It depends on whether “there was clear intent by the artist […] to create multiple releases” or not.
2024-06-21 17356, 2024
discordbrainz
<04elomatreb> it lists a difference in cover art as satisfying that
2024-06-21 17328, 2024
yvanzo[m]
I understood the same, but I’m not sure that the current case where nothing else has changed even the URL has been considered.
2024-06-21 17359, 2024
logistic-bot has quit
2024-06-21 17301, 2024
yvanzo[m]
The style guidelines are not explicit about digital releases being modified at the same place, not only through their cover art.
2024-06-21 17315, 2024
discordbrainz
<04elomatreb> I don't really see how it could be more explicit tbh
2024-06-21 17335, 2024
aerea joined the channel
2024-06-21 17346, 2024
aerea has quit
2024-06-21 17357, 2024
aerea joined the channel
2024-06-21 17311, 2024
aerea has quit
2024-06-21 17311, 2024
aerea joined the channel
2024-06-21 17349, 2024
Island_ joined the channel
2024-06-21 17357, 2024
discordbrainz
<02UltimateRiff> I also personally would create a new release for cases like this, tho I have seen approaches similar to how yvanzo recommends in the wild
Made a ticket for an issue that has been bugging me for a while - people overwhelmingly using the ‘withdrawn’ type for releases that have naturally met the end of their lifespan/publishing agreements, or been updated with a new version. I say let’s go with the flow and let the type mean that, and make a new type for the more rare “expunged” usecase (which withdrawn was originally meant to be/is described as in the docs)
