When to add disambiguation?

When do others think that disambiguations are justified?

Me - I like to be able to tell the difference between things in lists from things like search results and Reports.

However another more experienced editor (jesus2099) tell me, “it’s already set and visible from RG page
barcode and catalogue number is the basic disambiguation.
we need disambiguation comment if they are the same but the editions are still different in some way not covered by basic attributes.”

I am not convinced - I see MBids as basic attributes and don’t see them or fields containing label/ASIN/EAN/catalog number etc as functioning “good enough” in all contexts where I want to be able to distinguish reliably between releases.

What are others views?


For releases, I generally agree that if two releases look different on the release group page, there is no need for disambiguation. But, it has kind of become common practice to add things like “deluxe edition”, etc. that may appear on hype stickers and not really be part of the release data. I’m OK with that.

It sounds like you are advocating adding disambiguation to every release, detailing its label/ASIN/EAN/catalog number so you can see that info everywhere, I don’t think that is at all desirable.



I do more work with people than releases.
So, for me, I add disambiguation when:

  1. there is already another John Smith.
  2. there isn’t a John Smith but there is someone with a similar name - Jon Smith, Juan Smith, or John Smit. That way future editors don’t think it could be a misprint.
  3. there isn’t a John Smith but there isn’t a lot of information available about him (such as a 1920s saxophonist). That way future editors don’t confuse another John Smith with the current one.
  4. one person uses multiple names. That way we end up getting credits where they are meant to be. This typically applies to DJs who put out different “moods” under different artist names. Disambiguation such as “techno house DJ John Smith” appears on 7 different artist entries.

I’m wondering if the MBid can be turned into a useful disambiguation.
No idea how that could be accomplished.

Yes I don’t see that as at all desirable either.
Neither do I see having lists with multiple identical indistinguishable Release titles as desirable either.

1 Like

Even in big release groups with no release disambiguations, it’s easy to distinguish editions by the basic attributes shown there (bar code, catalogue number, country, track count, mediums, etc.).


Yes I agree that in Release Groups there is plenty of visible data to distinguish between similar releases.

I am removing some Release disambiguations.

Looking at the Release pages I think that having the Label/cat number/releasedate/release country so far from the release name is problematic in terms of the visual grouping of information.


There is an additionnal case for which disambiguation is useful:

  • two digital releases similar on every aspect, but with different track order