Need some votes to clean up an artist credit.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/108458330
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/108458881
Orphan recordings with unique AcoustID: remove or merge?
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/108625428
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/108625404
Edits introducing a typo are about to pass
1 Like
I am confused by these Remove edits.
First - various CDs that appears in film box sets. Sometimes a deluxe boxset of a film is released that includes a music CD of the score. Surely these are MusicBrainz allowed?
A common thing that happened in the UK past was a newspaper would release a two or three disc album over a number of issues. A case would be supplied so you could house these all as one item on your shelf. Are these one or two releases? I am especially confused by the first of these two removals as it destroys the only record there is on a volume one. And the second would have made more sense as a merge?
1 Like
Maybe the DVD-only releases should be removed (I don’t know) but @wcw1966 should at least be given the heads up that @Antiguastrea is removing their releases.
2 Likes
wcw1966 has likely stopped contributions due to ill health (edit: linked note where this is noted)
I have bought this up to no avail here: DVD Video content that isn't explicitly related to music (including stand-up comedy, feature films, television etc.)
These are more of these “fringe releases” where we need to have a proper debate about what we do and don’t want as a community before someone maverick’s this
4 Likes
I would like to ask for votes of this edit, as it is the start to fixing a bad merge.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/108858843
Thanks
Me and another editor made edits for a new release.
Open to votes for or against, just want more of a consensus. Trying to rename track Little Things (Nia Archives remix) based on how it’s listed on Bleep, Qobuz, Deezer, Apple, etc, but another editor says it’s redundant to have (Nia Archives remix) in the title.
Discussion is here: Edit #108881232 - MusicBrainz
Full list of edits: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/d62614aa-ef2c-44cd-8a7b-91292755a1d0/open_edits
I had a feeling these edits were going to cause controversy. I don’t have a strong opinion, but trying to get them consistent and follow style guide:
Release groups merge: Edit #108977292 - MusicBrainz
Related change to track artists: Edit #108978730 - MusicBrainz
Edit to release title based on artwork: Edit #108977912 - MusicBrainz
There are a few more follow-up edits needed, but I figure these should be sorted out first.
1 Like
No open edits yet, but it’s not a simple merge, and only one (possible inactive) subscriber, so gauging thoughts:
Half the Peter Cook & Dudley Moore/Pete & Dud releases are credited to the group, the other half are credited to the two artists.
Thoughts on what way to merge? e.g. split all the credits to both artists, or merge them all into the Pete & Dud group.
Sticking with the groups makes it easier to add the Wikidata\pedia descriptions to the groups as we know them. So much of the output was as them as the group. Seems natural to keep them like that.
Separated to individuals makes it easier to find everything Peter Cook did in one place. But is there not a plan to expand the website GUI to allow this anyway?
In my own collection, Pete and Dud are in a Pete and Dud folder.
2 Likes
Thanks IvanDobsky, there are pros and cons to both approaches but I agree that Putting them into the duo artist makes a bit more sense. I’ve put in an edit moving one over to see if there’s any no votes, then I will proceed with the rest 
Thanks too @rafwuk. It’s going to get f&^*ing confusing when there’s a Peter Cook & Dudley Moore release that has tracks from both Pete and Dud and Derek and Clive, but I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it…
1 Like
It seems Apple Music is now changing album release (prerelease) artwork when new singles arrive to the tracklist. Maybe this deserves a bigger discussion, maybe we just agree they should remain on the same release, or maybe we remove them as the “release” hasn’t been released (which could technically disqualify it, in the same vein as promo images/posts).
Here’s the edit I’m seeking votes on: Edit #109143602 - Remove cover art
There was a brief discussion about this topic on: Edit #109021264 - Remove cover art
I’ve seen this before. I usually don’t remove them and just add a comment like “pre-release cover art”
3 Likes
Could I please get votes on this?
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/109741566
I need it applied in order to add the Disc ID
Are these kind of releases allowed on musicbrainz?
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/109683098
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/109683099
They’ve been all added by the same, now inactive, editor who seem to have added their whole movie library despite having it no music content or discographic relevance; I attempt to remove when I step on them with the positive feedback from users like @chaban, but it happens to get sometimes an opposite vote citing the loss of information, while I think these shouldn’t have been added at all from the start, so I’m asking from other opinions following @reosarevok request. Thanks.
3 Likes
There was a thread on it already…
3 Likes