Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f1c97766bb8> #<Tag:0x00007f1c97766a78> #<Tag:0x00007f1c97766988>

@chaban can you let me know the reply please? Or someone else who knows the guidelines about merging recordings.

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.

1 Like

Can go either way actually

I am looking for some guidance on the best way to resolve this issue.

Band-Maid is a J-rock group:

They have an “alter-ego” called Band-Maiko under which they have recorded a single and an EP, but have never played as live (both bands are the exact same 5 members). This has been created as an alias here:

However, it has also been created as a separate group here:

My thought was to simply merge these two under the Band-Maid name, but there has been some questioning about what the proper procedure should be. I am fine either way, but either the second group should be merged, or the alias should be removed. I don’t think both should be kept.

If anyone can shed some more light on the proper resolution of this, I would appreciate it. The pending edit I created and some discussion are here:

1 Like

This is a Recording of the Work in revised version (1954). For various reasons
its recordings currently point to works queued to become wrong, original version (1937). The Works’ having identical titles seems to prevent relationship editor, so change will have to wait for removal (another queue), an Autho-editor pointing
Track 1 →
Track 2 →
Track 3 →
or other advice.


Note that you can paste the url for the work you want to use into the field in the relationship editor.

I did. Editor then hangs chewing indefinitely, or, if hitting [Done] again, closes that box but afterwards having the previous MBID unchanged.

Could someone who has knowledge about Japanese labels please have a look at where someone tries to merge two imprints of the same company? I feel these should stay separate as they have different Discogs pages, but as I can’t read Katakana I’m not able to do much further investigation than I’ve already done :flushed:

Edit: The issue seems to be solved thanks to @HibiscusKazeneko


The consensus seems to be to keep the two separate, but I wonder if a “performs as” relationship between the two artist entries would be appropriate.

can we get some votes on this one i think the song name should be Shine, Jesus, Shine not Shine Jesus Shine

1 Like

I need some votes to push through some credit fixes, moving credits away from [unknown].

The two Bessie Browns are often confused for one another, I’ve entered some edits to disentangle them.

I entered the edits #65125294 and #65125307 when little info was available. Now that it is clear what Chagkachan is (see the booklet and dicussion), I am not sure how to credit the release – to Various Artists or to the ensemble. Most of the tracks are solo performances by the members of the ensemble and the latter is not credited anywhere (only mentioned in the booklet). Crediting to Chagkachan would be more descriptive, while Various Artists could be more correct technically (not sure though).

I still think the tracks themselves should be credited to the corresponding performers (except the tracks 9-11 where multiple instruments are playing and “pong lang ensemble” is present in the track titles – I need to improve my edit #65125307).

I tend to vote down edit #65292867.

I would like to have a few more opinions on two pairs of edits I entered. In these edits I want to replace two recording of relations, which are currently linked to both parts of a two-part work, by a single relation to the whole work:

edit #65234772 and edit #65234773 (main discussion)
edit #65234626 and edit #65234627

IMO this is more precise because the recording contains an additional solo that’s linking the two parts which were released as separate tracks first (without the solo).

Can someone please give me advice whether many relations to all parts or a single relation to the aggregate work are preferred (in general and in my case)?

I’d like some wider perspective on this edit. I’m trying to replace a joiner placeholder credit with an entry to a backing band.

A new release of “Selected Ambient Works, Volume II” has been added to the database, but a new release group has been created, and the medium type and Discogs link need to be fixed.

I’d like to ask for your help to have these corrected sooner.

I have submitted an edit to remove the barcode from this release. The discogs link does not list a barcode. The (barcode-less) release I have matches everything including the hub matrix info. I believe the barcode was mismatched as it was added after the release was entered. I could use a yea or nay so I can add more artwork.

1 Like

I’m trying to merger two release:

Unfortunately, the track listing for the second release did not include the video track even though it is mentioned in an annotation so I can’t proceed until the track listings match. I’ve entered Edit #65421063 to include that track, and it would help if I could get some votes on that.

As an aside, could someone clarify what happens with the release events when releases are merged? Do the events from the selected release only remain, or are the events from the release that is being merged get automatically added to the one that remains?

Does anyone on here read/write/speak Dutch? I need help with the notes on edit #65416651.

I’m no editor, but added a comment there. Hope it helps.

While my comment was factually correct I now think I missed the point.
I believe editor biocv has addressed it correctly now.

1 Like