i’m back here again, sorry 
but can i get some votes on this artist merge as well? i want to do more work on this artist but the pending merge keeps scaring me off haha
i’m looking for feedback on this, because i genuinely have no idea what is correct 
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/88412901
1 Like
Is that how the misc role relationships were meant to be used?
Adding artists multiple times, once via a specific relationship and another time as misc role relationship with the task being a generic “studio personnel”
2 Likes
splitting an artist, the main edit is this, but there’s several others here, removing some URLs and changing artist credits~
1 Like
There are two rappers named “Young Thug”, one of them is the more well-known US performer, the other is a French performer. I corrected the track infos that incorrectly attributed the French performer:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/88686814
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/88687067
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/88687175
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/88687218
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/88687281
3 Likes
looking for more than one opinion on this edit. i really don’t think the existence of a song counts as a release.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/88733070
I don’t normally ask for votes on anything, but I’ve been getting a spate of “failed dependency” notifications lately for releases I’ve merged away. To prevent this, I need some votes on six edits I need to go through before this merge does.
1 Like
RE: Edit #88951553 - MusicBrainz
These seems to be a difference of understanding on type of release with this edit. I voted no as I have seen such things not in title, and the editor has stated the same but seen in the title… both of us with example. If someone could provide some insight on this, it would be appreciated.
2 Likes
Hi there, found an artist duplication, here’s the merge request: Edit #89045169 - MusicBrainz
Not sure if the source metadata will be applied on the target, i.e. disambiguation “Atlanta rapper”
1 Like
No, it will not be moved to there.
If you want it on the target, you can add it now, it will not make the concurrent merge fail.
I don’t remember if the Area will be copied over or not, let’s see.
1 Like
Thanks, updated target!
2 Likes
Did some cleanup on recordings/artist credits of “Belly”. There have been some mixups between Belly (US pop-rock band) and Belly (Palestinian-Canadian rapper). The below edits fix the incorrect attributions of the US pop-rock band to the Palestinian-Canadian rapper:
3 Likes
Could I get an approval for Edit #89575252 - MusicBrainz please?
Trying to get some of my oldies tagged, don’t want to wait an entire week just to get the correct Recording linked 
1 Like
Could I get some help with this release?
Messed up big time and Medium 1 & 2 got mixed up when creating the release so now I’m trying to merge the duplicated tracks.
1 Like
Hi, I’ve got a bunch more requests-- This time I waited until I was all done submitting edits for CYTOKINE’s stuff 
All the edits in this post are of the sort that’d affect how Picard tags files, so naturally I’m antsy to get them through.
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/89576878
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/89598556
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/89598557
- https://musicbrainz.org/edit/89599289
- Edit #89599290 - MusicBrainz
- Edit #89605860 - MusicBrainz
- Edit #89632604 - MusicBrainz
-
Edit #89632603 - MusicBrainz
…And then basically everything currently on Open Edits for BACKFLASH Audibility - MusicBrainz
1 Like
I approved them all except for your last three links, where I just voted yes.
If someone with more experience with JP releases could have a look and see if they can approve those please, or if they should stay open for voting 
1 Like
Don’t often ask for AE help - but here I am.
New Pixies 8CD Live boxset. I had added this based on pre-release info. Turns out CD1 has different track splits. Any votes that can help speed this through would be really helpful, not just to me but to anyone else who is getting a copy of this this week.
Thanks @chaban for kicking this through. I realise the “remove the extra CD” can’t be sped up… but maybe if enough votes appear?
Woo!! All done. Thanks 
2 Likes
This is for @sbontrager, @rossetyler and other Bowie fans.
The 2012 40th Anniversary Edition(s) included two three new versions of ZIGGY STARDUST album tracks and of some outtakes / B-sides too:
- 2012 remasters
- 2003 Ken Scott remixes
- stereo
- 5.1 multichannel
Remasters should reuse the same recordings but not the remixes.
It’s what happened for all except for VELVET GOLDMINE which happened to end up having the same recording for 2003 Ken Scott stereo mix.
Maybe because of a merge, maybe because of one of my merges, even, I have not researched yet.
But today, the historic recording (to which old tracks and remasters should link to), recently obtained a 2003 stereo remix disambiguation comment, because it ended up linked to 2003 remixed tracks.
I am now splitting this recording (again?) by (re?)creating a proper 2003 stereo remix recording and removing this wrong comment on historic recording and relinking the 2003 remixed tracks to the 2003 remixed new recording.
Could you follow this confusing sentence? 
If you could review these edits and vote no if I’m wrong or if something seems bad along them.
Thanks! 
2 Likes