Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fa5ca42af00> #<Tag:0x00007fa5ca42ade8> #<Tag:0x00007fa5ca42acd0>

These two NO votes to relationships I have linked have puzzled me. They seem to be against the principle of linking related data in a database because a human can already read something on a page.

My question here:

Edits here:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/67153245
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/67158069

Obviously, give me a sensible reply and I’ll go and remove my No votes. :slight_smile: Currently my believe is these edits both remove relevant relationships.

1 Like

for me Karlsruhe is just wrong. If a concert would take place at Munich Airport, Munich also would be the wrong place. Because the airport is located in the area of Freising. While I get your point, Karlsruhe is still in the release group and release, so it’s easy to find. From a geographer’s standpoint getting the link to the right area is an important thing :wink:

1 Like

I am sorry I picked the wrong example due to my lack of knowledge of Germany geography.

I have now totally stepped away from all of the Gabriel and recording locations it as it has been made clear to me that I know nothing about databases.

I’ve cleaned up a few of the N/A artists’ credits.

A bunch of DJ-mix RGs will have the compilation type removed. To my interpretation of the style guide and at least one other editor I can’t see why that should be done.

1 Like

Just a note to mention that a discussion on Chopin’s name in MB has broadened, as it seemed useful to clarify the guidelines to name composers in MB. It’s posted in the Classical section, as we have many issues naming classical composers (Chopin, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, …). It may also be of interest for other composers.

There is a vote opened to clarify guideline on composer naming. I thought that a note here would help to ensure that all concerned could vote or provide comments.

1 Like

All the credits were entered as aliases of [unknown]. I’ve fixed that.

Update: More edits have been added. :hot_face:

2 Likes

Can someone take a look at the edits on this release and make sure everything was done right / in a logical order? A space was missing in the release title, some artist credits were misspelled or in track titles instead of artist credits, and it looks like when it was first entered they had an auto-translator on, which was fixed in the tracklist but not in the individual release titles. https://musicbrainz.org/release/40c860d4-8fb4-431c-a87c-3cd1f75b5d1e/edits

If there is a bored Auto-Editor around with a mass voting script it would be helpful to bulk approve these.

( Works written by Ozric Tentacles )
( Works written by Ed Wynne for the Ozrics )

I have cleaned up a mistake made on all the Ozric Tentacles Works. All but one of their tracks is just music without words. So they are all Work Type [blank] and Lyrics [No Lyrics].

Once these are all kicked through I can check for any that got missed.

Thanks :+1:

Korean singles marketed as OST. What should their primary type be: single, other or maybe something entirely new?

1 Like

https://musicbrainz.org/user/susanst

A user has taken the “sour grapes” approach to voting.
For the most part, they are voting ‘no’ on my edits (out of spite for my no votes on theirs). If it was just that, I would point you to my open edit page. But they have also taken to voting the opposite as I have voted on a few edits.

Regardless of which, some of the edits are going to close in the next few hours, so I was hoping that anyone that looks at the vote history will start with those first, as they are the priority.

I assume you have hit the “Report this user for bad behaviour” link in that profile.

1 Like

Yes, I did. But at the time, there was 4 hours remaining on some of those edits.
I thought it might be more expedient to round up some votes.

2 Likes

Could I get some votes on this please?
[has been approved ]
Keen to correctly tag some files, thank you!!

edit: SO speedy, thank you @chaban!

8 posts were split to a new topic: Discussion about keeping play titles in Recording names

Hello any bored Editors.

Whoops - wrong person

I have been editing a heap of Jethro Tull today, and before the coffee kicked in this morning I made a couple of errors. Can you help me clear these away by voting on the above list?

Two mistakes being cleared here. First I selected the Wrong Ian Anderson, and then I accidentally hit a Save button too early leaving the (real) Ian credited with wrong instrument on a number of tracks.

All this has been corrected with new edits, and the scanned booklet on the release confirms my working, but it would be nice to see those errors voted away as early as. (I will return to these edits next week to make sure it is all settled correct)

Thanks :slight_smile:

-=-=-
Thank You - five votes should get this through quicker now. :+1:

Haha, or maybe not. Now at Six unanimous votes and still there. I guess that means a “Remove Relationship” edit can’t be sped up. (Even when removing an edit that was only a few minutes old). I’ll just come back next week and finish that clean up.

1 Like

Hi all,

Bumping this thread with a DiscId swapping request.
Two So Frenchy So Chic! releases are almost correct, except that the 19-track release: So Frenchy So Chic!, is actually 20-track long (see https://www.discogs.com/release/3135557 and the back covers), and the other way for this release: So Frenchy So Chic!
I can’t move a DiscId to the corresponding release since they’re of an incorrect track number, so I’m removing them to add them back in. Here are the corresponding edits, could you please help me to fix this? https://musicbrainz.org/edit/69280613 & https://musicbrainz.org/edit/69280614

Hello Cryoclaste,
Those two releases were added from Disc ID, which is for me the highest quality, best identifying detail of these releases.

The discogs link that shows swapping editions and all the details other than the Disc ID (swapped catalogue, barcode, etc.) that are then attached to them, I would swap those instead of swapping Disc IDs, that are really the genuine identity of these release MBID.

Currently ,the 20 track tracklist is linked to 20 track Disc ID and the 19 track tracklist is correctly linked to the &9 track Disc ID.
For me it’s the most important and removing Disc ID, changing both tracklists then reattach Disc ID, sounds more artificial than fixing metadata to comply with physical mediums, as they were submitted through hardware (actual CD).

3 Likes

Hi,

Your point of view is valid, I’ve made all these changes here: https://musicbrainz.org/release/957377d1-26cd-45b0-a75e-4a1d62392ac1/open_edits and https://musicbrainz.org/release/e6b50c8c-1781-4075-a0c9-f392bce603a5/open_edits

Thank you for your adivce.

2 Likes

Should we store channel information as part of the recording title or as disambiguation?

This question has already been discussed in a different topic and I stated my opinion there:

It seems like some people have read/liked my posts there, but (almost) nobody has voted on the edits in question, so this is my final request for votes before they are going to fail without any satisfactory reason: Medium edit and associated recording edits