There’s a debate about whether or not to merge these remix singles into one release group. edit #41866511
As I mentioned on the edit, I believe it’s better for releases like those to be grouped together rather than having a release group for each of them, after all, isn’t that the purpose of a release group?
Why not merge in to the release group that already exists for the single?
Well, because the original single it’s not classified as remix.
Style / Release Group - MusicBrainz says (emphasis mine):
There are a number of situations where there is currently no consensus about whether releases should be grouped together or not. This includes […] remixed albums. Be aware that attempting to group these releases can be quite controversial. If in doubt, these releases should probably be in separate release groups.
So I’d probably not merge the release groups for now.
Sort of? The grouping isn’t merely about organization or convenience. A release group represents a real world thing. It says “all the releases in this group are versions of the same thing” (where usually that thing is an album).
On the other hand
My understanding (maybe I’m totally wrong) is that singles are a different sort of thing from albums. A remixed album is certainly a different album. Is a remixed single a different single? IMO, no.
I’m personally in favor of grouping singles liberally, and would have voted “yes” on this edit.
Excuse me. I’m a newbie here. But I want to be clear about this topic.
Is it a rule to merge a single with its remix in the same group release, isn’t it?
No, that’s not right. The release group of the original single will have the type “Single”, and the release group of a release consisting only of remixes should have the type “Single + Remix”. Because of their different types, they need to have different release groups.
Actually, for singles, I think pretty much everyone does merge them. It’s mostly remix albums that people keep separately.
That said, if this is a remix of the “More rappers / singers are on the remix”, and not “Some producer changed the track a bit”, I’d probably use a different RG, because the two are very different things.
Could you please give me a example of what you wrote?
I’m still not clear about this.
In this case…
or in this case:
should be those merged?
IMO, yes and yes 
The second one, certainly. I probably wouldn’t merge the first, but I can see why some people would.
Well, I’m sorry for stating it with such certainty then, but this comes as a big surprise to me. It seems obvious to me that they shouldn’t be merged for the reasons I stated. I’m aware that you’re the style leader, but this doesn’t seem supported by the guidelines at all.
[quote=“Release_Group/Type#Remix”]Remix
A release that primarily contains remixed material.[/quote]
A release consisting of only a remix should clearly have this type.
[quote=“Style/Release_Group#What_should_be_grouped_together.3F”]What should be grouped together?
Release groups should be used to group variations of the same release. The following are examples of things which should normally be grouped together in the same release group:
This relationship can’t be used if the release group is shared.
Respectfully, this sounds like a very strange thing to say about remixes. As I’m sure you’re aware, many remixes are entirely different from their sources. I would definitely say that they’re more different from the source than a remix with no changes but an additional verse from a featured artist.
Along with the release group type, the shared release group artist is another good reason not to share a release group, although you personally seem to be fine with keeping them split in that case. But I think keeping them split in some cases makes it a weird decision to merge them in other cases.
The thing is for singles, remixes are basically expected and often packaged with the original mix. So, you’d often have a situation like:
Single (1 track) in RG 1
Single (3 tracks, inc. 2 remixes) in RG 1
Single (the 2 remixes on their own)
It seems very strange not to put that in RG 1 too.
On the other hand, rap style remixes with the same beat but more vocalists are most commonly released on their own, months after the original song came out, and are (in my experience at least) considered more of a separate thing than normal remixes are. We also create new works for those, but of course that’s kinda required by the new lyricists (remixes do not often get a new work, unless they do get a new composer credit officially which isn’t common)
So, by what I read…
this group I added
should be split ?
Your example is a good argument for merging, but I don’t think it’s strong enough compared to the argument against. The first two are clearly releases of “the single”, but I don’t think the third one is. It’s a release of remixes of the single. (Obviously, you’ll agree with these exact descriptions, but that’s the feeling I’m trying to convey.)
Obviously you’re aware of this one, but for the record I would like to quote the example defining a release group:
I don’t particularly agree with your analysis that rap style remixes are more of a separate thing than other remixes, not that it matters considering that I think both should be kept split. In my opinion, time separating releases or them being “more of a separate thing” is irrelevant.
In the end, all that matters is that when you say “[artist] has released a new single” or “I want to buy [name of single] on CD” you are referring always to one of the releases, and never to both. And if you say “This new single gets released next week in Japan and next month in Europe” the releases might or might not have different remixes on them, but you can be sure that both of them will include the original.
In another topic, @Freso has proposed a very easy question to determine if release groups should merge:
New debate in edit section:
My 2 cents here: Both the lumpers and the splitters have good arguments going. I really don’t mind either way, but would like to see clear guidelines in place endorsing one or the other. That way we get consistency and clarity.
I think @biocv has the right idea here.
Also, since no one ever replied to @jesus2099, I would like to note that that definition is basically equivalent to what is already written (explicitly) in the guidelines:
Can we finally put an end to this misery? It’s painful to watch respected editors like @drsaunde having to explain release groups for years: