Is a missing label on a 7" a Misprint? [RESOLVED]

Rickie Lee Jones - Woody And Dutch On The Slow Train To Peking
I have corrected the Release Title and added moved Misprint from the Release Title to the Format (the OS didn't understand my request initially so I've put it "right" after a fashion) but I would welcome confirmation that Misprint is the correct tag.
From https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/help/formatslist:
"Misprint - Indicates that there is an error in the printed material on the release (labels, CD booklets etc), for example, indicating wrong track listings etc. There must be a corrected version of the release for this tag to be used."
"Mispress - Notes that the audio on a medium that is replicated by pressing (CD, vinyl etc) is incorrect in some way (usually, the wrong tracks)."
I don't think a missing label qualifies as either of these.

This is probably an error that qualifies as a manufacturing variation unless a whole batch is missing the B-side label. In which case it should be merged.
There's been some consensus on this before:

AV-Media
Okay. All the "A or B Side label failed to press" requests I put in have been merged so I think it is safe to put merge requests in for others that are found in the database. Most people seem agreed on it.

(from https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/412757?page=2#3827256 )

Merge. +1

I was sweeping the mispress tag the other week and found it was hard to actually find a REAL mispress.

Tons of stuff that either with no wording as to why it's one or stuff that should be merged.

I have this release:

Barbra Streisand - Flim Flam Man

With a blank Side A label. No song title, artist, nothing at all except the label itself.
Side B has the proper printed label.
Would it be considered a misprint in the database?

Dr_Layne
With a blank Side A label. No song title, artist, nothing at all except the label itself.
Side B has the proper printed label.
Would it be considered a misprint in the database?

Likely just a manufacturing variant. Usually we don't document record plant screw-ups unless it's something spectacular like a completely different stamper used on the other side.

True misprint would be stuff like typographical errors that got corrected in a different release.

Thanks, everyone. I'll give it a couple of days before initiating the merge.

I'm going ahead with the merge.

So if it's not a miss print if it has a label missing and the item is then merged should the person who merged it then go in an update the notes about said variant having a label missing and should they also undisable the image that showed the missing label item that would now be under the submission it's been merged too ?

if the same label on both sides/label missing is a manufacturing variation,
what happens when it comes to selling items like this?
do they have to be downgraded? can somebody claim an NAI?
it's a bit of a grey area if you ask me....

I know this is a little off topic (sorry this merge, which is for a mislabeled copy of an otherwise identical submission, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

So if I understand the discussion correctly, releases like these: Every Breath You Take should be merged?

Yes.

Labels are printed and cut before the record is pressed. Usually the blanks are pre-printed with the design and boilerplate text like you see on that Police 7", and there are several of these on a sheet of paper. Each sheet is fed through another printing press to get the release-specific text added, and then they get cut. A batch of these cut labels is loaded onto the vinyl press, and one is literally pressed into each side of the hot puck of plastic as it is squeezed between the stamper plates. No adhesive is needed; the underside of the label basically fuses with the vinyl.

If some other record's labels are loaded into the machine, it is considered a mispress on Discogs, and can be treated as a separate release. But if (presumably) one of the many sheets of blanks just didn't get its release-specific ink added, it's a misprint, and it's a kind of occasional glitch which we don't really care about treating as a separate release. Even adding a note like "Some copies have blank labels on one side" is controversial because it's such a common "manufacturing variation".

Since it's not supposed to be a separate release, s must say they have the regular release, and then use their collection notes and for-sale listings to clarify what they have. I would not be surprised if some vendors end up getting their releases reported if they do this, though; see https://www.discogs.sitioby.com/forum/thread/745485 where I propose softening the rules about commenting on differences in the marketplace.