2-in-1 release groups and other boxsets (STYLE-330, STYLE-331, STYLE-335)

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fcb50cf3618> #<Tag:0x00007fcb50cf3230>


Sorry if I did something bad, it was unintentional, as I still don’t understand.

I did not know there was a difference between a twin album compilation and a triple album compilation.
It sounds arbitrary and I fail to see a reason for this.
If it is also part of STYLE-335, I think it should really stay longer open, it is too strange in this state.


I was about to write a charade about how “box set” is absolutely not a packaging type, but in the end, I think I convinced myself that “box set” as packaging type with Release Group type = Compilation is the way forward…


In my mind, a [release group]«is included in»[release group] relationship says this:

This album/EP was also released as part of this other, larger set.

Or in reverse,

This set includes re-releases of the following albums/EPs.

Some editors (at the time) argued that [release group]«is included in»[release] would be better, because:

  • it’d be more versatile, because it would cover e.g. “this EP is also available as bonus tracks on this other release”
  • any duplication of data would be minimal (since 2-in-1s and box-set release groups commonly have only one version)
  • several similar relationships would be bad, because editors are confused enough already :confused:

So I’d like to hear from others on that. Does it seem like a problem to have several similar relationships? (release-release, RG-RG etc)

If the whole idea sounds dumb, I’ll happily drop the issue.


I’m all for a single “this RG is included in that RG” relationship, encompassing the existing singles<–>album relation type.

Can the description text change dependent on the RG type? So a Single/Album relation could be special-cased in the wording.


As I see it, the main motivation seems to be to be able to easily find box sets that include a release and vice versa.

I would propose:

  1. making a medium a bit easier to reuse (e.g. by giving the release editor providing an add-medium-from-existing-release button)
  2. allowing “box set” releases to be members of multiple RGs

The first one should be easy enough.
With the second one, I will immediately admit I’m not sure how that would fit with the schema. Or if an RG-RG member-of-boxset rel is added, perhaps the site could just show all releases of the boxset rg in all linked non-boxset rgs (while still being members only of the boxset rg).


i’d say that boxset should then be a modifier of packaging type (boxset+jewel case, boxset+cardboard sleeve, etc.)


Hmm. Not sure what you’re asking for here, but the Add Disc popup already has an option to use an existing medium.


D’oh, you’re right. I should’ve checked first instead of working from memory.


I’m not stuck on that as a defining feature - I was trying to be clear but probably went too specific. The point I was trying to make is it’s substantially bigger than an album or even a double album.

My intention was not to just cover multiple albums more than two from the same artist, but also very large compilations both for the same artist and various artists. e.g. The Jazz Masters with hundreds of recordings spanning a career and Trojan box sets with ~50 recordings from various artists (and they don’t come in boxes though the packaging is cardboard). Bowie’s Five Years: 1969-1973 compiles albums and new compilations of B-sides together.


So, I finally stopped slacking on this. After reviewing the discussion, the decisions I took were:

  • Add a RG-RG rel, since it’s the simplest option and still works in a large majority of cases. If more is needed, it can be requested later
  • Remove the “A release containing two albums and/or EPs.” entry from the RG guideline
  • Let Box Set as a type off the table for now, since there’s nothing anywhere near consensus about it and “Compilation” is not wrong even if it could be more specific.