But it’s a single release containing previously released tracks: Compilation.
For me compilation is something you don’t need when you have the original albums and singles.
I don’t want to have to bother with another type, when editing compilations.
The new type would be redundant with the RG includes RG relationship.
We would say twice the same thing, and the relationship is the most important of both.
If the intent is to separate more complete collections from “best of” releases, then “anthology” is not a great term. It’s frequently used as a title of “best of” releases (see examples here and here).
Three previously released albums, not tracks.
Not a compilation.
These are the original albums. See the snip of the cover.
no need to bother with it when editing compilations. It’s another type of release.
This would achieve that.
Let’s call it a Bundle, then its independent of any physical issues and is simply whatever is lumped together for promotional purposes
Yes, but that doesn’t mean its perfect and that we can’t expand the set of types.
make it’s own type and all of this still works inc barcode and title etc
I’m liking “anthology” less and less, as I’m thinking of more and more examples that aren’t collections of albums, but tracks. probably the most popular of which is The Beatles’ Anthology series, which consists of rarities and small snippets of interviews
this isn’t a distinction I would personally find useful in the digital media space, I don’t think… not that it wouldn’t be useful to some, in my mind, it might be better suited to a release-level attribute (once we have those)
I think if this new type is added, maybe we redefine Compilation as referring specifically to collections of previously released recordings, and this new type would refer to collections of previously released releases.
I also think that this type could be useful with Single to denote collections of singles (perhaps including b-sides and whatnot), a Single + Bundle release
as a side note, I changed the title of the ticket and topic, as “box set” is apparently confusing the issue more than I expected
That looks like a normal compilation to me. A collection of tracks is exactly a compilation. And this is how it is sold in the shops and handled outside of MB.
If that Digital Media is three albums back to back without any extra tracks I think that is the same as the reissue boxset above. If it is a new selection of tracks in a new order you have made a compilation.
This is starting to show why it isn’t going to make sense. Many CD singles are collections of vinyl singles. They should not be treated any different to now. It is just the single on a bigger media.
The change of title and this new post is now having me go much more against the idea. When it was just literally a box of reissued albums it made sense. I see it the same way that @derat does. Even a digital version of that box. Now you are spreading into any kind of reissue I can see many more problems.
It is very common to get an album reissued with extra tracks added. I have albums that are reissued on CD with an EP tagged on the end as extra. That is not something that should go in a new category.
I’m always happy when someone agrees with me, but I don’t think I expressed an opinion on this topic. Did you mean @dpr ? 
I had a closer look at the ‘anthology’ type on some other sites (the ones I took it from), and it looks like it might indeed not be the greatest term for this… they are inconsistent in its usage, and it does sometimes include what we would call a ‘compilation’.
MB might be entering undefined waters here/there may not be a perfect term.
At the end of the day, I guess I also agree with @derat, beautifully put 
For what it’s worth, Discogs does like us and call these compilations too:
I really like when we can keep it simple, not adding editor work that will spread the discography even more, in smaller categories.
But I’m blind because I don’t see the benefit, while you guys seems to see something.
But I’m not completely against.
If it appears, I will get used to it.
Haha - I guess that means I agree with “no opinion”… 
I blame auto-complete for feeding me the wrong @ d.
Short version of my waffle - a new category will cause confusion and arguments that is not really needed. Better to stick to language that the rest of the world uses.
The more I look at this, the more I just see a sub-category of compilations that would start being applied to anniversary album releases too.
I’ll just keep relying on my Media Centre to allow me to “unbox” these using the release’s per disc subtitle.
I think that’s the core problem here, personally I would not expect “a bundle of existing releases for sales/marketing reasons” to be the same category as “the 20 greatest hits of this artist”.
If we can’t agree on a new type, I wish we wouldn’t even document releases such as this. Currently releases beginning ‘Greetings from Ashbury Park’ are listed twice in the list of Springsteen releases. Once under releases and once under compilations with 1973 and 1980. Confusing and a IMHO, a shambles! I’d rather delete it rather than have the mess for the sake of storing info on an unattractive box
It’s very very very often that compilations are named with famous song or album title. It’s normal for compilation.
It’s in compilation section, so don’t worry, people don’t confuse.
I was not sure to understand your example but I went and see :
In compilations, it’s quite obvious what it is, no?
I don’t really understand that request to delete boxsets. As @jesus2099 says, it is common for a name to be reused. Even on a more normal compilation. The other day I was working on a small artist who has a single, album and compilation all with the same name. Also has reissued albums with extra tracks with the same name. Each time a different track count, different catalogue number, different barcode all makes it easy to tell apart.
The good part of MusicBrainz is each of these get a different MBID making it easy to keep them apart. I have multiple versions of Dark Side - easily separated by my media centre using the MBIDs.
“The MusicBrainz project does not generally consider the following to be compilations:
So no, it makes no sense to me.
it boils down to the fact that I don’t agree that this is a compilation. My opinion is based on my understanding of the definition in the style guidelines.
But here it is not exactly the case.
Here it is a compilations of several albums.
This is why I believe it is incorrect to mark it as a compilation
Whatever you like to call … please don’t delete it
