I added a duplicate album,
What’s the correct way to remove?
You can merge them by clicking Merge in each sidebar.
3 Likes
Edit #103728102 - Merge labels is currently on track to fail. The failure of this edit would upend decades of MusicBrainz precedent regarding how to categorize Sony Music Entertainment Japan releases.
Can someone tell me if this edit of mine (editing medium format) is correct?
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/103902951
What I know for sure it’s not a MiniDisc, since according to Release / Format - MusicBrainz they were available only from 1991, and that single was released in 1988.
Thanks
2 Likes
Hi! I found a messed up merge: Edit #103636855 - MusicBrainz Basically, two similar recordings of the Mozart Requiem have been merged when they shouldn’t have been. They are two different completions of the requiem (Süßmayr and Beyer) and it should be easy to split the recording, as only one track has been merged (so we can look at each release and check which completion all the other tracks have). What’s the best way to resolve this? Should I create a new recording and put all the recordings of the Beyer in it and leave the Süßmayr in the other one?
I just entered edits to remove several Disc IDs from this release. The first 3, from several days ago, I’m pretty confident about, since their total times were 20+ seconds different. The other 7 are all pre-NGS additions, and they are all attached to several releases (more than 10, in most cases). But they are all within a second or two of the one I have confirmed by my in-hand release, so I’m not as confident in my edit. So I’m just asking for some eyes to make sure I haven’t gone overboard. I only hit the ones where I can see when they were added in Edit History.
3 Likes
Your documented version has only one discID. I don’t see a problem if you want to remove all the others. None of them are only attached to this release.
4 Likes
A few I would leave as they still seem to have the same TOC. Edit history shows only one other DiscID ever added to this release and that has a single track one second different to @Beckfield’s TOC. So I’d keep that one at least.
But as I replied in the edit notes - strongly believe napalm is often best used on a release with 17 discIDs… 
I think you meant “post-NGS,” and, yes, I didn’t delete that one. There are also a few that apparently weren’t directly added to this release – probably came from merges or something – which I chose to leave alone.
1 Like
Yes - post-NGS. Anything before then are easy to ignore as they can be anywhere in the world (and often include scrap data anyway as they didn’t seem to be as well checked back then)
Only post-NGS can you be sure it was attached to this actual edition.
2 Likes
But even just one sector difference indicates a different manufacturer… 
Trouble is some software that creates the DiscIDs runs different algorithms. It is rare, but I have seen some examples of two different discIDs on the same release.
I would love to say “rip em all out if it don’t match the ONE”… but sometimes it can’t be done (we are going OT for this thread and someone will get upset…)
1 Like
You once showed me such an example - it was a bootleg. But that’s really rare. And I don’t think that’s because of a different algorithm.
It will happen more often that editions from different manufacturers are indistinguishable by artwork, but a distinct matrix will always generate the same discID (and also descendants of different glass master versions of the same manufacturer …with exceptions)
But in doubt, I leave such discIDs, especially if they are not attached to another version.
2 Likes
Anyway, thanks for all the advice.
1 Like
Hey lovely people, I could use some more opinions and votes on what I feel might be a bit of a grey area around group names in artist aliases (e.g. “feat. <artist> of <artist group>”) where more than one member of a group is being referenced:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/103887520
I’m also having trouble finding the guideline I swear I read somewhere that states group names should be included in aliases instead of given their own artist entries (which I do think is sensible enough when only one member is involved), so if anyone could remind me where that is, that would also be much appreciated 
2 Likes
Is it possible to always make these kinds of edits auto-edits (only the first one is open, others are provided as example)? I’ve realized that A LOT of the releases I own require these kind of edit, people simple leave them that way.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/104042140
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/99022949
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96096438
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96096013
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96095718
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96092657
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96088987
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/96076641
i.e. updates to the tracklist when they are left as the default value.
Please add links to your references in your edit notes, when changing all track artists.
2 Likes
I don’t understand this edit: Edit #104017748 - MusicBrainz
It is replacing every instance of “Kylie” with “Kylie Minogue”. Ignoring what is written on the covers or track lists. It is a bulk removal of thousands of entries where just her first name is used. It is pretty common for her to just get credited with the first name.
3 Likes