Guidance Requested: Adding External Links

CCs can now add external links to (at least release) entries. My general rule of thumb is to add when there are no (or no "major") sources or I find additional "major" sources during my confirmation research.

In the rare situation I add a source for a related release (e.g. different market, reissue), I will add an appropriate descriptor. This is typically done in cases where I believe some link from (e.g.) Discogs or any major source is better than no/weaker sources.

Looking for guidance on this. What triggered this post is a release with only a RYM source. Since one of the two performing artists is coded as Australian, I added a Discogs link to the Australian version of the single and labeled it as such; however, an editor rejected:

Why Do Fools Fall in Love

https://secondhandsongs.com/edit-review/284

Three days and no help? Since all I currently have is nothing but observations, limited experiences, and the specific matter referenced in the original post, I'll conclude that any external source that doesn't exactly match the release on site is an error. This would include:

a) Modern digital reissues of older releases (e.g. iTunes of "Sgt. Peppers"); and

b) Any reissue, alternate markets, etc.

Unfortunately getting a response to guideline-related questions is sometimes difficult around here (I've made three posts asking about things relating to the guidelines in the past couple of weeks and haven't gotten a response to any of them).

The general rule though is that external links to Discogs, etc. must match the version of the release that's on site. I think we do make an exception for things like mono vs stereo though.

I can't comment in the Guideline section.

Outside of this thread, someone explained that (but not why) the rule seems to only apply to Discogs. I can certainly see why one would strongly prefer the exact release; however, when there are no links from standard sources on site for a release, one for a related release (properly labeled) is better than none, no?

Do these restrictions apply to the e-notes as well or just the external links? If just the e-notes, I'm looking at an error report to suggest the link.

It's okay to post a link that doesn't exactly match, in the notes, with an explanation. The editor will typically place the link, and an explanatory note, in the editor notes.

Quote from David King

It's okay to post a link that doesn't exactly match, in the notes, with an explanation. The editor will typically place the link, and an explanatory note, in the editor notes.

I think this guidance is fine. I'm a little concerned that an editor won't notice the link placed in the notes, however as no alert is sent when a work is updated in that way.

Quote from artsinspired

Quote from David King

It's okay to post a link that doesn't exactly match, in the notes, with an explanation. The editor will typically place the link, and an explanatory note, in the editor notes.

I think this guidance is fine. I'm a little concerned that an editor won't notice the link placed in the notes, however as no alert is sent when a work is updated in that way.

Are you sure? With a performance, at least, I get edit messages for deleted editor notes.

Quote from David King

Quote from artsinspired

Quote from David King

It's okay to post a link that doesn't exactly match, in the notes, with an explanation. The editor will typically place the link, and an explanatory note, in the editor notes.

I think this guidance is fine. I'm a little concerned that an editor won't notice the link placed in the notes, however as no alert is sent when a work is updated in that way.

Are you sure? With a performance, at least, I get edit messages for deleted editor notes.

Now I'm not sure. I shouldn't have used the word "work" in my message as that has very specific SHS meaning; I should have said "page". But in any case I'll ask the other Managing Editors to weigh in. They'll know better than I do.

I personally try to stay away from links in the editor's notes simply because SHS can't cache those (so if the link dies for some reason you either don't have that reference or you have to go digging through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and hope they have a cached copy of it).

I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines are about adding links to alternate versions of a release unfortunately. Bastien or sebcat could probably provide more insight.

How does this reconcile?

https://secondhandsongs.com/error-report/39211

Great that CC's can add external links now, as many links listed in database entries of the early days of SHS tend not to be matching the release exactly. Heck, in those days editors were glad to find a decent link at all

So keep adding these release links please!

Wasn't there a discussion about this elsewhere? It seems like this issue had been addressed already, but I can't remember where.

EDIT: Found one: Omitting mismatching discogs links in favour of right ones? https://secondhandsongs.com/topic/75856

Last edit: 2020-07-14 13:18:00 UTC by David King

Quote from David King

EDIT: Found one: Omitting mismatching discogs links in favour of right ones? https://secondhandsongs.com/topic/75856

Yes this is in the guidelines - but for Discogs links only.

Should refer to the exact same release and issue. Therefore, there can only be one Discogs external link per release.

Other Discogs entries which are deemed relevant should be referred to in the editor notes

I'm thinking it would be a good idea to carry the rule over to all links.

Another "how does this reconcile"? Here we have the later vinyl EP/LP Discogs link but the format on site is digital/CD:

Remodel by Bernhard Eder

Rule doesn't apply to editors?

Quote from VirileVagabond

Another "how does this reconcile"? Here we have the later vinyl EP/LP Discogs link but the format on site is digital/CD:

Remodel by Bernhard Eder

Rule doesn't apply to editors?

To back up the last sentence of the public comment on that release page, 10" had been added behind the discogs link when adding the release (so already before the above was posted). Linking to evidence surely doesn't violate any rules.

Quote from VirileVagabond

Another "how does this reconcile"? Here we have the later vinyl EP/LP Discogs link but the format on site is digital/CD:

Remodel by Bernhard Eder

Rule doesn't apply to editors?

To back up the last sentence of the public comment on that release page, 10" had been added behind the discogs link when adding the release (so already before the above was posted).

Linking to evidence surely doesn't violate any rules, but it may be considered moving that link to the editor note.

Quote from camembert electrique

Quote from VirileVagabond

Another "how does this reconcile"? Here we have the later vinyl EP/LP Discogs link but the format on site is digital/CD:

Remodel by Bernhard Eder

Rule doesn't apply to editors?

To back up the last sentence of the public comment on that release page, 10" had been added behind the discogs link when adding the release (so already before the above was posted).

Linking to evidence surely doesn't violate any rules, but it may be considered moving that link to the editor note.

As best I can determine:

a) There are no restrictions on what can be in the editors' notes (e-notes);

b) Links in the external links (e-links) can be for any version of the release on site (with any necessary descriptor), except for;

c) Discogs links in the e-links must be for the exact release on site (e.g. format, region, etc.). A descriptor doesn't satisfy the site rules and guidelines.

As for a) AFAIK, no. It should be use- and helpful and closely related info, though

b) In cases of differing formats etc. explicitely pointed out in comments or editor notes, providing evidential links appears quite mandatory

c) Regarding discogs links, the guideline says "Should refer to the exact same release and issue. Therefore, there can only be 1 Discogs external link per release". Besides should not meaning must: This obviously aims at, in cases of listed releases issued in various formats and countries etc., only adding the link going for the original release. In terms of the matter stated, the only discogs entry goes for the 10" vinyl and linking to it fullfills adding only one without appearing to contradict the rest of that guideline.

Quote from camembert electrique

c) Regarding discogs links, the guideline says "Should refer to the exact same release and issue. Therefore, there can only be 1 Discogs external link per release". Besides should not meaning must: This obviously aims at, in cases of listed releases issued in various formats and countries etc., only adding the link going for the original release. In terms of the matter stated, the only discogs entry goes for the 10" vinyl and linking to it fullfills adding only one without appearing to contradict the rest of that guideline.

Then my original example did not have to be rejected. I added the link in question because there was no better option available at that time (don't know about now). If rejection is discretionary, then the problem persists, as I can't be expected to know every editor's preferences.

Moreover, it would appear the the editors are reading this rule differently, which again causes problems for CCs who wish to help in adding proper external links. Remember, I (at least) will likely only add grey area links when there is very little (if any) sources links on site.