Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fcb51a51378> #<Tag:0x00007fcb51a51170> #<Tag:0x00007fcb51a50e78> #<Tag:0x00007fcb51a509a0>


It is fairly self explanatory in the edit summary.
undid my own recent edits.
pictures of John Sherrill look like two different people. and at least one of them is now in South Carolina.
But they both started in Texas, are in the same genre, play the same instruments, and numerous sites have their discographies combined.
If they end up being the same person, i will redo the edits. But for right now, it is better to not include the questionable information.

I’d just like the edits cleared out so that I can start fresh.


I need some help with

My annotations on this release explain the problem and I don’t have the skills to fix it. If someone can fix it most of my annotations become redundant. Just leave the bit that starts ‘Packaging is…’.

Thanks in anticipation.


I’m changing the band’s sort name from ‘La Luz’ to ‘Luz, La’. Seems pretty obvious, but maybe I didn’t notice something. Anyone opposed?


I would like to remove these two artists from the band so that I can split the band into separate artists


Maybe I am missing something, but it seems this edit is one of several changing CSG correct Recording Artist Credit (performer) to incorrect (composer). Editor has neither cancelled edits nor answered my last note, with 2 days left pending.


Could I get some votes on this edit
I added a release with tracks 6&7 reversed then added the discid. When I found my mistake I have to remove discid before I can reorder the 2 tracks.


Wouldn’t it be easier to just swap the names and recordings?


Do you mean rename track6 to track7 and 7 to 6 (and recordings )? That could be easier and take less time. My only thought is that there are 2 sets of MBID’s that are going to swap there names with each other, is that the correct way to do it?


I mean rename the tracks and switch the connections to the recordings. That way the names and the MBIDs of the recordings remain the same.


All done - post can be ignored now. Thanks voters

Okay. This is daft. When tagging and updating my own copy of Moby’s Play I found a few Vinyl double albums stored as a single disk with tracks numbered 1 to 18. My attempt to split these up properly have led to rather daft 6 day wait on some of them… which means for the next week these albums are a confused mess.

Please vote to kick these through. Check artwork and/or discogs link and you’ll see this is a legit split. (conversation on here about my changes)

Update 1
I tweaked a couple of other Vinyl copies of Moby’s Play so now there is a rather weird look to the list. Some went through immediately, others have tripped up due to me doing edits in the wrong order.

There are FOUR double Vinyl 12" versions listed. And they are now all in different states of flux while these corrections go through.

The frustrating side effect of this is that for the next week it means no one will be able to find their “correct” vinyl copy and none of the track lists match for vinyl until the edits kick in.

As I started this chaos, I’ll follow it through to the end and make sure it is all behaving correctly. So there will be a clean up by me at the end. (Including merging that clear duplicate) I’m just tripped up at the moment by the out-of-sync edits.

My last open edits for Play at this moment (ignoring the art):

Any votes to kick that stuff through would be handy… The aim being to put the 18-track single sided vinyl into their correct 2 x 12" Vinyl with correct track split and track naming

Thanks :slight_smile:

Update 2: Thanks for the voters who kicked the main edits through. One album left and it will be sane again.

Just hope no one was trying to organise their Moby disks this weekend…

Update 3: All done now. thanks. :slight_smile: And comically the next step is to merge the two identical US releases which means all that faffing around with disks will disappear anyway. The duplicate couldn’t be seen when it was just that single 18 track vinyl.


This is standard when you have to do a big fix with something!
I usually have a few ‘_check after merge’/’_merge after edits pass’ tags going…
I haven’t found a need to worry about it. You could always add the ‘correct’ release and then merge the others in if you need the data asap


Yeah - I can see this is fairly standard. Just need to learn the subtleties as some of the changes flew through without check or delay.

The confusing stage is like this one where it is half and half. For a while there were a number of the vinyl releases there with a HUGE disk one with every track still on it and a new disk two duplicating half of those tracks. Which lead to the weirdest of the madness.


I honestly still find it confusing, which is why I just check back every week after everything has gone through, instead of trying to figure out what to wait for and what to keep doing right now. Not great for my OCD but now I’m used to it :expressionless:

Edit: this thread is a go to when I can’t handle the wait though, so obviously I still have to work on it!


That funny step that means to make it right we have to make it much more wrong for a few days…


A post was split to a new topic: Help with cleaning up probably slobby merges


Please have a look at the discussion here # Edit #57577921
Votes and comments welcome


There is this Edit #57655838 - Edit recording.
It’s a real improvement of the tracklist.
It needs to pass before one of my merges apply.

If my merge applies first, this complex edit will fail and will be tedious to redo alike.
If my merge fails, I’ll be notified and it’s very easy to redo.

Please, if you could help me. :slight_smile:


Please have a look at

It’s important that this edit gets applied before to preserve existing recordings.



This duplicate relationship is locking up the UI editor on it’s owner.


Can I get some votes to kick these corrections through.

This guy is editing his own entries. DJ Matt Black is doing the promotion game. Trouble is he doesn’t know how MB works. He also doesn’t seem to want to talk or acknowledge the errors.

The open edits listed are my corrections to his errors. This guy remixes music and then uploads a YouTube video of that. Problem is in MB he was then adding these “releases” to the original artist instead of the remixer (himself).

The open edits listed are moving his release into a release group under his own name.

The reason I ask for assistance is to speed this up so he gets a better picture of what he should be doing.

Edit: The nice thing about messes like this is it is a good place for training and learning how the system works. Once these releases are moved into the correct release group I’ll swap the status from “bootleg” to “official”. While they are still under the wrong artist I don’t want to correct that bit yet and confuse fans of the original artist. Of course, those changes will take another seven days to get into place. Which is why your votes help otherwise I’ll still be correcting this in 2019. Thanks.

Edit 2: Thanks for those votes. The releases are now all in the correct place under the remixer. A comedy effect has now kicked in due to the original entries having been marked as “Armenian Bootleg”. They are under the correct artist now, but hidden. Comically. So the last few edits are now in place to flip them to “Official”. It would be good to get a final few votes to clear this chaos up completely_