“single from” / “included in” RG–RG relationships clearer guidelines?

editor @sammyrayy added a relationship between a single and a DJ mix (compilation) album, simply because it was included in it; but the single is originally from a different album. i want to remove this relationship, but i decided to leave the edit open to allow it to be contended.
they claim the relationship should either be a single‐from or included‐in — i disagree with both. one of us is misunderstanding the purpose of the relationships, so perhaps the guidelines should be clearer?

votes and comments on the edit are welcome/needed.


I agree, I found an example today were an editor had removed the “single from” relationship for a single CD with 3 bonus tracks) that was from an album and changed it to “included in”. Seemed obvious to me it was correct the first way, but obviously some documentation is needed.


There are brief descriptions on the relationships themselves:

Single from: “This indicates that a single or EP release group includes at least one track taken from an album release group. This allows a release group to be linked to its associated singles and EPs.”

Included in: “This indicates that a release group was included in another. This allows linking release groups (often albums) to box sets and other compilations that contain them.”

I agree with @cheezmo that a single with bonus tracks (or non-album B-sides, as they used to be known back in the day) should have a ‘single from’ relationship to its associated album.

The Grimes example is, to me, clearly not a ‘single from’ relationship. I’m inclined to agree with @danBLOO that no RG-RG rel is appropriate here. The track on the dj-mix is 2:51 while the original mix is 3:40, so at most it’s only “partially included in” the dj-mix.

There should very likely be some recording-recording relationship, possibly “edit of” or “remix of”, but without hearing the whole thing I couldn’t say for sure.

In common sense terms, “single from” implies to me a contemporary relationship (a single released as part of the promotion of an album) while “included in” suggests things bundled together after the fact.


Yes or more generally (not always after, for instance), when a release group contains all recordings from another one, plus more, we can say that it includes the other RG.
Example of not after: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/86223419

But your definition is the best, it matches 99% of cases: Release group “Outside / Earthling / Hours / Heathen / Reality” by David Bowie - MusicBrainz


Wow this included mistake seems to be quite common?

Release group “Made in Heaven” by Queen - MusicBrainz includes many things it shouldn’t.

And https://musicbrainz.org/edit/86223373.

Just spotted at random using a beta version of collection highlighter, that highlights included release groups, as well.

we have the DJ‐mix‐of relationship, which is probably the case here.

should be singles‐from, right?

i thought the intended use of the relationships was clear too, but maybe we do need some more specific wording and examples?

1 Like