Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fa5cb4166a8> #<Tag:0x00007fa5cb4164f0> #<Tag:0x00007fa5cb416360>

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

I usually only do so if the release does so as well, or if there are recordings on the same release with different numbers of audio channels. I’ve been editing a lot of old vinyl lately, so occasionally a quadraphonic release pops up. I don’t add “4.0 mix” to each of the tracks for those, since they all have the same number of audio channels; I just add a disambiguation “quadraphonic mix” to the recordings and something similar for the release.

5 Likes

Any advice or suggestions on how to merge this efficiently?


A noob has added a single bluray from a big boxset. See edit notes. It should not be added as a separate Release.

This needs to be removed. As we have “Merge, don’t Delete” it is going to take a big effort to fix. That single BluRay needs to be merged into this boxset:

Trouble is, to convert all those audio tracks to video tracks, wait a week, and then add all the other 16 mediums of the boxset to this Release, wait another week… etc etc. A HUGE heap of work to correct this mistake.

Any thoughts?

This would take a few weeks of edits for someone like me. Anyone with AE skills and some magic scripts that could speed up the merge to remove the bogus release?

You’re overthinking/overcomplicating this. As long as the target recordings of a merge is set to Video, the source of the merge doesn’t have to be, so no need to fix all the duplicated recordings. Additionally, you don’t need to add all other media of a multi-medium release to merge it, just make sure the medium has the correct position (edit #69558714).

Merge happening in https://musicbrainz.org/edit/69558757

4 Likes

I did try a merge, but was rejected as not having matching medium.

Thank you, I now understand it is the “Medium 7” trick that is the magic I needed. :+1:

I’m splitting the Dallas Frasca page into a page for the band and another for the eponymous frontwoman. As the page was originally created for band recordings, I have changed the type from person to band, and need the edits to go through before adding pages for the band members and linking them to the band page.

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/70009124
https://musicbrainz.org/artist/11a06235-16b0-4200-8756-11833edefa38/edits

1 Like

I can’t vote atm, I’m getting some kind of error… I think I’ll forget it otherwise…
please vote No at

https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/70338274

these are two different recordings.

remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q0GXuV4RaQ
original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY4phCkKjSY

Voting seems impossible due to SQL timeouts right now, I dropped a link to your post as an edit note instead…

2 Likes

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/70333788 and https://musicbrainz.org/edit/70333787, hinge on the question of what should be considered a remix/ETI.

Requesting votes to speed https://musicbrainz.org/edit/70794012 . There are several other releases that should be linked to the “long version” created by this edit.

Could I get some votes on this edit:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/70837278

I edited this tracklist in chunks because I was editing the recordings at the same time. Half of my edits succeeded and half failed because of dependency. This is the re-edit of the failed chunks.

1 Like