Unusual barcodes

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f9ade9fd3c0>

I have a CD copy of an audiobook from Recorded Books. It has a literal barcode on it, but it’s not the ISBN/EAN, it’s a Code 39 barcode containing the publisher’s product number, DF0481. This is probably because they don’t sell it retail, only to libraries.

Right now there’s no way to enter this in the barcode field, because it only accepts numbers. I can make a feature request, but I wanted to ask here first: is this something that should go in the barcode field? Or do we want to keep that as only EAN/UPC.

While there is no other barcode on the item, I do have the ISBN, which works as an EAN. We’ve said in the past that if you know the UPC code, put it in, even if it’s not in barcode form on the release. What about when there is a barcode on the item, but it’s something else?


I’ve also had a release where the barcode is actually the catalog number rather than the UPC/EAN. I simply put it in the catalog number section because it seems more appropriate there but I’d love to hear other’s opinion on this.

1 Like

I put ISBNs and odd codes like a Code 39 barcode into the Catalogue Number fields. They are both catalogue systems so it makes sense to me.

Whereas the barcode is more specific in MB cases hence the rejection of anything not in the EAN/UPC format.

1 Like

You may want to have a look at STYLE-787 (“Support ‘Code 39’ barcodes, although this is not at all specific to Code 39) and MBS-7419 which would rename/re-describe the barcode field to indicate that it is specifically UPC/EAN/GTIN that MB wants there.

Edit: I’m surprised that STYLE-787 is considered ‘fixed’ — if it was, this wouldn’t even be an issue. It seems that the “fix” was to allow the letter D. It seems odd to add characters one at a time as someone encounters a barcode containing that character.