Could someone who has knowledge about Japanese labels please have a look at https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65139359 where someone tries to merge two imprints of the same company? I feel these should stay separate as they have different Discogs pages, but as I can’t read Katakana I’m not able to do much further investigation than I’ve already done 
Edit: The issue seems to be solved thanks to @HibiscusKazeneko
The consensus seems to be to keep the two separate, but I wonder if a “performs as” relationship between the two artist entries would be appropriate.
can we get some votes on this one https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/65189923 i think the song name should be Shine, Jesus, Shine not Shine Jesus Shine
I need some votes to push through some credit fixes, moving credits away from [unknown].
The two Bessie Browns are often confused for one another, I’ve entered some edits to disentangle them.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65222403
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65222404
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65222441
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65222446
I entered the edits #65125294 and #65125307 when little info was available. Now that it is clear what Chagkachan is (see the booklet and dicussion), I am not sure how to credit the release – to Various Artists or to the ensemble. Most of the tracks are solo performances by the members of the ensemble and the latter is not credited anywhere (only mentioned in the booklet). Crediting to Chagkachan would be more descriptive, while Various Artists could be more correct technically (not sure though).
I still think the tracks themselves should be credited to the corresponding performers (except the tracks 9-11 where multiple instruments are playing and “pong lang ensemble” is present in the track titles – I need to improve my edit #65125307).
I would like to have a few more opinions on two pairs of edits I entered. In these edits I want to replace two recording of relations, which are currently linked to both parts of a two-part work, by a single relation to the whole work:
edit #65234772 and edit #65234773 (main discussion)
edit #65234626 and edit #65234627
IMO this is more precise because the recording contains an additional solo that’s linking the two parts which were released as separate tracks first (without the solo).
Can someone please give me advice whether many relations to all parts or a single relation to the aggregate work are preferred (in general and in my case)?
I’d like some wider perspective on this edit. I’m trying to replace a joiner placeholder credit with an entry to a backing band.
A new release of “Selected Ambient Works, Volume II” has been added to the database, but a new release group has been created, and the medium type and Discogs link need to be fixed.
https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/25d77cd6-d818-4bde-8571-4a98a785ddbb/open_edits
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65341729
I’d like to ask for your help to have these corrected sooner.
I have submitted an edit to remove the barcode from this release. https://musicbrainz.org/release/9c4c34b0-cc6a-3cc5-8591-ed670c2f18bb The discogs link https://www.discogs.com/release/442686 does not list a barcode. The (barcode-less) release I have matches everything including the hub matrix info. I believe the barcode was mismatched as it was added after the release was entered. I could use a yea or nay so I can add more artwork.
I’m trying to merger two release:
Unfortunately, the track listing for the second release did not include the video track even though it is mentioned in an annotation so I can’t proceed until the track listings match. I’ve entered Edit #65421063 to include that track, and it would help if I could get some votes on that.
As an aside, could someone clarify what happens with the release events when releases are merged? Do the events from the selected release only remain, or are the events from the release that is being merged get automatically added to the one that remains?
I’m no editor, but added a comment there. Hope it helps.
edit,
While my comment was factually correct I now think I missed the point.
I believe editor biocv has addressed it correctly now.
Hi I need some votes and/or comments on the following:
Votes:
Comments/opinion and maybe votes:
I’m unsure about this edit, concerning changes in join phrases for conceptual/aesthetic reasons which may be considered subjective/against the sources: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65632721
I owe you a thank-you for taking your valuable time to investigate.
Although you were also misled into the made-up script battle rather than the hijack of releases, in August. 
(The problem was resolved later by edit #65474134 and edit #65474320.)
Thanks everyone for your votes!
Still beyond me how the title in Tamil script is a disambiguation and how is that in line with Disambiguation Comment.
Could i please get some votes/approve on edit #65883775? I will be merging it with https://musicbrainz.org/release/c4b7c3b1-e417-43f7-81bd-9372306b8c5a once it passes. Thanks!