Use release disambiguation not release-group disambiguation and more

[pscn]

I found 2 examples why I would prefer the release disambiguation:
http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/d3f057b4-7e89-3018-9f84-9835ed9b4732
http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/6792b6d1-4e65-3c3c-9d20-d08aa1dcfc60
I did not find an example where the release-group disambiguation would be important (of course, that doesn't prove anything ;))

In release candiate list:
Prefix media with number of media if >1 (e.g. 2xCD, 3xVinyl...) and show MBs disambiguation if set.

Examples:

Candidates:

1. Aphrodite's Child - 666 [Vertigo, 1972, 2xVinyl] (64.5%)
2. Aphrodite's Child - 666 [Vertigo, 1972, 2xCD] (64.5%)
3. Aphrodite's Child - End of the World / It's Five O'Clock / 666 [2000 FruitGum, 2004, 2xCD] (40.3%) (partial match!)

Candidates:

1. Pink Floyd - The Piper at the Gates of Dawn [1967, 12" Vinyl, mono mix] (51.8%)
2. Pink Floyd - The Piper at the Gates of Dawn [EMI Records, 1967, CD, mono mix] (51.8%)
3. Pink Floyd - The Piper at the Gates of Dawn [Columbia Records, 1967, Vinyl, mono mix] (51.8%)
4. Pink Floyd - The Piper at the Gates of Dawn [東芝EMI, 1967, CD] (47.8%)
5. Pink Floyd - The Piper at the Gates of Dawn [EMI Music Japan, 1967, CD] (47.8%)

[sampsyo]

Cool! Thanks for this. Including the disambiguator in the album name display totally makes sense. And counting the number of media (2xCD) is awesome.

Regarding release-group vs. release disambiguation: those are some good examples that I hadn't really thought about. The canonical example for using the release group disambiguation is Crystal Castles, who have three albums, all of which are called Crystal Castles:
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/b1570544-93ab-4b2b-8398-131735394202
The same goes for Weezer:
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/6fe07aa5-fec0-4eca-a456-f29bff451b04

So I know it might be going somewhat overboard, but we might actually want to include both disambiguators. But should they be separate fields? Or just hackily joined with a slash into the same string field? Not sure what the best solution is.

[pscn]

I guess it would be ok to just join them. Maybe like this:
disambig = []
if release['release-group'].get('disambiguation') is not None:
disambig.append(release['release-group'].get('disambiguation'))
if release.get('disambiguation') is not None:
disambig.append(release.get('disambiguation'))
info.albumdisambig = u' / '.join(disambig)

[sampsyo]

This sounds good to me. We may need to come back and split these two values into two fields in the future, but for the time being, that seems unnecessarily pedantic.

The above commit joins the two strings with a comma.