Requests for Votes Thread

MusicBrainz
, , ,
504

Community opinions are welcome:

1 Like
505

Requesting votes on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66163132
As the edit notes indicate, the added tracks here are not listed on the BC page, but are included in the download as well as on the back cover art.

Editing the medium seemed appropriate here since there’s no loss of information, and I’m not aware of any free-download version that would not include the bonus tracks, as was the case with this album, so creating a separate release didn’t make much sense.

From what I understand, receiving 3(?) Yes votes will cause the edit to be applied immediately in this particular case. Forgive my impatience, but it’d be lovely if I could avoid waiting for a solid week to get the tracks tagged with Picard.

2 Likes
506

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66278863
This is yet another case of a box set being scattered as individual releases across multiple release groups, with the earliest edits dating to the pre-NGS era. I wouldn’t normally ask for votes for something like this, but I want to make sure enough eyes see it before anyone impulsively votes No or tries to change anything.

507

The Steve Miller Band: Greatest Hits 1974-78 quandary. I have added cover art https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66314675 in the form of medium & hub to an existing release that matches my TOC, cat# & bc. I did this after finding a discrepancy in the medium art at 3 o’clock. The spacing is different between the existing CDP and DIDY numbers. Aside from the hub info, EVERYTHING ELSE including ALL artwork, appears to be identical. Diligent web searching of this release has been of no help with trying to find the rabbit in this hole.

Does this qualify as a new release even if I can’t really substantiate it as being that different? I’m well aware of @Freso’s past comments and those of my peers concerning somewhat similar issues but it doesn’t seem to fit this seemingly insignificant difference. Yes, my hub info does appear to indicate mine is an early1990 release while the initial art is probably mid 80’s. My OCD would not let me overlook this triviality but what is left of my common sense says to let it be. I will be grateful for any comments and willing to cancel my edit if found to be erroneous. This seems to be a variant more so than a completely new release.

2 Likes
508

Hi @Griomo, I’ve replaced those recordings with the ones by Promenade Orchestra / Nigel Simpson.

I’m not sure that Scholz is not involved here - presumably the OE credited the recordings to the Slovak Phil for a reason, and probably found the recordings they reused by their acoustids. But since they didn’t add any evidence, we’ll go with yours. It may turn out in the future that they are the same.

509

Hello, there is a years bug on duplicate AC that makes some artist pages and release pages look weird.
Please make this pending edit, step 1 of 2, fix on DEEP PURPLE, and is successor passas quick as possible (because the artist will look even weirder between steps 1 and 2). :grin:

In short, in Aliases Deep Purple - Aliases - MusicBrainz we have two Deep Purple artist credits (AC), same as artist name.

Thus the artist page and many release pages inappropriately show track AC column even if they all look like the artist name and there should be no AC column in this case.

I have waited more than years for bug fix or a batch that would remove those bogus AC (not only on Deep Purple).
I still wait for it but for Deep Purple at least, I want things sorted now.

  1. Rename the bogus AC to bogus name: Edit #66389892 - MusicBrainz
  2. Rename it back to Deep Purple, which should trigger the new AC merge system
2 Likes
510

Thanks. And you are right, Scholz may still pop up in the future. (no Scholz *noted.)

511

Happy new year everyone! Could I please get a few early votes on this edit (missing track), so I can go ahead and add the Disc ID?

Thanks!

2 Likes
512

Here’s another rehash of the old “age of the MBID” debate:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66412599
It should be fairly simple to change the last name on the target after the merge goes through, but some people might disagree about the methodology I used (prioritizing the age of the MBID over the accuracy/timeliness of the data).

2 Likes
513

5 posts were split to a new topic: Merge to oldest entity or no

518

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66356103

This involves a young editor who has repeatedly added fictional releases in the past. She claims she’ll provide a source, but never does, because she can’t. I’m cleaning it up, but need votes to override her “No” on the removal.

4 Likes
519

You should be sure to report her for bad behavior.

1 Like
520

4 posts were split to a new topic: Fictional release in MusicBrainz

524

Can we get some opinions on this. I maintain that since there is no clear cut guidelines on this that they should remain separate RGs as they have been treated that way. If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly proceed in the future, but I’m basing this off guidelines that state to keep separate when there is controversy. I don’t think a live single or a remix single is the same as the original single. @chiark disagree and just changed this without a vote by going around the voting process, which I think was wrong.

1 Like
525

@tigerman325 did you mean to include a link?

526

Thought I added the links. Here they are:

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66277456
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66277441
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66277466
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/66277470

1 Like
527

I’ve cleaned up the mis-identified Charades, now I just need votes on the edits.

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/1f951a62-ba94-4352-8351-4bbe4bbcf198/open_edits

There are a lot of 1960s groups calling themselves “The Charades”. A lot.

2 Likes
528

I wanted to get some eyes on this just in case someone feels strongly about it: https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/66663399

I found it odd that the release didn’t already reflect the cover text, but there was nothing about it in the edit history.

One could also make a case for changing the artist credit to P. Funk, but that seems less clear to me. It does also say “Parliament” (and the spine and disc only have “Parliament’s Greatest Hits”).

1 Like
529

Why not change to the title on Discogs?

Parliament’s Greatest Hits (P. Funk; Uncut Funk… The Bomb)

I would say that “Parliament’s Greatest Hits” is the main title, as it is displayed on the side.
Discogs actually list all secondary text, which you haven’t in your edit

1 Like
530

I addressed that in my edit note. P. Funk strikes me as an artist credit rather than part of the title. But this cover is very open to interpretation

1 Like