 
and I’ve credited the disc “glass mastered at” Sony DADC Europe Limited (place).
But “Sony DADC Europe Limited” isn’t a proper name for the plant in Anif.
If there’s no protest, I will rename the Anif plant to “Sony DADC Anif” (like Southwater) and create the sister plant as “Sony DADC Thalgau”
For the SONY DADC universe see also Wikipedia - Manufacturing plants
@IvanDobsky - that’s a good example where it’s easier to credit the company than the plant, because the only thing different between Anif and Thalgau discs is the cat# from the glass master. Anif discs start with A, Thalgau discs with S (and many discs have no pressing plant cat# imprinted)
But if omitted information would be lost. 
As long as we can put up both Place and Label relationships, then all is good by me. Just was concerned this was going to drop into that same debate as the Event and Place thing.
@ernstlx I find it kinda funny that we have both been working on this this week, but from two separate angles. Now I know you are polishing up the Places, I’ll get the Labels better linked to them.
As I learn more about the factories, I also learn more about my music. And spotting the differences between the versions.
I am also a bit of a addict for history and facts and read all kinds of things off on a tangent from working on Releases.
Haha - I just happen to be adding a CD that is made by “www.keyproduction.co.uk” as the label, but they used Sony DADC Southwater to manufacture the discs. (Worked out via IFPI LY34 in the matrix…)
And while fiddling around in the Label relationships I found a link can be made between Label and Place\Plant of Owner? https://musicbrainz.org/edit/74229146 Does that seem to fit okay?
Great! I hope we do not work on the same companies/plants. It’s complicate enough without interference.
And I have to admit I have created a label = company just minutes ago.
but it should not be linked to the place Allied Record Manufacturing Company as this one consists of two plants and has to be either made one of those plants (Belleville, NJ) or be merged into Cinram Commerce …
The main Labels I was working on are noted above (Hamburg), but this did swing to Southwater too. And then I stopped when I saw the Places and Sony having that different slant. Hence the excellent timing of this thread.
One of the things I was trying to add to the Labels was a better way of recognising the CDs in hand. Borrowing Discogs text and re-writing it as a start point.
As I know you are actively working in this area I’ll watch this histories close, and any overlap I’ll kick up votes on it (like that Southwater link). I’m keen to work together on this to make sure we don’t clash. 
I’m not sure if Southwater is owned by Sony DADC Southwater. According to Wikipedia it belongs to Sony DADC Europe Limited (together with Sony DADC Austria), but I’ve got no idea how to relate all this, so I suppose you know what you are doing and I vote yes.
Links can be changed and updated as knowledge improves. But the awkward part is the ONLY link that can be made between label and plant is “owns”. I agree that the legal reality is they Ownership is probably the parent.
There needs to be an “Operater” relationship. Or some similar word. Something that says “This Label makes discs at this Place”
The Label already has a link to the Parent being Sony DADC
This would not make things easier. But we probably should not be too strict with the word owner. Lets say, the owner is the company, the branch, the department, whatever. It’s not useful to put all these relationships into MB. So if DADC Southwater is the owner of this plant - it shall be. But keep in mind, that the other branch - Sony DADC Austria “owns” two separate plants. They are very often not distinguishable (same mould SID 94**)
… and that’s probably enough