It seems to me that a discography entry on an artist’s website is more correctly linked to a RG, rather than a release. Discographies are usually concerned with the content. They rarely include info about labels, barcodes, and all the things that distinguish releases.
But “Discography Entry” is only available when adding a link to a Release. For a RG, the only options are “standalone website,” “reviews,” and “crowdfunding page.”
Is it this way for a reason? I just removed a link from this RG because it didn’t fit the definition of “standalone website.” But then I realized why the editor made that choice, since the appropriate choice wasn’t available.
I very much more often have pages for one specific edition (catalogue number).
Sometimes only it’s for several editions and I link the same page to the mentioned releases (catalogue numbers).
For example that link (broken in 2019) used to mention the BOL7102 CD edition and a digital edition.
It should be linked to these, if they exist in MB.
I have now linked it as discography to the BOL7102 edition and approved your removal from the release group, as website/homepage.
i agree with jesus’s sentiment that releases are more common, but i still agree that we need it. i don’t see why there can’t be a discography entry relationship for the rg too like the “discogs” relationship for example.
It may be more fuzzy for artists, but I can’t think of a single Japanese record company that doesn’t have a separate discography page for each edition of the release, which fits MusicBrainz’ URL relationship perfectly:
Yeah, I’m definitely thinking of this from the standpoint of an artist’s discography page. I didn’t think about the publisher’s page. The artist I was looking at when I thought of this is maybe not the best example, as most of his albums are single-version releases. But check The Manhattan Transfer’s discography on their website:
Discography – The Manhattan Transfer