Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f05084e5a20> #<Tag:0x00007f05084e5728> #<Tag:0x00007f05084e54d0> #<Tag:0x00007f05084e5188>


Separating out recordings from two releases (I mistakenly used the same recordings, but they are quite different upon checking/listening to them both):

Thank you!


Please help me merging four mediums (2 duplicates) as I have to wait for them until I can merge the 4CD release:

Thank you. :slight_smile:

Merges not applied with 3+ Yes votes and no No votes

I’m a noob and just entered some information for the first time. Do I need to ask for someone to check it, or does that happen automatically for noobs? (I didn’t check “make all edits votable” because at the time I didn’t know what it meant.) Thanks.


If you don’t “urgent” assistance, it’s probably better to just wait and let the voting process go its course. :slight_smile:


Thanks, I wasn’t understanding that an “auto-editor” is still a person and that it wouldn’t go through automatically. I’ll wait to see what happens and keep reading.


2 posts were split to a new topic: Merges not applied with 3+ Yes votes and no No votes

Merges not applied with 3+ Yes votes and no No votes

Hi, I would be grateful for some votes on my edit #48871190: looking at the presence of the barcode and at the catalog number, this entry is obviously for the physical release. Changing the medium to CD will allow me to attach the CD ID.


There’s already older edit #48803166 to change the medium format.


Just for the record, digital releases sometimes share cat. no. and barcode with physical releases. I didn’t do any investigation of this particular case, just wanted to give a heads up for future consideration. :slight_smile:


I’d appreciate votes in for a Release Group merge, to correct a mistake I made when entering a new Release. I should have specified the existing Release Group, but instead let the editor create a new Release Group. Votes are not critical, however, because the merge will go through anyway in a week.

Update 2017-11-08: thank you votes received, edit completed.


These average pseudo releases have high quality data flag set, they shouldn’t have that.

Because of that, IIRC, those edits will fail if they don’t get at least one yes vote within 7 days: :grin: thank you.


Can I please get some votes on ? I’d like to be able to see more clearly which recordings need fixing and which just need to be merged. Thanks!

Edit: Thanks, got enough votes.


I think removing incorrect data improves the database, so…


Hello. I’m fixing some credits for this group.
I’d appreciate your votes on this edit:


Editor is trying to remove feat. artist from a recording. Out of the 50 or so releases (official) only about 5-7 seems to have feat. artist listed (10%ish). Addition votes would be appreciated.


Would you please pay attention to
I cannot agree to using made-up information from Discogs as an argument.


I don’t know whether it should be removed or not, but the editor saying “I’ve seen it, but I won’t spend the time to search for it. Do as you please.” should provide proof for his statement since he was the one that brought up cover art. This is definitely a bad voting practice.


Exactly. Unless any proof is provided, I see no other option than to remove those “catalog numbers”. The problem is that there seem to be no agreement on what catalog numbers for Eilean Records are.


The option of contacting the label owners and asking them about any relevant numbers has been presented at the edit page.

There also, the creation of a thread on these forums, devoted to this specific issue, was suggested.


It is not about finding correct catalog numbers. It is about removing data that have no reliable source and presumably were made up.