I meant usually in jazz recordings where almost every performance is somehow different, but this also implies that there are exceptions. For example, if the reprise has its own ISWC, I would certainly make it a separate work.
I needed to clean up this Hybrid SACD box set so it can be merged with a duplicate. When I went to do so, I got an error message and some of the mediums ended up submitted twice. They need to be removed before the merge can proceed.
I need these 32 recording merges to apply earlier than scheduled to avoid failed dependencies with other merge edits on the same recordings:
Need help/opinions on Edit #106437396 - MusicBrainz : I’m removing the soundtrack type on an album that’s not a soundtrack but got some votes against.
Trying to fix some issues from an editor who didnt think to check if recordings already existed:
Need votes and or autoeditor for this edit Edit #106797793 - MusicBrainz so that I can apply discID. The release was created with 21 tracks when it had 22, this can be seen in the back art that the creator applied.
Done - Thanks
Will close soon with
1 yes 0 yes 1 no, would appreciate some votes. The no vote is by an editor who doesn’t speak the language thinking this is a given name + surname which it isn’t. My change is in line with the majority of Swedish entries in MusicBrainz and guidelines.
Hi, I would need this edit to be applied → Edit #107143989 - MusicBrainz
Thanks in advance
Edit #107178913 - Discussion about the renamed into relationship, probably needs more eyes on it due to ambiguous guidelines. Currently at 4 yes, 2 no.
Stumbled upon a recently created duplicate release and RG which became trickier to fix than usual. Maybe there is a more efficient way but I’ve already made some edits.
fixing a big ol’ mess with a popular R&B track:
hi! this edit sets a precedent for many other labels so i’d like to have as many eyes on it as possible.
Looking for some more eyes on Edit #107566417 - MusicBrainz which is removing a digital download/streaming link without offering any suggestion of where it should instead belong.
Edit #107683585 - MusicBrainz is for correcting a faulty recording merge. Please help shortening the wait.
Edit: Solved, thanks.
Looking for some more eyes on a series of edits being voted against by Antiguastrea:
Per my edit note, in Edit #107647922 - MusicBrainz, I noted that the editor wants to separate Apple Music from YouTube Music. The editor proceeded to combine the YouTube Music links and Apple Music link on the split-off release. Since that contradicts Edit #107606196 - MusicBrainz, I entered edits to remove the links, which they are now voting against for some reason.
Looking for some opinions on how to deal with Edit #107939959 - Edit artist credit
This edit won’t move the credits but just its “clickable area”, but since I didn’t found any rule that describe such situation I don’t know what’s preferred in these cases!
…because of this discussion:
→ Release country by rights society
I added/changed release countries to what I see as the primary release country
It’s about a French musician and I’m aware that all his releases were available in France too, but these were also sold in record shops in other European countries. I could add an Austrian release event too, or I could set them all to Europe, but I don’t think, that would be an improvement.
An editor is Simplifying work titles by removing parent work name from child works.
These are not classical works but still, maybe it would be better to keep them…
Or maybe this change is great.
I thought now is a chance to discuss a little bit while this is still fresh and pending for the most part, if some editors have more thoughts than me on this:
I don’t have a strong opinion either way too, for now. I hope someone can bring up something pro or con me and probably others have missed regarding this!
The editor is me. I put my thoughts on another thread to avoid accidentally creating a big discussion on this one. Nobody has seriously complained about these edits, but I am definitely open to the possibility that I missed some obvious flaw, or misread community opinion!