Track Listings from Discogs mess up track numbering under certain circumstances

I realize this is super specific, but I guess thats why we send in reports!

When getting a track listing via discogs where an individual track is split up into sub-tracks, the information is displayed as if they are individual tracks which messes up the numbering.

Example: has three songs under track 3, two under track 4 and three under track 5 which makes eight songs altogether. However one would presume that in actuality there would only be three files reflected.

Of course, there is no standard as to how these tracks are to be denoted within Discogs (the closest they come is "Use a Logical Scheme" here.

My suggestion is more generically to be able to combine tracks fetched via external databases into a single track with the information merged into each field with a user-selected separator (perhaps a "/" by default?)

Anyway niche case I know but I thought i would bring it up as it probably happens from other sources as well.


I myself a long time ago decided to use for TRACK as system of 0.0 which can be extended to 0.0-0, where 0 represents the number of disc and all that follows the . are the actual numbers of tracks on a given album; thus eliminating the need to use any kind of DISCS field. So for example Discosogs "Sandstorms" by Carl Craig described as 5-B would [most likely] be [as I have not listens to that album] described in my system as 1.9. and If I were to keep it together in one file with the next track "Squirrel Bait" by Daniel Bell], I would describe it as 1.9-10

Such approach of course would be hard to integrate with automatic download of tags from database and it has some limitations in regards to some formats [[X] Can't copy some unusual TRACK tags from MP3 / FLAC to WMA]