Topic: Use of the release disambiguation field
I'm interested in what the guidelines are surrounding the release disambiguation field.
The general impression I get is that it should only be used when necessary to prevent two releases from being merged. However, there seem to be other uses such as noting 'deluxe' releases and remasters. I wonder how far such use can go. For example, is it valid to add 'itunes version' to a release that has itunes exclusive tracks? It may not be necessary to prevent merging, but is still useful information. Could the same be true for CDs with bonus tracks?
One issue that is linked with this is the use of the disambiguation field by picard or other taggers. It's sometimes useful to use tagger script to add this information to the title, e.g. the 'CD 1' and 'CD 2' for UK single sets. There are some other situations in which it would be useful to add information to this field. One is where an artist has releases of different types (album, single, ep) with the same name. Tagging straight from MB creates problems because media players will read all the tracks as being from one release. Adding the relevant description to the disambiguation field would mean you could append this information to the title. However, I imagine many would consider such comments unnecessary in the database, and they would be right. So you have a conflict of having something useful for picard but not for MB.
Unless there's some way to get picard to read information from file comments, I don't see any practical ways to get around this. One could manually edit the releases after tagging with picard but this is laborious, particularly if one regularly re-tags their files to include new edits. The only other suggestion is to add a new field for information such as this that picard needs in relation to certain difficult releases. However, this could be done currently using the disambiguation field, if users don't object.