Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe314eff318> #<Tag:0x00007fe314eff098> #<Tag:0x00007fe314efeda0>

To me compilation means “album/ep that is a compilation of singles/eps/whatever (actual type doesnt really matter)” rather than “compilation of albums or eps”, so in most cases i think the size would be the most important

The thing about “compilation” is it is expressly defined as a collection, i.e. multiple, and specifically a collection of previously released material. Which by and large is the opposite of a single, which is focused on one or a few tracks that are typically new (with all the messy exceptions to that, sure). So you wouldn’t really expect Single and Compilation to appear together.

But the definition on that page only covers collections of recordings, and there is precedent for compilation including collections of release[ group]s (box sets, combo re-releases, etc). Yes, technically you can say that the recordings on those releases are the collection, but the way they’re packaged and marketed focuses on the releases. (Thus the “included in” relationship, right?) So in a case like this it’s almost like single is the subtype of compilation, but we don’t have that relationship. Single + Compilation would be the closest thing.

1 Like

Subtype maybe, but not primary type. I don’t see anything wrong with combining multiple singles into an EP or multiple EPs into an album, and it resulting into a compilation doesnt/shouldnt have much weight

And I do think that a single compilation can exist, but I can only think of 1 example https://store.visionrecordings.nl/product/vsntommy-vinyl/. This is a vinyl of 2 singles (2 seperate digital releases that were both 1 track) that were released ~7 years earlier.

1 Like

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!

https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/73564716

1 Like

Can someone give this Series a kick please? I am trying to make the order stick.

https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73775222

There seems to be a bug. When I set this to “Manual” it goes in date order and won’t let me change the order. If I set it to “Auto” it uses the number order being manually set. :crazy_face: :exploding_head:

These were recorded out of order, so a manual numbering is required but I think I am tripping over a bug or just missing something obvious. (I’ve been spending a few hours on these so I may have missed something obvious)

1 Like

Personally, I have had awful experiences trying to use any of the ordering features in MusicBrainz. A quick search in the issue tracker returns MBS-10028 and MBS-9156 for unresolved manual ordering tickets.

1 Like

IMO there is no good value to try to order them. Just put automatic and let it display in any way it likes (dates).

I think we should completely drop manual ordering.
I have seen people duplicating the catalogue number or the volume number in the relationship order field.

This is an exact example of a time when an order is required. The books were written in a specific order and need to be read in that order as they cover Spike’s life during the war. For some reason he recorded the audiobooks in a different order. Date order does not work. The whole point of this series is to set the order to listen to the audiobooks without having to look at the covers first.

It is also very common for MB to have Releases Groups that should be in an order, but due to the nature of reissues it is very common to not have all Releases in place. Setting an order with a Series is very useful to overcome this.

Maybe for your book example, I don’t know, but not this example.
The way to order release groups is always to add original releases.
Ordering differently is redundant and this bogus data, noise. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

I maybe didn’t explain this well. These audiobooks were recorded out of order. It is impossible to set the order just by dates. Even if I could find the release dates of all the original 1980s LPs and Cassettes (information long lost)

I have previously worked on Release Group Series that include multiple year’s of releases. Releases that also include reissues. It would take too long in those examples to have traced down the information for all the missing Releases and add them. By being able to bring them together with a number list in order in a Series brought sensible order to the confusions that was in place.

I do not understand your dislike of being able to set an order to a Series. It is very useful in many examples. This is nothing to do with being lazy and not adding original releases. Sometimes it is just impossible to know when those Original Releases should be dated and guessed data is not allowed. A Series gets around that issue.

Also consider a Series that is released all in a single year. Setting the order in a Series is important data and in no way “bogus noise”. ( https://musicbrainz.org/series/28eb3de0-b67f-4864-be65-b98c0f0c2718 )

4 Likes

I didn’t reply to your audiobook example but to your general next example about release groups being out of order when missing the original release.

@jesus2099 You are having a different conversation to me then. :slight_smile: I was only talking about Release Group Series and how it is necessary to set an order. See my above example of Release Groups all appearing in the same year. This is not about being too lazy to add missing Releases to get an Original Release Date - that is a very different topic.

Please vote for a mini-consensus: Should multi-channel description like “(5.1 mix)” be included in track info?
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73703622

1 Like

This artist was entered twice with fairly thorough release histories, one from bandcamp and one from discogs, apparently about the same time. I have merged artists, rgs, releases, and recordings (targeting the artist name as shown on bandcamp, which also has a few more releases attached):

https://beta.musicbrainz.org/artist/7a001c73-9b38-413b-947d-13fd25b2461a/open_edits

1 Like

Could I get some votes to approve https://musicbrainz.org/edit/74063176
The original download had chapter 14 missing.
The author has provided a new zip file containing this chapter.

Let’s disentangle some artists! Versatile Four gets mixed up quite a bit with The Versatile Four.


2 Likes

The releases in these two groups should be merged together. They’re from Blu-ray releases and one group has an extra track for the credits chapter of the video but one does not. The extra track should be added to the one without the credits chapter and then they should be merged.

“Linked Horizon” should be kept as the artist instead of “Revo”. It looks like one was a direct import from VGMdb where performing artists are put in album titles instead of separately.

Hi @Toad_King,
This is a review topic, not a call for edits.
If you have an edit pending that, until it applies, is blocking further edits, you can come here to request for votes and reviews. :wink: