Please explain what makes you trust that Discogs listing (without scans) more than the original edit. 
2 Likes
Look under “3 May, 1986: Cal Expo Amphitheater, Sacramento, CA” which also backs it up.
http://deaddisc.com/disc/30_Trips.htm
This also backs up the track…
2 Likes
Can I please ask for votes on this edit: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82281536
I attached a DiscID on a wrong disc (out of 14), and I’m not sure what problems could occurs if the same ID is used for different discs (of the same release) when ripping or tagging.
I need some eyes on this edit.
TL;DR a major publisher changed its name and some other info, and this editor is trying to hijack an old iteration by a similar name for it. This goes against years of precedent.
I need this edit quickly approved so a track doesn’t get messed up by an album merge.
2 Likes
Please discuss in below thread (not here) and conclude in the edit notes:
I would like to notify editors from the edit history, by order of appearance:
- @DigitalLove
- @chiark
- @jswagner
- @sbontrager
- @Kid_Devine
- @accridEYE
- @ibitsu
- @Cryoclaste
- @chaban
- @finalsummer
I’d like some input in this merge
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82413619
As provided in the edit note, they share identical wikidata item, and after a quick google search the apparent misspelling is from a TBS producer rather than the composer linked.
1 Like
In this release/release group
the artist information is wrong and the correct one is the following
as per publisher catalog
How to proceed: changing artist and merging or deleting?
1 Like
In almost all cases you should merge rather than delete.
Arguably this could be credited to Batagraf/Jon Balke; both names appear on the front cover and in the ECM listing. However, the discogs listing has full cover art which shows that the back cover, spine, and the disc itself only credit Batagraf , so personally I would leave it at that.
2 Likes
I’d like some opinions on this.
For those out of the loop, I made the ticket for the “artistic director” relationship 3 years ago, not realizing that the same relationship could be applied to individual artists as well. Something inside me says this is inappropriate, but my knowledge is limited.
and now, unfortunately, the retaliatory edits/votes happen.
Retaliate is a strong word, maybe “sour grape edits” is a better word to use. Maybe “use A to justify B” edits.
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82943133
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82943102
background: the original edit is a simple removal of disambiguation. No biggie. No real right or wrong answer with that. Except, in the meantime, someone (me) added 2 artists of the same name. Both are songwriters with works listed at BMI, not random YouTube artists.
So, the editor decided with the two new edits:
- merge a possible match even though no one has been able to confirm they are the same. Even I suspect they are the same but am unable to confirm. Anecdotal is all I find. Nothing that says, absolutely, yes, merge. (which is why I created the artist instead of adding it to the original)
- Rename the other artist so that the original artist is again the only remaining artist of that exact name, which would justify the original edit (removal of disambiguation). This would also make the newly named artist a one-of-a-kind named artist, which would not require disambiguation.
So, we start with 3 same-named artists with 3 disambiguation. The end result, if the edits go through, would be 2 different named artists with 0 disambiguation.
Take a look. Read the history. Voice opinions. Vote.
Can somebody please approve https://musicbrainz.org/edit/82981558 so the medium of this rather poor release I’m trying to improve could be changed to a CD.
To do: fix the tracklist and re-create the incorrectly merged recording for track 9.
1 Like