This is an assortment of 50 edits that look like this:
Splitting the pseudo label “Aftermath Entertainment/Interscope Records” into the two labels “Aftermath Entertainment” and “Interscope Records”.
These 50 edits affect both release labels and manufacturer/copyright relationships. I wanted to make sure the community at large thinks this is the correct way to store this information before doing more.
I would split them, too. I’ve explained in edit notes in the past that sometimes release liner notes condense text to save space; this is a prime example.
I only looked at a few, but they seem to me more like dual branding than a joint venture, so I agree with your approach.
I don’t think we should split them. This is the issue I have. When you look at all the digital release stores that show labels, i.e. Spotify, Deezer, lookin up iTunes store barcodes on ISRC, etc. they will show the same release throughout. Many new releases don’t have physical releases to show imprints. I started labeling the way they show on digital releases to match how they are on the actual releases. We don’t have a “credited as” system or a joint label deal (like artists) for imprints. I wish we did. I find it odd that MB is the only place that shows labels different than the releases have them. It’s also impossible to know on many imprints when they show the imprint as something completely different than the copyright holders but it’s also “not an imprint” according to who? As far as Interscope, they do this on almost all their releases. They are joint venture labels IMO. Digital labels that aren’t typically have a space before and after the dash. I guess what I’m getting at is that digital labels should show as they do on digital releases. They do everywhere else.
@HibiscusKazeneko @highstrung As you can see, tigerman325 disagrees, and has voted against all of the edits. I’d appreciate if you could replicate your thoughts to those open edits.
@tigerman325, are you familiar with NGS (Next Generation Schema)? This was a major database schema change implemented in 2011. One of its biggest impacts was to discontinue the practice of creating fake entities named “A/B” when “A” and “B” are discrete entities that should have been used instead. For example, read the rationale behind the introduction of “split artist”…
@Freso, does our community manager want to drop his thoughts on how to store the information described above inside MusicBrainz today?
No, I was unaware of that honestly. I have no problem with what you are saying, but with artists we have ways of joining these. I was just trying to credit the digital releases the way the appear on the releases. I’ll change my no votes. I really wish there was a better way to know what the true imprint is if you don’t think it’s what releases say there are. I’ll go back to labeling them however they are on the physical medium.
I’m going to auto approve your edits that I can since it’s basically undoing something I did. After reading your link I understand a little better about the rationale.
Not off the top of my head. I also feel like this is more in the realm of the Style leadership (@reosarevok) than community management. As an editor, I do think your approach for this makes sense at a glance, but I didn’t look very deeply into it. 
I would split them too.