LOL! I would not be that harsh… I agree on judgement call, thus looking for opinion here. The old me, meaning before one of the auto editors pounded this stuff in my head, would say just use the same one for both, as long as the name is right, so what. But now, I almost think it better to create a new one for it, but I would honestly be unsure of a type to assign to it. I did on another release create a new one, and added the ‘not for release label use’ to disambiguation, but as I say that, I am also against a messy database.
My issue, as a large portion of my life has been in technology in some way, is that data needs clear definition and structure, or the result will be a mess. Once you give someone set options or narrow things down further into details, you need to be prepared to have cases where the system fails, because it will fail. That is what I try to do in the forum here, point out a failure, or a possible or slight failure, and get a guideline set to resolve it. Unstructured data tends to be more complete, but is hard to use. Structured data creates failures and technical issues… so you need a median.
In this case, if I needed to pick one ‘right’ solution, I think adding a new entity is best. But, devil’s advocate on myself is … how do you know that the imprint is actually separate from the company as it relates to Flow Music? That is the deciding factor and the answer is not clear, making the information hard to enter as the guidelines as for definition unknown to me as the editor. So now we have you who would use the same, mmirG who I assume would create new, etc. The result is no consistency. Even me, I did one creating new and one (this one) using the same.
On a side note… I get it and am not complaining. I was involved in the creation of a few corporate ERP type databases, and it is a larger project that many people can imagine to define structures and attributes for data entities. So I understand, just trying to work in the system the best way for MB.