So the mistake was the editor putting CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4 all up as a single release when they should have been ten separate releases. That makes sense.
What I don’t understand is why they are having their work deleted instead of split into ten separate releases like would happen with a US store. I understand if this was blatant pirate downloads from the Pirate Bay, but this is a ten year old Russian store.
There’s no real way to split a release into separate releases aside from re-adding the content elsewhere and removing the original.
It is easy to do. Just “Move medium” on the CDs to attach them to newly made releases. I’ve done it before repairing a noobie’s mistake. It is the best way to show them their error by making a good example from their work.
Don’t even need to go into the full Release, just grab the links from the edits.
Destruction of all his work seems overkill for the error they made. A pirate whacking pirate releases up here I’d understand the deleting, but this guy added it from a legitimate online store. So what if that store is not following Western laws.
Alternatively, one can use the “existing medium” tab in the Add Medium pop-up window to copy the medium to a new release. I did this to add each of the releases individually.
Normally I wouldn’t even add these at all, but we had a similar discussion about bootleg digital releases a while back and I don’t want to look like a hypocrite.
Thank you for not destroying his work. A noobie has to learn by being shown what they are doing wrong. Just deleting it without even posting a note would have been extreme when no rule was broken. I’ve left him a note pointing back to the series you created from his Release. That should help him understand his mistake better.
I stumbled on what I assume is the result of reusing a previous medium without catching the track differences. Four out of five releases in this release group had the wrong track order when compared to discogs and/or amazon. I think I’ve fixed it all up, and merged all the recordings that had the wrong length, too. But wouldn’t hurt for somebody to check my work. The only tracks that should actually have different recordings are “Bomb” and the untitled track at the end:
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release-group/f1ac766f-71fc-33eb-8894-99559affdc3b/open_edits
Merge of label. This is my first label merge which will affect a lot of releases. I’d appreciate if some people would check everything is OK.
In this topic, you are supposed to explain why you want us clicking your link.
Otherwise, we can just go check our usual voting queue.
You can, but you didn’t. I am happy with the current results from this thread.
I’ve been down a rabbit hole of Nirvana bootlegs. I did my best to review links and edit histories, but there’s a lot going on and I was juggling tabs like a madman, so I want to see how the edits I’ve entered so far go before I try to do more. The most notable are these:
Merging release groups:
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/64978222
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/64978176
Merging recordings (this is A->B, C->B, D->B so that none of them fail - will do more cleanup after merge):
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/64977703
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/64977757
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/64977765
Why not just do all of them in a single merge edit if you already have them lined up?
Because I found one… And then another… And then another. And particularly in this case, some of them needed more explanation specific to that particular merge, so I didn’t want to backtrack and do a many-to-one that would lose the specifics.
This is a common scenario, especially if you’re using scripts to aid you in finding entities to merge.
There are times that I’ve gone in specifically looking for what could be merged (most of the industrial stuff I’ve been messing with recently falls into that category, because I have several of the compilations and can compare tracks), but this wasn’t that situation. I was investigating a specific track for which I had an acoustid and a wrong name, and the more I dug the more I found. And I’ve got the right name now!
A post was split to a new topic: Do auto-generated (“Topic”) YouTube channels qualify for the Artist-URL / Youtube relationship?
So as many of you may or may not know, the theatre soundtrack style guide has a seemingly contradictory set of instructions with regard to artist credits: credit the composer on the release and tracks, but credit the performers on the recordings. Many editors aren’t aware of this, and as a result there are a plethora of soundtrack albums in the database whose recordings are credited to the release’s composer. It’s a tedious and easy-to-mess-up task to edit each and every recording to credit the performers, so in the case of one release I did something I normally wouldn’t do: create a duplicate release with the tracks credited to the performers, for the purpose of utilizing the “update recording artist credit” function to fix the recordings. Now I’ve entered an edit to merge away said duplicate release; I came here to ask for some votes to help it pass faster so no one mistakenly tags their files with that release.
@chaban can you let me know the reply please? Or someone else who knows the guidelines about merging recordings.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/65013695
As noted in that edit: the musical part of the live recordings are identical.
At the end of the target is a 19 second spoken introduction to the next track. This is making it a few seconds longer.
That intro is not included on the end of the track being merged.
Are these recordings that can be merged? Or do I just do a “included in” relationship instead?
As noted in that edit, there are seven tracks on a live album being merged into the same recordings of the same gig on a different live album. The target is the complete gig which explains that intro.