I think this somewhat unusual release group merge could benefit from some more voters: Edit #91451996 - MusicBrainz
1 Like
1 Like
I’m having some second thoughts about https://musicbrainz.org/edit/91636626. If you go to the label’s website, you’ll see how they present the label name (it’s shown the same way on streaming services, which led me to add the source label).
Should I keep them separate and linked them with “renamed into/from” or go through with the merge?
1 Like
hi! can someone approve this edit to fix my embarrassing mistake lol
sorry for sending so much this week! i just have one more i’d like eyes on
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/91682215
I’m trying to merge a promotion-status release for which there is currently no reason to believe it should be separated from the official-status release:
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/91903672
In the dedicated discussion, Should Promo releases that are simply physically-watermarked copies of the Official release be added as duplicate releases?, there’s currently overwhelming feedback that such a release such be merged.
1 Like
@sammyrayy is going through labels and artists set to [worldwide], and changing them to a single country or removing the area.
Label Edits | Artist Edits
(more or less, my search-fu isn’t that great)
Most of these are international collaborations or netlabels.
Personally I disagree with this approach, I think [worldwide] is perfectly acceptable for a international or online based collaboration or entity. We should find consensus and then update the guidelines either way, before proceeding with mass editing. Then we can edit with confidence, .
The style lead @reosarevok voted down some of the very first edits, but I’m not sure that’s been taken on board tbh.
2 Likes
I have blanket voted no on the above edits, which isn’t ideal, but I don’t have time to go through everything. More input would be great.
Can someone please have a look at these?
This shows as closed but the change doesn’t seem to have been applied:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/91754984
These two show as approved but the changes also seem to not have been applied:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/91754996
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/91754998
Thanks.
Hello, @whyisntthishere . Thank you for helping to improve MusicBrainz.
These are three instances of the same confusion.
Edit 91754984 is a change to the title of a Recording. The change was applied. However, this change to the Recording does not change the title of track 1 of the Release, Forgive Me Father Soundtrack. To change the track title, use the Edit tab on the Release page.
Edits 91754996 and 91754998 are the same story, but about tracks 8 and 12 of the same Release. One edit to the Release would let you correct all three Track Titles.
This might be a good opportunity to read the documentation explaining the concepts of Release, Track, and Recording.
Also, you did the right thing by asking about the confusing results of these edits. However, this “Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread” is not quite the right place to ask. This is the place to get attention for edits which are still open or need votes. Starting a new Topic in the general MusicBrainz forum would be more appropriate for a question about, “Why didn’t these MusicBrainz edits do what I expected?”
I look forward to many further contributions from you. Thank you!
—Jim DeLaHunt
1 Like
this artist was born in the united states, but travels the world performing. currently the area is worldwide, but i’d like it to be united states because the artist is american. i respect other’s opinions on the situation but i’d like more people to vote!
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/91916843
1 Like
Hello,
Could you validate from oldest to newest: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/a47ecdbc-6169-43c2-863d-834c8030dc7c/open_edits
To explain while I was merging some tracks I realized most of the releases were wrong as based on the Bandcamp reissue which actually have different trackorder than their vinyl reissues.
Requesting validation from auto editors to be able to recheck directly all the changes to avoid any operational error.
After seeing chaban’s changes for Dreamcatcher, I went and removed the “premiered by” relationship for all works by Loona:
This edit merges three releases that I’m pretty confident were erroneously added as separate releases instead of a 3-disc box set. You can see my reasoning in the edit notes. There is more clean-up to do, and I’m hoping some folks can vote or approve (or point out my error) this edit so I can continue.
2 Likes
I need some votes on removing the DiscId on this edit: Edit #92165417 - MusicBrainz
Two tracks are switched on the CD and I want to edit the tracklist and will add the DiscID back from my own copy
Really, you should rather:
3 Likes
Thanks. I knew there’s a better way
1 Like
Any further thoughts on editing Nate Dogg’s birthplace? Closing in three hours, perhaps @elQuotho?
2 Likes
This is a new album release (today) by a high profile artist (DJ Khaled) that is in shambles due to a beginner trying to get it all right. I’d appreciate an AE coming in to fix it. We currently have a duplicated medium, four cover arts, and ugly/incorrect featured artists.
I don’t think adding more proposed edits to this is what we need.
3 Likes
I would appreciate some other eyes on Edit #92388949 - MusicBrainz , to merge MB Artist Patricia Clark artist/b747c5 into Patricia Clark artist/10d3b7.
The latter Patricia Clark, artist/10d3b7, refers to the Scots operatic soprano, born 1929, noted for collaboration with the Ambrosia Orchestra and for singing traditional Scots songs.
I think the former is a spurious duplication of the latter. The repertoire, and artists which artist/b747c5 appears together with, overlap with the repertoire, and artists which artist/10d3b7 appears with.
Also, I see corroboration in Discogs. Artist/10d3b7 links to Discogs “Patricia Clarke” artist/1000049. Discogs describes her with a full paragraph: “Soprano singer from Glasgow, whose many recordings include traditional Scottish folk songs, pop, oratorio, and opera. Her vocalese became…”. Discogs also has “Patricia Clark (2)” artist/3716306, whom it disclaims: “For the Scottish operatic soprano who sang with the Ambrosian Singers and Norrie Paramor, please use [Patricia Clark artist/1000049]”. The releases under probable Discogs duplicate “Patricia Clark (2)” seem to overlap with the releases under probable MB duplicate Patricia Clark artist/b747c5.
Also, note that both Patricia Clarks are Recording Artists for “Peer Gynt, Incidental Music, Op. 23: VIII. Arabian Dance” . That is probably wrong.
I would appreciate other editors checking the list of recordings and my conclusions. I’m not looking for Approval action from auto-editors, because as I understand it, merges must wait out their few days regardless of votes. I just want to increase the chance that others notice if it turns out I’m making a mistake.
1 Like