Merge two labels?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe30e7a3cc8> #<Tag:0x00007fe30e7a3c00>

I found two labels that point to the same Wikipedia page but have different Discogs refs.
The label, “Empire”, does both production and distribution. One entity’s type is not set, the other is set as distributor, with a different name:

Am I right to assume that it would be best to merge both under the simple name “Empire”, with no type set, to simplify and avoid confusion?

If so, which Discogs page should be used?

On a side note: wouldn’t it be great to be able to set several types for one label, like production + distribution?

I’m not familiar with Empire but you might be interested in “label credits” as I call them (upvote!) :wink:

I guess the first one is referring to the logo (“imprint”) and the second one to the company. This situation is quite common, for example Deutsche Grammophon and Deutsche Grammophon GmbH (to stay with my favorite example :slight_smile:).

As in musicbrainz, release-labels are imprints, the company should not appear as a release label (but it could be used as copyright holder etc. in relationships).

I don’t think there’s a consensus about that though.

Look at

  • wiki entry, “Labels in MusicBrainz refer mainly to imprints…” and
  • FAQ, “Can an imprint and the company that controls it have the same name?”.

These could probably be merged. The guidelines recommend keeping a Record Company and its imprint together within the one Label Entity, except in special cases:

Imprint vs. company
It is extremely common that a logo is shared with its company name. There is no need to create separate ‘Imprint’ and ‘Original Production’ labels in this case

@Chtfn I’d vote yes on this.

Thanks for this pointer!

Still, release labels are imprints (but the linked label might be a combined one).

Yes, that would be great. Additionally, this would enable us to force the release label to be of type imprint (and possibly others). Also, it would be great if a picture of the logo could be added to imprints.

I would personally, as an editor, prefer to withhold this kind of merges until MBS-8948 has been implemented, as it will be hard to “fix” any labels that have already gotten merged before this and thus do not retain their “credit” as part of the merge. (Ie., we lose data by merging now as opposed to merging after MBS-8948.)


Thanks everyone for your input! I will stick to Freso’s sensible suggestion for the time being, but I definitely learned a couple of things.