in general, i consider an EP a kind of mini-album, and singles as releases that ultimately promote one song in particular.
there’s a 2-track release (main version + remix) that totally looks like a single to me, but some editors claim it’s an EP based on its catalog. i don’t know how to vote on that. opinions?
From the release group type page:
usually it should only be assumed that a release is an EP if the artist defines it as such
So I guess the question is: Is the catalog number sufficient evidence for artist intent? Or is it evidence that a file clerk made a mistake and no one caught it until it had already been released?
Personally, I would say no, this isn’t an EP. If it quacks like a duck… One song plus a variation just quacks like a single to me.
See my edit note on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/60432433. The label clearly intended this release to be an EP and not a single.
I know the definition of an EP is a bit muddy, but if they intended this to be an EP they should probably have it be an EP. But what is presented here clearly is a single to me.
I agree with you in both points. It looks like a single (one track plus remix), but they intended for it to be an EP, so the artist (label) intent should have priority and it should be an EP.
Their singles (catalog numbers MCS, MCF) usually have only one track. 792 out of 807 MCS singles and 33 out of 35 MCF singles only have one track.
Monstercat’s catalog over at https://www.monstercat.com/music (which also has an API) is one of the best things that this label has in regards to the data of their music.
This is how their API looks like for the release in question, also listing it’s type as an EP: https://connect.monstercat.com/api/catalog/release/MCEP088.
Seems like the problem is that the record label doesn’t understand what an EP is !
To me the obvious question here is whether everyone shares the common language. Yes, the label uses EP to refer to some of its releases. But what do they actually designate by EP? Is it the same thing what MB or the world understands as EP?
Most of the EPs from the label share the same features as the “usual” EPs, so yes, it is the same thing as in MB. This release was just one of the few outliers that looks like a single. I have no clue why so many people have such disdain for the EP type in this case (even though my edit got 3 yes votes, so the reviewers agreed with me there) when people are usually strong proponents of artist intent (which in this case was confirmed).
I don’t care at all what the label says.
That’s why we have guidelines about artist intent (well, it’s the label’s intent in this case).
As I have mentioned before, it’s also consistent within their API response: https://connect.monstercat.com/v2/catalog/release/MCEP088
“catalogId”:“MCEP088”
“type”:“EP”
But for instance, in Japan, they called the vinyl A/B singles, they called that EP.
But in MB, we set them as Single, because we have our own definition.
So this MCEP, should be a single too, IMO. 
You know, I’m likely in the minority, but I think the easy way to solve these issues is to just not to separate singles & EPs. Much like Discogs doesn’t really. It’s so subjective.
I tried to unhide your post but couldn’t. I probably lack the permission to do so. But it’s also shown as empty, so maybe something is wrong with it. I don’t see a reason why this should have been flagged, but sometimes posts can be flagged by mistake. I know that happened to me in the past with my clumsy fingers.
Just to clear some things up, I was the one that flagged the post. Not because of my disagreement, but because of the way it was written and I thought it might be going against the code of conduct. Does the report not need to get reviewed and approved in order to hide that post for everyone? If that is not the case, then I apologize and will be more strict with the report feature in the future.
Mmh, but I would say that most (MB) EP are rather mini albums than maxi singles.
Just to show that it can be even more confusing. 
I deleted it, but I really didn’t see anything wrong with it. I guess it could’ve been taken as a personal attack, but I definitely didn’t mean for it to be. I do understand the logic of keeping it an EP due to the label classification. I still find it puzzling though that a single with a bonus remix of the same recording can be classified as an EP. But I’ll just have to live with it
Oh yeah. I forget about the Asian market. Argh. So are mini albums EPs or albums? It seems most get classified as EPs.
Isn’t that just language and translation?
Instead of “Album”, use the original “LP” or “Long Player”. Now “EP” or “Extended Play” fits in better in front of “Single”.
This is why I think the categories are fine. I look at a single as something with 1 to four tracks on it. Something to send to the Charts with a few added remixes on a B Side.
An EP is a Mini Album not quite big enough for a full album. It is noticeably common for the Japanese Market to get a 12" or CD with extra versions squished onto the release that were on multiple singles in Europe. That can lead to some rather large “Singles”
It is just those pesky artists and labels not following the dictionary again which causes our confusions. 
Not everything fits neatly in a box, but the majority of cases the categories are fine and should not be scrapped because of a few rogues.
My only complaint is that EPs are listed after singles on an artist’s Overview page. It should go Biggest to Smallest, so Albums > EPs > Singles; NOT Albums > Singles > EPs.
That also is neater in an Alpha sort too… current layout looks like they are tagged on as an after-thought.
I agree, and furthermore, it’s not only about bigger first, but also mostly original first, compilations after:
For Remixes, it’s debatable, they are original stuff too in some way, kind of, but made by remixers, not by same artist, in general.
I didn’t think about them in 2012 but, maybe Soundtracks should come higher.