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

MusicBrainz Style
#1

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.

2 Likes
#2

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.

2 Likes
#3

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.

2 Likes
#4

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

2 Likes
#5

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.

#6

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