Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f2a05aa91b0> #<Tag:0x00007f2a05aa85f8> #<Tag:0x00007f2a05ab3d40> #<Tag:0x00007f2a05ab3840>


Could someone please check the link I added in this edit. I can’t access FB myself so I made this a votable edit, but with only 12 hours left so far I only got one reaction: A yes vote by a serial-voter who I’m sure didn’t check the link.



Would really appreciate some voting at For some reason, this has failed two times. I don’t see the conflict in the second try.


Would really appreciate some voting at , I have been working the John Hiatt work’s catalog and came across these two merged recordings that have different ISWC’s, the edit splits them. Once the edit passes I can create the correct works for them. I have been using the CISAC iwscnet at to create Hiatt works with ISWC’s attached. I also looked at the lyrics for both recordings and they share nothing.


So I added a single for an artist a while back and unknowingly reused a recording from one of her studio albums thinking the recording was reused on the single but it turns out this artist has 2 different songs/recordings by almost the exact same name (the capitalization is different; this is by a Japanese artist, so I followed the Japanese style guide). Normally in a situation like this I would leave the metadata as-is and make a new recording for the album, but there’s a wide (> 6 years) age gap between each release’s MBIDs so I decided to add a new recording to the single and migrate the data over to it, then clean up the metadata on the album recording.


Could I get some yesses for this edit: This is a vinyl release that someone didn’t bother to split into two mediums. It always bothers me that these release erroneously claim to have a lot more tracks when you enter the second medium.


I am merging 4 artists and I would like some review, to know if there are people against it.
Those artists only have two subscribers.

Please see as I prefer having more eyes on it before it just shyly applies.

I have this artist twice in my collection by two different variations of the name, currently distinct MB entities and thought it was a pity.


Please vote on this edit:

So I can then change another artist credit on that album. The correct Blueprint on this US hip hop compilation is for sure the US hip hop artist and not the Greek band.


This edit is about to expire in 5 hours, so some votes/input would be appreciated
Porque te vas by Jeanette
Edit #52993879

Original album + singles uses the spelling “Porque te vas” but the editor want to change it to the grammatically correct “¿Por qué te vas?”


Hi there,
I need some votes on my edit #53225607 for speed up correcting this release, where the track order for the first 3 tracks went wrong (in the track parsing editor or on submitting).

Thanks, ClæpsHydra


Could someone please check and vote on edits of this releases:


Merged some recordings of this release before I changed the release. Edits will fail dependency if recording merges gone throu.



I’d like some votes here.
I’m creating new recordings for instrumental versions and once the edit is accepted I’ll link more instrumental tracks from the same RG to those recordings.

Done, thanks! Follow up edit is queued. :slight_smile:

Oh and since I’m already here. I got 2 no-votes on this edit where I removed ETI from a recording title and moved it to the disambiguation. Most tracks don’t have the ETI in the title, so according to the guidelines it shouldn’t be there.


Would really appreciate some voting on these 2 edits. The wrong artists were linked to the recording. Fixed “Lawrence” with this first edit, the second set of edits will change the “Fleming” to “John ‘00’ Fleming”, I also created the correct “Dark on Fire” work to add once both edits go through.


I done goofed. I applied works to the wrong recording and need them removed:


I just found a typo I made a month ago.


there is a pending merge that will cause this edit
to fail if the merge goes through first.


There are no edit notes explaining or showing where those IPI come from.


I sometimes see editors add Japanese artists’ transliterated names in the disambiguation box, and when I see it I usually remove said “disambiguation” with a note explaining that it is redundant and therefore unnecessary. Normally this doesn’t cause any problems, but today I got hit with a No vote on such an edit.


Cleaning up the artist PriZm:


I’m doing a huge cleanup on 舞花 (J-POP), splitting out all the dōjin stuff that belongs to 舞花 (FELT).


The second disc of the Journey album Revelation consists of newly-recorded versions of the band’s classic songs featuring then-new vocalist Arnel Pineda (source). However, someone erroneously merged the recordings for two of the recordings on that disc with the original versions. I created two new recordings manually to separate them out, but somehow they got gobbled up during a release merge (even though I edited the mediums involved before I entered the merge in hopes this wouldn’t happen). So I had to enter edit #53668812 to create new recordings to replace the ones that got eaten. I need this edit to go through before I can submit fixes to the other releases in the release group.