Close but no cigar?

I have a vinyl release not found in MB. Discogs has a super close match> Paul Anka – Paul Anka Gold (1974, Gatefold, Vinyl) - Discogs
Everything including the gatefold matches except for two very slight differences on the mediums and medium labels>

Discogs art .

The information on the discs is identical, only the placement of the info on the discs is different. Secondly, discogs mentions “etched” matrix id and lists the etched characters for each side of the mediums. My mediums have the same etchings with one extra “etch” character after the discogs character[s].

I want to import the info from Discogs with tampermonkey. I do know that during production, the manufacturers occasionally run out of labels and purchase new ones from a different supplier to complete their pressing run. Should I just import and add a disambiguation? How would you handle it? Your expertise is welcome!


I would make these two different releases. To me, any difference in the packaging and medium that is not caused by accident (like a physically torn vinyl label) would make a new release.


So, you suggest that I enter a new release and not reference or link to the Discogs release, correct? I also follow the different artwork/different release philosophy. In this instance, if the initial Discogs editor had not taken the extra time to include the pictures of the mediums I would never have known. Kudo’s to that editor! (Glad that most MB editors go the extra mile too.)


That’s correct.

That’s a constant fear when linking to Discogs entities that have insufficient data. Imagine the mess when another Discogs editor adds information that doesn’t match the MB release that you have already linked to…


This is why I also have an account at Discogs.

For this example I’d do TWO imports from discogs. First import the data as they have it now, and include their discogs link. Importantly also “borrow” the Discogs artwork. Making a full MB clone of the Discogs entry as it is now.

The second import is of a new MB Release which will match the @Llama_lover version. The import saves some typing, but I’d delete the link to Discogs. Then for this new version I’d add the new scans from the edition in hand. And any other information I can glean from the release in hand.

I’d add annotation notes to both pointing at the differences.

And finally… back over to Discogs and now add a new Discogs release to cover this variation in @Llama_lover’s hands. Uploading the full scans over there too.

And that means you now have a Discogs link to add to MB. both databasas are now update with the differences.

The most important step being that the differences are made clear on both systems. :slight_smile:

By making sure the framework in in place on both sides it helps reduce the possibility of someone hijacking that Discogs version and changing it.

Or does my OCD lead me to just go into too much detail :smiley:


Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think I can’t put too much time policing other databases to check whether they match the data on MB. I think about it as if MB is the golden standard of music data and that other databases are simply wrong if their data don’t agree with our data.


I wish your confidence in the correctness of MB data matched with all the data I have seen added here.

MB editors are human, we make mistakes, we keep editing when we are over-tired, sometimes that bottle of wine seems to have been drunk without my awareness even though I’m all alone in the house, the editing party gets a bit boisterious and leaps of logic don’t quite make it over the couch, but get added anyway, …

If you want to have strong confidence in data then having comprehensive coverart is a start for physical Releases.


@IvanDobsky, thanks for the guidance. I added the existing Discogs entry to MB then added mine to MB. Went back to Discogs and entered my release & artwork. Came back to MB and added my new Discogs link. Your 1,2,3 layout was very helpful. I’ll send you some flowers to place on Benny Hill.


@Llama_lover Nice… Everything in it’s Right Place.:partying_face:

I find it is good habit adding to and updating both databases. Here and at Discogs.

There are a lot of good eyes on the data at Discogs who will argue to extreme details about versions and pressing plants. All good data. Like MB they also don’t let you get away with making up release dates.

I will also regularly import an old vinyl from Discogs if I find MB is lacking in “first release date”. MB is very lacking in the older data that is associated with vinyl.

MB doesn’t have a way to add “original release date”. It relies on someone adding the older releases so it can calculate that information. I’ll often spend an afternoon fleshing out original data for a band.

And this is the main bit for me. Anything I add I try and put in as much artwork as I can to show those tiny little differences on the rear covers, and the oddities that can appear in a CD matrix with the differing pressing plants.