Big clean up here, especially three tracks that had been entered as multiple parts and have to be merged:
https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release-group/319a8241-983e-4293-b9f3-749a4ae16fb9/open_edits
Activity looks unusual, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to verify - please check:
https://musicbrainz.org/user/buzzfled/edits/open
1 Like
Based on the user’s other edits, I suspect the removals are an error, but glad you caught them.
Could I get some votes to get https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73175438 passed? The previous attempt would have passed but failed because of the recording merges being applied too early I think.
1 Like
I need some eyes on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228809, and its companions https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228808 and https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228807. This is yet another example of a release added from FreeDB with 2 tracks in the wrong order. Without noticing this error, several people came along and added a Disc ID and AcoustidBrainz data to the release and recordings. I am afraid that by correcting the track order I may disrupt something.
EDIT: Apparently, as I thought, renaming the recordings will disrupt the AcousticBrainz data attached to the recordings. That leaves me with no choice but to temporarily remove the Disc ID so I can swap the recordings. Even though I’m an auto-editor, this edit still requires votes.
1 Like
The Discogs link is broken in https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73228809
But I see at https://www.discogs.com/Jeff-Lorber-Flipside/release/15328834 an edition with this track order on back cover.
So I’m not sure if we really should swap tracks.
And anyway it is not needed to remove Disc ID, as we can just swap track names in Tracklists tab and swap recordings in Recordings tab at the same time.
I think you can do it by enclosing the text with two ~ characters – two characters at the start and another two at the end. For example: “~~strikethrough text~~” will display as “strikethrough text”.
4 Likes
Wow, I didn’t know that!
I have always been using before (<del>before</del>) and after (<ins>after</ins>) HTML syntax. 
1 Like
And I didn’t know you could do that. Another alternative. Thanks.
I found the strikethrough tip (and a whole lot more) at:
3 Likes
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73236814 Kind of stupidly entered an incomplete tracklist before it was officially announced. It’s now releasing tomorrow (or already has been in some timezones) and it would be nice to have all the data ASAP
I want to get this bootleg’d Skrillex release cleaned up and would appreciate some votes/approvals to start fixing artist credits/merging recordings: https://musicbrainz.org/release/434423e9-0803-4af9-bc2c-1ed885b09d3e/open_edits
Thanks to @chaban for approving my edits! 
On a related note: Is there a tool that helps with mass merging recordings? @jesus2099’s mb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGS is advertised for merging within an RG, but I need to merge from “all over MB” as I’m working with a compilation.
On compilations where it is not trivial to know what version was selected for each song, it is better to think recording by recording, IMO.
On compilations of whole albums, like album A / B / C (anthologies), it’s more easy, you can use the script to show release A inside the anthology and check which recordings might be worth merging or not, same with B and C.
2 Likes
Thanks for your reply, but I realize that I’ve misstated my problem a little bit. “Mass merging” seems to imply something different to what I want to do.
Let’s say, I want to merge some recordings in a release with some other recordings somewhere on MB. I’d have to:
- Open release page
- Click on track to open corresponding recording page
- Hit “merge” on the recording
- Enter recording search query in search bar at the top of the page
- Load search result page
- Open recording page from search results
- Hit “merge” merge on the recording
- Select merge target and enter edit note
This process has to be repeated for ~50 recordings for the release I’m currently editing. Each iteration requires me to load at least 5 pages. This is pretty tedious when repeated 50 times so I’m wondering if there’s a tool to streamline this? I’m thinking somewhere along the line of how the recordings tab in the release editor works, where I have the list of all the recordings from a release and can lookup similar recordings in a dropdown and select a merge target. At the bottom of the page is a text field to a enter one edit note and a button with which I can submit all recording merges at once in bulk.
1 Like
Since very many of the tracks on that release share an artist, I would suggest initiating recording merges from that artist’s “recordings” tab as a starting point (you can filter the recording list by title), as this will give you a good overview of the possible merge candidates.
Once those are out of the way the amount of merge work remaining for this compilation will be much smaller.
If you have a source for ISRCs for that specific compilation (not always possible) this can also help as you can batch-add ISRCs and then quickly go from a recording page to all recordings that share its ISRC and initiate merges from there.
5 Likes
Not exactly what I had in mind, but that definitely helped. Thanks for the suggestion!
I’ve submitted all the merges now.
2 Likes
7 posts were split to a new topic: Should the primary type of a release group be chosen based on the concept or the size of the contained release(s)?
Please could I get some eyez on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73289659 and https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73289658 as they are close to expiry? The question is whether under some circumstances a medium title of “CD n” should be retained, overriding the guideline. Thanks.
2 Likes
Could I get a quick fix here, please: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73530185
Added based on the info I had, then I found more info.
1 Like
Could this get cleared so I can add Video attribute and live details? Thanks!
1 Like