Documenting sources on recording relationships


When adding recording relationships, lots of editors (myself included) are in the habit of using something like “cd in hand”, “liner notes”, etc. in the edit note. This makes sense at the time, because we’re usually working from a specific release.

However, when dealing with older recordings that are repackaged and reissued in different collections, it’s often unclear which cd was “in hand”. Even if the recording only appears on a single release at the time of the edit, it may later be merged with others. If there’s any conflict or question about the accuracy, it’s hard to trace it to the source.

So I’m trying to start using a more informative version - “Liner notes to King KBSCD-7001”. (I could use an MBID instead of the label/catalog combo, but I prefer to keep the note easier to read.) I’d like to encourage other editors to do something similar.


I usually upload images of the packaging first, then include a link to the cover art for that release in my edit notes.


Good idea, I didn’t think about this yet. I will do this in the future, too.

What I usually also do is actually quoting the relevant parts of the liner notes. It is a bit more work because I have to type it all in, but it provides some context. I also sometimes had uploaded the relevant scans first, as @Billy_Yank has suggested, and then link to this. But I don’t always have the time for scanning and editing the scans.


It is really important indeed for later edit history based fixes, etc. :+1:
And not only recording relationship edits BTW.


Instead of just using an MBID (which I agree would be hard to read), I usually directly link either the release or the cover art tab of the release (if I’ve added or am going to add cover art scans). This makes it possible to quickly click on the link to see information about the specific release the relationship was added/edited based on (or if linking to the cover art tab, even directly seeing the source material for the change). E.g.,