Requests for Votes Thread

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.

They also sometimes used their alter egos Derek and Clive. Derek and Clive - MusicBrainz

1 Like

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.


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 :+1:

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”


Could I please get votes on this?

I need it applied in order to add the Disc ID

Are these kind of releases allowed on musicbrainz?
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.


There was a thread on it already…


Comedy is a very audio-centric genre. As such, given that we’d certainly accept these if they were just an audio CD (there’s a fair amount of comedy audio CDs in the database), does it make sense to not allow them if they include video?

@aerozol linked a thread that seems relevant and further discussion should probably happen there (rather than voting one way or another without discussion):

In general, if there’s any reason to think something might have value to MusicBrainz, please do not remove it - we’re not Wikipedia.


aah our old friend wcw strikes again.

I’ve said that the first one is OK to stay as it falls under the “is generally a comedy performance which we’re ok with” category, the other one can go though as I think it’s just a junk release thats more suited to a possible film database than a music-centric one.

to add to this, i’ve also thrown this one under the microscope :slight_smile:

OK all, following the back and forth on these problem fringe releases, there’s now an edit that I’ve put through to begin removing the non-music content from that release:

Votes/Comments welcomed and accepted:

1 Like

Follow up to my last request: the merge went through but the artist edit failed, which left tracks with a different artist from the release/release group. Based on comments at the time I’ve entered these edits to correct that:

Request for 3 votes on (or better, an auto-editor to remove the erroneous information in approve) the following 4 edits:

I pasted the wrong VIAF URL (belonging to the person’s brother, same surname) into a script box and didn’t realise it also populated the above four entries’ fields. Lesson learned: pay attention to all the highlighted bits!

If anyone would be so kind as to take action, I’d be most grateful. Thanks!

Edit: that was quick, @chaban. Thank you so much!


Could I get an approval for , medium was missing track#1 and I could not apply the discid. Thanks!
That was quick, thanks for fixing my self inflicted mistake. :upside_down_face:

1 Like

looking for eyes on this edit, regarding kanye west’s name change

Could I get this pushed through please? I’ve been waiting a week to merge these releases, but I can’t because this edited failed due to a parallel edit: Edit #110083785 - MusicBrainz

[done, thanks y’all]

Request for 3 votes on (or an auto-editor to approve) these edits:

The first edit restores a medium that was inexplicably deleted (the actual CD) on 2023-08-06:

The second edit corrects the other medium’s format from DVD to DVD-Video.

I own the release in question, and confirm that it comprises the album CD and a bonus video DVD.

Edit: thanks for the votes and approval, @chaban and @jesus2099 — I am most grateful :pray:


I need some eyes on
Basically, this editor is trying to split hairs as to what it means when a band breaks up.