The 2 edits that passed is just that the no voter didn’t see them.
Resubmitting the identical edit that was voted down is not really fair play.
Especially as you did not link it in format Reddit and as it was only open for 2 hours, thanks to quick 3 yes votes.
I had no time to see it and vote no, same for the other no voter.
It’s like a passage in force.
You would have got the same 2 no votes and 2 yes votes failed edit, as before, with more reasonable edit visibility.
I did not auto-edit it. I only resubmitted because two editors told me they would have voted yes. If I got two editors saying they would vote no instead, I would have auto-edit reverted the ones that passed with 2 yes/1 no.
You are contradicting your own post - it passed with 3 yes. Unless anyone who contributed changed their mind, it would be 4 yes/2 no, given that there was an additional yes vote on this edit and one editor who saw it but did not have time to vote yes in time.
I have absolutely no way of preventing edits closing quicker if they get unanimous votes, since I can’t temporarily vote no on my own edit. I’m not sure what you suggest for “reasonable edit visibility”? Posting it in this thread should be fine?
Unfortunately, my phone smartly fixed my text:
I meant you did not link the new edit in former edit.
The forum is very good, yes, but the no voter does not apparently read the forum, I don’t see the editor in this topic.
I think we should always notify editors and voters with an edit note in the related previous or original edits, in general. It is often forgotten. 
Removing printed artists or part of the title sounds like personal preference, rather than objective data.
We are now missing this release group (and/or releases) in the 3 artist discographies.
I do know one can see them in (drowned among thousands) relationships, instead. As if they were only credited in the booklet, and not on the cover.
The other no voter posted in this thread. Credits for jazz release with cover image listing additional musicians - #7 by phanboy_iv
In this post, I listed eight extremely well known jazz albums with the lineup of musicians on the cover, where graphic design has one more prominently on the cover.
Indeed, that was the very purpose of my edit. You do not want to have releases where they are not the main credited musicians. The pages of prolific session musicians like Ron Carter and Elvin Jones would have discography pages several times their current size if this was followed, and it would be hard to find the albums where their presence on the cover was actually to be part of the main artist credit. It was not shortened because of length (for example, jazz albums like A Tribute to Monk and Bird feature more even musicians, but they’re credited with equal importance).
I think an album appears on the discography page, rather than the credit section, the release should intend for it to be credited this way. When the artwork singles out one artist, that’s usually a good sign of that being the main artist. If spine/medium has all of them despite that design, then I think all of them should be included.
I almost made a procedural ‘no’ vote just to keep it open for a while. Sorry you did not get a chance to vote @jesus2099 . In addition to the 3 yes voters on this one @aerozol also indicated they would have voted yes, so I think it still would have passed.
I do want that (because visible), but yeah yeah yeah. 
Anyway no more worries from me, it’s not in my shelves anyway.
Consider also that Prestige released four “The ___ Book” albums by Ervin. Two of them, “The Space Book” and “The Blues Book”, listed all musicians on the front cover. The other two, “The Freedom Book” (with identical personnel to “Space”) and “The Song Book” (same bass & drums, Tommy Flanagan on piano in place of Byard) have only Ervin’s name. To me that’s a further indication of “cover designer’s intent”. The accompanying musicians are no more or less important to the records they’re named on than the ones they aren’t.
Yep - my point is that there are two ways to handle this generally, and only one of them requires interpretation on the part of the editor:
I prefer the second option because, as far as I can see, it’s easy to consistently apply to every release mentioned in this thread, and has no actual downsides.
No one has yet made an argument as to why removing artist credits listed on every release’s cover (a destructive edit, which MB conventionally frowns on) fixes any actual problem, or improves the database in any way. It seems to be mostly an aesthetic argument, not a data completeness argument.
Either way, we probably need guidelines - many, many other releases like this:
https://musicbrainz.org/release/fbd8c900-a6e4-4536-8653-96dd37daf4b5
and this:
https://musicbrainz.org/release/a73f9292-912a-4cda-bd5b-3f52282ffc1e
and this
https://musicbrainz.org/release/9e0797d2-a1ce-4841-92d7-dac5706e0686
don’t follow @finalsummer‘s methodology at all, and never have. Are they wrong? Do they need to be fixed? Or is it mostly a question of per-album tradition as interpreted by the local editor? Should Money Jungle only be credited as a Duke Ellington album? Should Journey in Satchidananda only be credited as an Alice Coltrane album?
All I really want is a methodology we can write down that requires no interpretation or augury of intent, which seems quite achievable.
@jesus2099 Yep ty - I saw.
My argument is basically consistency. Firstly, consistency with how the rest of the world, from wikipedia to the Penguin Guide to Jazz, would refer to the release, namely as a Booker Ervin album, not a Booker Ervin/Jaki Byard/Richard Davis/Alan Dawson album. And secondly, consistency within the catalog - is Byard’s contribution to The Space Book greater than to The Freedom Book? Why should one appear in Byard’s discography but not the other?
There’s no way we could ever know for certain, but I would bet a large sum of money that Byard, Davis, and Dawson had no say whatsoever in where their names appeared on the record. That’s just not how the business worked. I would hazard a smaller sum that Ervin himself had little or nothing to do with the cover design, although he may have at least had an opportunity to approve it.
Stanley Cowell - This one should have one artist. It’s the full lineup and clearly given less priority.
Alice Coltrane featuring Pharoah Sanders - This is not the full lineup and the labels of the original release credits it the same as the original release. I think the credit is correct and should be on all releases.
Duke Ellington • Charlie Mingus • Max Roach - This one is a bit of a edge case. There are issues that are way prominently credited to Ellington on front cover, and those should be credited like that. Due to the history of this recording, it’s usually in the discographies of all three, despite the design. The vinyl labels of the original release list all three, which is a sign that it’s intended by the artist.
While there are releases that are credited this way, it’s not as common (see my post with famous albums). Having to edit all 130 versions of Kind of Blue based on the cover doesn’t seem like the easiest solution, nor the most appreciated one.
Exactly.
So we shouldn’t be the ones to guess stuff.
We should just present things as they are actually presented, on each release, as faithfully as possible.
And let the viewers do whatever interpretation they want, like when they look at the releases themselves.
I’d like to see MB regarded as a reliable source for jazz. I’d like to see us attracting more jazz knowledgeable editors. I believe that listing releases the way the rest of the world lists them helps both those goals. Yes, it does require some judgement calls. And some genre specific guidelines, as we have for classical, would probably help.