Requests for Votes Thread

Platform specific (Audible in this case) intro/outro watermarks glued on tracks. Came up in already closed edit #65501695. Shouldn’t we keep separate recordings for such?

More such merges in queue. Some edits were applied.


I just added these medium edits:

There’s been contention about how to handle these here, so I wanted to be sure they got reviewed:

Here’s what’s on the back cover:

The entire opera (14 CDs) uses the English Prelude on the CD jackets, as is seen in photo. Here, the track title deviates from the album cover and the rest of the opera to use the German Vorspiel. Please approve :slight_smile:

Edit #65928915 - MusicBrainz

A post was split to a new topic: Hotlinking to free downloads?

Thanks for all! :smiley:

Unsure on this, should be fixed by someone else:

Release matched to owned physical copy by barcode and else. Just completed relations and added own full scans. Release already had DiscID but Picard 2.2.3 CD lookup does not find it, so I added from own disc, also AcoustID/fingerprints.

Problem: Tracks 1, 4 were already linked to recordings having ACs different from those printed. Maybe wrongly merged earlier (no Scholz involved). Anyone eager to sort it out? I would probably make a mess.

1 Like

We need more voters :P


Beginner entering heaps of medium removals needs some Yes votes.

Community opinions are welcome:

1 Like

Requesting votes on
As the edit notes indicate, the added tracks here are not listed on the BC page, but are included in the download as well as on the back cover art.

Editing the medium seemed appropriate here since there’s no loss of information, and I’m not aware of any free-download version that would not include the bonus tracks, as was the case with this album, so creating a separate release didn’t make much sense.

From what I understand, receiving 3(?) Yes votes will cause the edit to be applied immediately in this particular case. Forgive my impatience, but it’d be lovely if I could avoid waiting for a solid week to get the tracks tagged with Picard.

This is yet another case of a box set being scattered as individual releases across multiple release groups, with the earliest edits dating to the pre-NGS era. I wouldn’t normally ask for votes for something like this, but I want to make sure enough eyes see it before anyone impulsively votes No or tries to change anything.

The Steve Miller Band: Greatest Hits 1974-78 quandary. I have added cover art in the form of medium & hub to an existing release that matches my TOC, cat# & bc. I did this after finding a discrepancy in the medium art at 3 o’clock. The spacing is different between the existing CDP and DIDY numbers. Aside from the hub info, EVERYTHING ELSE including ALL artwork, appears to be identical. Diligent web searching of this release has been of no help with trying to find the rabbit in this hole.

Does this qualify as a new release even if I can’t really substantiate it as being that different? I’m well aware of @Freso’s past comments and those of my peers concerning somewhat similar issues but it doesn’t seem to fit this seemingly insignificant difference. Yes, my hub info does appear to indicate mine is an early1990 release while the initial art is probably mid 80’s. My OCD would not let me overlook this triviality but what is left of my common sense says to let it be. I will be grateful for any comments and willing to cancel my edit if found to be erroneous. This seems to be a variant more so than a completely new release.


Hi @Griomo, I’ve replaced those recordings with the ones by Promenade Orchestra / Nigel Simpson.

I’m not sure that Scholz is not involved here - presumably the OE credited the recordings to the Slovak Phil for a reason, and probably found the recordings they reused by their acoustids. But since they didn’t add any evidence, we’ll go with yours. It may turn out in the future that they are the same.

Hello, there is a years bug on duplicate AC that makes some artist pages and release pages look weird.
Please make this pending edit, step 1 of 2, fix on DEEP PURPLE, and is successor passas quick as possible (because the artist will look even weirder between steps 1 and 2). :grin:

In short, in Aliases Deep Purple - Aliases - MusicBrainz we have two Deep Purple artist credits (AC), same as artist name.

Thus the artist page and many release pages inappropriately show track AC column even if they all look like the artist name and there should be no AC column in this case.

I have waited more than years for bug fix or a batch that would remove those bogus AC (not only on Deep Purple).
I still wait for it but for Deep Purple at least, I want things sorted now.

  1. Rename the bogus AC to bogus name: Edit #66389892 - MusicBrainz
  2. Rename it back to Deep Purple, which should trigger the new AC merge system

Thanks. And you are right, Scholz may still pop up in the future. (no Scholz *noted.)

Happy new year everyone! Could I please get a few early votes on this edit (missing track), so I can go ahead and add the Disc ID?



Here’s another rehash of the old “age of the MBID” debate:
It should be fairly simple to change the last name on the target after the merge goes through, but some people might disagree about the methodology I used (prioritizing the age of the MBID over the accuracy/timeliness of the data).


5 posts were split to a new topic: Merge to oldest entity or no

This involves a young editor who has repeatedly added fictional releases in the past. She claims she’ll provide a source, but never does, because she can’t. I’m cleaning it up, but need votes to override her “No” on the removal.


You should be sure to report her for bad behavior.

1 Like