the album i have, which i bought new, is lovelyz8:
the barcode 8804775065798 and the catalog number L200001164 on the side of the packaging match the info in mb and discogs and everywhere else that has listed for lovelyz8
the cd that came with it looks just like the pictures online and has all the correct tracks and matches the lovelyz8 disc id someone else added to mb
the catalog number printed on the cd itself, L200001087, when i look it up online, only matches their completely different album titled hi~ (barcode 8804775060687)
they were released on the same year and have a similar color scheme so idk maybe all cds from this release have the wrong catalog number printed and it was just a huge oversight when designing the cd itself. weird and frustrating either way
I see, well. So the only error in your release is the CD label, right?
The CD content is correct, it’s matching the packaging?
Maybe lookup for online scans (Discogs, Yahoo Auction, Mercari, etc.), to see if they are all like this.
Maybe a big batch were mispressed this way. It couldn’t be a single error with your copy only.
You can add your CD label misprint edition as new release, and write in the release annotation that the CD label is wrong and shows this and that text.
It reminds me a similar case 20 years ago when I bought His ’n’ Hers by Pulp in Québec, and everything was correct except the CD content.
It was an album from a completely different artist, it didn’t sound like Pulp at all.
I immediately went back to the shop to return the release and got refund.
I later bought the album again, in France.
I don’t know the music, but will try looking it up later. It is common for different variants of a release to exist and not all of them appear in MusicBrainz. This is why a double check with Discogs is a good idea.
It is never a problem to add too many releases to MusicBrainz. If your CD is bought as new, and not in MB yet, then add it. If later it is found to be the same as something else it can be merged. Better to have too many examples than too few.
When adding something different it is a useful idea to add notes in the annotation about the differences. Even better if scanned artwork can be added too.
i found 1 each on mercari and yahoo auction with pictures clear enough to show the catalog number, which is the same as mine so so far it’s 3 out of 3. i can’t seem to find where i could see this on discogs though, where would i see it under?
cool, i’ll do that. i guess even in the case that every copy is misprinted, it would still be good to have a separate release juxtaposed to the hypothetical correct one. would i add it with the cd’s catalog number in the allocated field, or just in the annotation?
that’s so much more annoying i’m sorry that happened to you, but glad you got the right one eventually!
thanks so much for the help! sorry it was a bit confusing haha
Ah sorry but you are right. Maybe all the original pressings are like yours!
Maybe write an edit note to the original editor to check if their releaes is like yours, and ten no need to add one. Just add annotation to existing release, in this case.
yeah, it was new from an official retailer, not an ebay store or anything like that. i’ll just add another release then and if it turns out they all seem to be the same they can be merged in the future. already asked in my other reply but to be doubly sure, do i put the catalog number from the cd in the catalog number field, or just note the difference in an annotation?
good idea! i’ll relearn how to use my dad’s scanner than haha
I was hoping for some artwork there at Discogs. But there is none, so no real use.
Some people do add all the catalogue numbers to the Release. I tend to just put the catalogue numbers from the spine and rear.
What I do is write a clear note in the annotation. Something someone can quickly read.
Spine Cat No: 123456
CD Cat No: 456789
CD cat no seems to be a misprint as it is shared with their previous release.
It is not unusual to see different numbers on the CDs to the actual package.
That would be useful. It would let other people see what the disc actually looks like.
This is one of the side effects of cataloguing your music with MusicBrainz. You start looking closer at your CDs than you previously did. Spotting all kinds of details you didn’t notice before. Learning about labels and CD manufacturing… and new skills in artwork scanning and image editing
It really seems like they copied & pasted the initial CD design when designing the Lovelyz8 release and forgot to update the catalog number. Even though it is in an entirely different position, but what do I know about graphic design?
Now, I wonder if all CDs are actually misprinted. Did you check other photos or album unboxing videos already?
EDIT: well, should have just checked myself lol. Watched 5-6 unboxing videos just now and all of them share the incorrect L200001087 catalog number on the CD. So clearly a systematic misprint, and thus a strong argument for a merge. The incorrect catalog number should still be noted as an annotation on release.
Welcome to the rabbit hole of “fact check” that Musicbrainz drags you into. This is what I have loved about this place. It makes us more aware of the item we hold in our hands. And that shared love of the music
that makes the most sense to me, more than the wrong number getting entered later down the line
oh i should have thought of watching unboxings, i had only checked the pictures i could find. thanks for doing that! i guess i’ll merge it and leave open for voting in case i find evidence of some copies getting corrected cat nos. i’ll go check through unboxings for memeM M ver too to see if there are any with the matching cat no on the cd
and new skills in artwork scanning and image editing 
