Possibly duplicate release with confusing edit history

MusicBrainz
1

I was just looking at this, and noticed there were no (non-other database) url relationships for it, so I decided to check the edit history for them.

  • The first edit doesn’t have an url but one of the comments does. Commenter says the catalog number is for beatport link 1 but that is a single track and this release is 10 tracks, so they also list beatport link 2.

  • Second edit changes the catalog number to that of beatport link 2.

  • Fifth edit adds ASIN for a different CD release.

  • Sixth edit changes the catalog number to that of the CD release.

  • Seventh edit adds the discogs url for the CD release (still present to this day).

  • Track lengths from that discogs page are then added sometime later, possibly through disc ids.

This release has now been changed from a beatport release to a CD release, while still being a digital medium. The current track lengths don’t match neither of the original beatport links listed. There are 2 other CD releases in the RG that are very similar but have even more different track lengths and are on different labels, but do have the same barcode (which is very likely not from either of the original beatport links).

At this point, do we convert this release to the CD release it has become (assuming discogs here even has correct information), or do we convert it back to the beatport release it was likely targeting (beatport link 2)? However that beatport release has also been added back here in which case it would be a duplicate after it has been fixed.

4 Likes
2

Actually there’s a third CD release on MB that I missed, with the exact same tracklist & catalog number but a different barcode

1 Like
3

I’d fix it to the one that is missing from the RG. Otherwise any fix is followed by a merge. Make it something useful as there are 21 people with that in their collections. I’d just complete the hijack to make it the release it mostly describes. Trying to guess what those 21 people are thinking it is. As the Discogs URL is a unique one to one link I’d use that for reference to bring other data to be consistent.

2 Likes
4

unfortunately there are a lot of releases like this. they get “telephone”d and more info from different versions gets added to them until they’re unrecognizable. i agree with Ivan, i’d convert it to the closest release that’s not in the RG yet.

2 Likes