Yes. A few of them.
I'm gonna flag a report.

EDIT: Done.

Taken care of

Thanks a lot.

Why a fully re-recorded Darkspace demo is treated as another version rather than have its own page?

Looks like an oversight. Was added right after the "Versions" feature came out, so there were a lot of mistakes made early on before we had all of the details smoothed out.

That means it's gonna be corrected, right? Should I flag a report?

I took care of it. The problem remains that some of the reviews might have been written for the 2012 recording and would need to be moved (which only webmasters can do).

Thank you. Two more things, though: The digital "Unknown" version is actually another version of the original 2002 demo (as displayed on Bandcamp) and I remember the re-recording was once listed as an EP rather than a demo, though I can't find any evidence of the band marketing it as an EP. Well, except Wikipedia, where it's stated the re-recording's an EP but without referencing any source...

Edit:
This seems to be the only review that was written for the 2012 re-recording. The other three all describe the original 2002 demo with Nausika stating that the demo is "the appetiser for the truly mesmerising trio of albums that follow" and the last two blatantly stating they describe the "first demo" of the band.

Thanks, moved.

I forgot the we can move reviews after all, so that's done now too.

Great. Everything seems to be fine now.

There is a demo in the discography of the band Incredulous (links below) that has a new version recently re-released with new vocals over it. What sort of other version would I need to add to make the band's discography up to date? Would I have to add a whole new release altogether?

Incredulous --------->https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Incredulous/3540423870

Demo link ----------->https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Incredulous/The_Weight_of_Time/636693

If any performance is re-recorded, it gets its own unique discography entry.

Should https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/N ... urse/11575 really have had its own entry, as there was no sign that it was released separately?
The reason why I ask is https://www.discogs.com/Napalm-Death-Th ... se/7551196 . Looks unofficial yes. If the 1988 was eligible, then it is easy: the 2015 is an "Other".
But if the 1988 was not a valid release by itself as of 2014 ... is it now? It has been released both separately and officially (but not sold separately officially although it is a physical separate disc with its own cover) - and what is then the "Other"?
I'd say that it is common sense to either delete it or leave the 1988 (not separate!) as the main release. But I don't decide.


"performance" meaning the entire album, as bonus tracks are just bonus tracks - but I guess also that re-recordings attached as bonus disc will not be enough for a separate discography entry?
Worse to handle are probably when release (X: LP) and release (Y: EP) have been sold separately, and then whether an (X&Y) is a compilation or the LP with a bonus disc. The above is a bit like that, except reverse chronology and the officialness ...

This isn't really an "Other" versions-exclusive question, but many of the releases in question will be an "Other" (anyway, mods will split off to separate topic if needed).

How to tell whether a digital downloads version is "independent"/"self-released"? First it is a policy question, like: how much more than a hosting service must one be in order to be a "label". AFAIK, CD Baby can do "label work" for you, like distributing to other retailers (e.g. iTunes).
If I assume that CD Baby, Jamendo etc. are not "labels", I guess some knowledge about each provider will help to decide whether it is self-released:

* Bandcamp hosts both labels and bands, but often it is easy: Even if it is bandname.bandcamp.com, you will sometimes get to a label if you click "by <bandname>" below the album title, and that is sufficient to tell it is not self-released.
But: are there labels who routinely put up band sites that could appear to be self-released? I do not mean frauds, just that there might be labels who simply prefer a "Brought to you by the artist" appearance over "Brought to you by the label".
* CD Baby? Most are self-released versions? File as self-released unless there is evidence for a label?
* Jamendo? They require a Creative Commons license. Of course laws do vary across the world, but I guess the default assumption would be that if someone legitimately offers music as CC, then that "someone" would be the artist. (Besides, labels who deny that the artists own rights to their music would likely not want to do that sort of thing.)
* Archive.org: mostly as Jamendo, I guess, but there are some DIY labels that have moved into there. (Which raises a different question of when a "Label" becomes more than just an alias for self-releasing ... )

There are others as well, of course.

Could we update this list:
https://www.metal-archives.com/todo/duplicate-versions

to also include other versions that are very similar to other other versions? If the parent is a CD, the second version a vinyl and someone duplicates the vinyl while trying to edit the notes or something, it won't be shown there. I'd love to work my way through that.

I'll ask here because I'm not sure where else to ask this.

https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/B ... age/603990

Are we sure this release is official? The label didn't release anything other thing listed on M-A until the 80s, and I'm not sure but I believe Black Sabbath was not a well-known band back then in my country, which makes me think this release is either unofficial or has a wrong release date.