How are Deluxe/Legacy/Expanded Editions handled?

I apologize if there is a definitive guide on this, but I couldn’t find anything after searching for awhile. I was adding new releases to my collection and when I got to the Expanded Edition of Days Gone By by Bob Moses, I found that someone had already added the Never Enough Edition as a release:

From what I had seen before, things like “Expanded Edition” or “Deluxe Edition” were put under “Disambiguation”. Personally I like this other style of putting it right in the Title, because it makes it much easier on me for how I like to keep track of my collection. But I’m guessing I shouldn’t be trying to dictate style for everybody else on this site!

So my question is how should this be handled? Should that information be separated or can it be kept in the Title?


Hi Thom (not Tom). :slight_smile:

  • As it is not really part of the title, it better suits the disambiguation comment, indeed.
  • It should follow ETI style guideline
    (« deluxe/legacy/expanded edition », in lower case)
    (except proper nouns of course like « UK only edition »).
  • This disambiguation comment does show up in collections, by the way.

In your example, you would move it as Never Enough EditionNever Enough edition in the release comment. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Awesome, thanks! That’s what I thought, but wanted to confirm before I started editing that one.

Related query - do you or anyone else know of a Picard plugin to include those comments in the album title when tagging?

I’ve never tried it but you can try this:

1 Like

Once again, thanks a lot!

It’s taken me awhile, but I’m finally trying to get active on MusicBrainz and want to make sure I’m doing things right.


I might be missing something (???), but the extra title information (ETI) guideline does not advise to use the disambiguation field.


The guideline you linked to contradicts this advice, doesn’t it?


Here comes a complementary excerpt of the disambiguation comment documentation:

The comment fields should not be used to store general background information: that kind of information should go in the annotation instead.

1 Like

So this question was indeed interesting.
ETI guideline might have been written and thought of before NGS.
Maybe it is outdated compared to current usages.
What do you think @reosarevok?

I don’t consider stuff like 40th anniversary edition as just some general background information, IMO it does disambiguate this release from others.
Everything that helps disambiguating is welcome in the comment, IMO.

@thomnottom, stay a little bit longer here, it seems that it’s just the beginning of some relevant style discussion. :wink:


Haha, I was about to walk away satisfied and now I’m worried about this can of worms I accidentally opened! I shall return to the discussion after I finish some reports for work.

1 Like

If it written on the cover, it can be more than just an aesthetic difference, it might indicate a specific type of release, since special editions often come with added material. I would stick to the printed title as much as possible. Don’t you usually advocate for verbatim text? :wink:

Yes, but it does not replace other fields. For instance, the disambiguation comments for UK-based Mick Brown and USA-based Mick Brown contain data available from other fields too.

It is much more convenient to edit disambiguation comment than annotation (and I often did so), hence the usages you refer to, but annotation probably deserves to be more used/usable.

To my experience, it is rarely on the cover (*).
It is sometimes on spine and, often on some (removable) sticker (sticker and/or obi for 初回限定盤 and the likes), and, more than often, nowhere at all — probably for my second hand stuff, for which no sticker is left.
Thus the comment rather than the title.

So I hadn’t thought about the cases where it is clearly part of the front cover, actually.
If it’s part of the title, as they usually don’t print those rounded brackets, it means that we should use the Style/Titles/Subtitles, which IMO does not look very good (at least for those edition texts). :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

(*) Well, rarely on the cover but it seems not. I found two examples from my collection where, well, I did probably not give justice to the front cover text.

MACHINE HEAD (25th anniversary edition)

Although, on the cover I do see many many stuff like:


remastered album · single · quadrophonic mixes
unissued (sic) quitar (sic) solos · remixes · 28 page booklet

True that I stripped down all that, I found it was too much of general and sometimes redundant (2CD) information rather than proper version name. So I took instead what often contains the best fit titles, the spine but put that version info (25th anniversary edition) as comment.

made in japan (the remastered edition)

This time I took the edition info from front cover and put it in comment instead of I should probably had to put it in title as made in japan: the remastered edition with Style/Titles/Subtitles → Made in Japan: The Remastered Edition with Style/Titles/Subtitles plus Style/Language/English.

Actually it’s not that rare that it’s printed on front, you’re right @Yvanz. I found some others as well in my collection. :confused:

But Catch A Fire (DELUXE Edtiion) where we can see that (removable) transparent plastic kind of obi.
So once disposed of, you cannot see that version name any more.

To avoid all those discrepancies and version name adaptations (removing 2CD and other bogus info), I’ve liked and used the idea of putting all those (for me) non title version info in comment.
But it’s true that on the other hand, I like verbatim copy.
We all have our contradictions.

yes, I think this is exactly it in this case :​)

I would decide whether to put it on the title or not depending on how it’s on the cover. If the cover has it as part of the title (actually printed, similar size as the main title or just by it, etc) I might add it to the title, especially for something like “Never Enough Edition” or similar where it gets an actual title. If it’s just a small “Deluxe Edition” sticker or the like, I’d probably do disambiguation.


That makes perfect sense. I’ve been trying to find a number of examples from my collection, and that really works because a lot of the ones that were just on stickers are not consistent - e.g. BEST BUY EXCLUSIVE EDITION for one sticker and then on another label it says Deluxe Edition.

Is this something that gets voted on and then written up in a style guide? Is it alright if I just start following that advice for my updates?

[quote=“thomnottom, post:15, topic:134760”]
Is this something that gets voted on and then written up in a style guide? Is it alright if I just start following that advice for my updates?[/quote]
I would just go ahead and follow @reosarevok’s examples.
If you wait for something to get added to the official style guidelines you might end up old and grey if you’re unlucky!


Just a heads up for anyone else who wants to use the disambiguation comment, I had to make a couple corrections:

Options > Advanced > Scripting:
$set(album,$if(%_releasecomment%,%album% \(%_releasecomment%\),%album%))

I just realize that the forum was stripping out the underscores and backslashes which is why it didn’t work for me initially. If you click through to that thread you will see the correct script, too.

It will not remove characters if you write them inside code markers or blocks.
Search for Markdown syntax to learn more about that. :wink:

Or even better, read Using tagger script syntax highlighting in Discourse.

Yes, but I think thomnotton meant in the preview displayed above in the post where you quoted mine. It is displayed correctly in the original post, but not in the preview. An issue of Discourse :frowning:

Not sure. I have now removed my preview to avoid adding confusion.
If you look closely at his post, @thomnottom has used quote block instead of code block. I thought this was the reason of the issue that I have not fully understood BTW.
But maybe I was wrong anyway. :slight_smile: