True Care by James Vincent McMorrow iTunes release - [Worldwide] or not


And since I’m here (as suggested by 221bbs), could I get input from editors on this edit #47420186 where I proceeded to remove link in disambiguation box, corrected release packaging and changed release country from France to the more correct and inclusive Worldwide denomination.
My main arguments of note:

  • I had added a Google Play link (and many other ‘worldwide’ links could be provided).

  • Original editor added a US iTunes link (keep in mind release was added with France as only release country).

  • Artist is signed to AllPoints (UK label) see here

Why not Worldwide? What does it take for a release to be classified as such? Why even bother then having this “country” in the 1st place if it’s obvious that there always will be one country or another where the release is not marketed in?

See edit for discussion.

Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

It was added as CD with package info and catalogue number and UK release event.
Then it was modified to digital.
On MB, we rather add a new release instead of changing previous (or I am also OK to add a digital URL to the CD release because I don’t care much about digital releases).
As the CD release does exist according to links in edit notes, a new digital release should be created rather than loosing existing CD info.


The idea is not about where something is marketed only - it’s also about where something is available at all. There are many countries from which you aren’t supposed to be able to access iTunes (sure, you can probably use a VPN to be “in a different country”, but that’s not much different from importing a CD from a different country). I suspect it’s the same for other stores. As you were told in the edit, some stores are worldwide - as far as I can tell stuff like Bandcamp doesn’t intentionally block any countries (not sure how they interact with stuff like US sanctions though). Similarly, if the artists just upload the music to their website, it’s almost definitely worldwide :slight_smile:


Usually, when I want to set Europe or worldwide, for whatever reason, I still keep the existing confirmed countries.


You’re conflating with this edit #47418285 which I let be voted down.

It was added as CD with package info and catalogue number and UK release event.

I see you went thru the historical edits. Good. But my, why did you omit the fact that he changed it from UK to Worldwide? Isn’t that another huge giveaway?!
And the back cover, why wasn’t it added?
Band member adds homepage url to artist page but omits direct link to where fans can purchase CD?
You see, you overlook these and other arguments.

As the CD release does exist according to links in edit notes

Now. Only now it has been found. Question is, did it exist at time of edit. What was the real intention of editor?
Whatever, it’s done. You guys seem to see what you wanna see.


Usually, when I want to set Europe or worldwide, for whatever reason, I still keep the existing confirmed countries.

So France **and ** Worldwide is OK?
Yeah, I always thought the French weren’t of this world :stuck_out_tongue:


Funny, while I’m writing the word “marketed” I’m saying to myself, “You’re gonna get heat for this, somebody’s gonna contest. I sayz to myself, screw it, so be it”. “Issued”, “released”, “available”, “marketed”, “sold”. Pick your poison. All MBz has to say is: “describes the country in which an album was released.”

Very lacking terminology and definition in our guidelines. I’m sure you’re aware of this and surely you stumbled across RYM’s guideline and Discog’s as well. I’m not here to discuss this (but probably should or already is elsewhere), just to say I’ve been following all 3. And it’s always been a headache in many cases.
Also it’s increasingly more evident people here just love to play word games. Semantics over logic. That’s why I don’t participate much in these debates. Some are alright and fruitful others just a complete waste of time to put it mildly.

OK now, the Worldwide issue:
Look this one’s a no-brainer. You guys don’t have to make it more complicated than it really is.
Either Worldwide exists as release country and editors can apply it or just simply eliminate it once and for all if it’s too complicated to comprehend.
“But this release is not available in Anatartica”, one editor will reply. “So therfore it’s not Worldwide” . See how ludicrous this is?
Growing up watching TV how many times would you hear the TV host or presenter exclaiming “Coming to you worldwide!” or “Welcome to our live worldwide broadcast”. Worldwide right. Like in the Azores we didn’t even have TV until the mid-70s! But still people understood the concept that is was ultra-national, seen in many countries across the plain and not necessarily in every God-forsaken country.
So, in my opinion, it should be established what is considered a Worldwide release and be done with.
Available in at least, say, 3 continents? Worldwide. Boom. Done.


The best source for that? Asking the editor. Give them a couple of days to reply, perhaps try to reach out to them by their given e-mail.


You can’t make logic arguments without semantics. As you note yourself, the terminology used in our documentation says “released”, not “marketed”. I don’t know by what logic you want the two words to be semantically identical. I can release music worldwide (e.g., on Bandcamp), but only market it in Denmark. I can also release music non-worldwide (e.g., physical CD only sold in handful of stores in Copenhagen) and have it sold outside of the geological restrictions by people post-ordering (or buying 2nd hand). The words you claim to be synonyms are not synonymous, which is in the realm of semantics – but it’s also these semantic non-equal values that make any logical argument based on them being equal fall apart.

There’s also already another thread about the general idea of when and why to use Worldwide for releases. You’re obfuscating the discussion by making arguments about that here, rather than in the other thread. As I have mentioned to you a couple of times by now: if you want to see the currently established “best practice” changed, please plead your case and present your arguments, but also accept if everyone else do not agree.


AFAIK the loose current definition is that if it is specifically not available in any countries, then it isn’t worldwide.

For example, you can download Bandcamp releases in Antarctica just fine, so I would say it’s [worldwide]
If Apple said you can’t have it in Antarctica, because Penguins Records Inc. holds the rights to it there, and have only released on a differnet platform (or a different iTunes ID) then it isn’t [worldwide]. Which is also useful to store, for instance, the different rights holders relationships (eg the reason why there are separate releases) mentioned in that scenario.
Especially as more digital releases come out. Yes, it’s easy and convenient to just merge them all into [worldwide], but as everything goes digital, we will start to find this kind of specific information valuable.

I agree that MB has to do something about [worldwide] eventually, it is extremely impractical to add every release country except for a few to a release, but as said in the other thread, that is a UI issue.


When I looked at the edits, I thought the editor tried to turn the previous CD entry to digital once it was digitally releases after the CD.
But maybe I was wrong.

I input many CD in MB but it is only ultra rare that I upload any image as I don’t have time for this.
Not uploading back cover is such a common thing for any physical releases you will find here.

Not linking to where buying CD, well, I thought it was a CD self-sold on location.

When I have time I will see that but I thought I had already seen CD proof in the long discussions.


if the very same release is available in more than just one country (never mind their continents), that is enough to consider it an international release — but it’s still certainly not a worldwide release. there is a big leap between the two terms, and when people use the word “worldwide” it is often the case a slight marketing exaggeration, when what they really mean is international.

so for the sake of communicating information more accurately, we really should consider substituting the term “worldwide” with “international” or include the latter as a new option so that “worldwide” can remain an option for cases that genuinely deserve it. “international” has a broader meaning; it is factually correct for any release available in more than just one country to as many countries as you can imagine — and the best part is you don’t have to quantify the term. “worldwide” otoh, is a term one has to qualify; you either have to contend that a release is actually available in every conceivable country that has ever been known to be a market for purchased music, or you have to arbitrarily limit its meaning (eg, “3 continents”; why not 2? or 4?)

realistically, however, we would still have to set some kind of bar for which releases or vendors qualify to be deemed “worldwide”, so given the way our world works these days, i would say that “worldwide” should be reserved for just those releases you can buy as long as you have a credit card, or a paypal account or similar, and the vendor only cares that you have that, and not where you’re from. and that is why itunes should not be considered a worldwide vendor.

but if we introduced the “international” option, vendors like itunes would fit neatly in that slot, without editors having to then plug in every regional itunes store link and as many countries as they can manage, if only to convey the idea that a release is concurrently available in several markets without having to make or defend any claim that it is a worldwide release.