Edit notes have been added.
I’d appreciate votes on these edits:
I’m in the middle of cleaning up a release that somehow got its track listing different from the Disc ID, even though you can’t move tracks when there’s a Disc ID present. Anyway, I fixed the medium here:
Note, I didn’t edit the recording names that were moved around. I left them as-is for now because I was trying to make sure the correct original recording was tied to the correct original track when I moved them around. I’ll go back and fix the remaining recording errors once this part has been approved.
I would like to request your vote on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/46579053
My understaning is that it does not matter if a track from release can be downloaded or not. It is still part of “Digital Media” release and should go there.
Could I get a vote for updating an album cover? It’s not the best, but it’s one of the better one’s I could find. I put it up for votes because it’s Elvis.
This doesn’t need voting so much as a set of eyeballs more experienced with French capitalization. Could somebody check these out for me, please?
Can anybody vote or, even better, apply these edits, please? Some user keeps voting them down without leaving any notes even though I provided tons of fonts to support them.
Usually you should not change artist credits globally without showing graphical evidence of all current releases being wrong.
This is why it is easier to do release per release.
New contributor here. Can someone vote on this edit, or let me know what to change? Shall I provide a source or is it enough? Thank you!
You should always provide evidence for your edit if you have it. Not just for the sake of voters now, but also for editors who may look at the edit history in the future.
I’d appreciate votes on these merges I’m trying to complete so that I can further clean up the releases:
Both of these are merging separate (disc #) releases into a combined release group.
Vote request for https://musicbrainz.org/edit/46793374. After this artist is corrected, there’s other cleaning up to do with the track. Thanks.
I have completed my first edits on MusicBrainz, on The Answer’s Raise a Little Hell. The bulk of the changes (relationships…) were auto-approved, but two set of changes need voting:
Adding cover art for my release:
Merging recordings that were quite obviously duplicates:
If you can also look at the relations I added for the various recordings in that release group (for example https://musicbrainz.org/release/c1c118d8-00e9-4051-bbcf-707eabe1645a), I’ll appreciate the feedback.
Great edits, very thorough!!
Just so you know, you don’t need votes for an edit to pass, although 3 yes votes will speed up the process.
If you also want to add a label I would make a new one, and disambiguate it as ‘bootleg/pirate releases’, and use that. Then the release looks complete to me
One more note, if in future you find yourself wanting to marge a lot of releases this tool is absolutely indispensable:
(the MASS MERGE RECORDINGS script)
Thanks for your review and comments. I know I don’t need the votes, it was more of a request for feedback on what I had done so far.
I thought about adding a label for that release, but I truly do not know who is doing the bootleg release. Presumably they target releases from many different labels, so without more information about them (Discogs does not have more info), I decided I would not just make up a name. Maybe I should use [no label]?
I’ve seen the konami-command scripts, but thought I would understand the process better by doing merges by hand before automating the task.
Again, thanks for the review.
Sorry, that was a bad assumption on my part!
[quote=“boa13, post:74, topic:21591”]
Maybe I should use [no label]?[/quote]
Although ‘Napalm Records’ is wrong, the reason I would add a new bootleg version of Napalm Records is because if you do [no label] someone will have the release in hand, see the ‘Napalm Records’ logo on there, and either add a new release or think our information is wrong.
If you put a new bootleg label people can have access to that information based on the release in hand.
Looks like the group that puts these out is pretty prevalent so it will be useful in future as well: https://www.discogs.com/label/645359-Napalm-Records-3
No problem, my original post emphasized reviewing the edits too much, it was not clear I was more interested in feedback.
I have added the bootleg Napalm Records. I wonder if I should also add a date? I bought the CD in 2016, so it is either 2015 or 2016… Should I leave such a core field blank, or put 2015, which is quite likely correct but without proof of that.
[quote=“boa13, post:76, topic:21591”]
quite likely correct but without proof of that
[/quote]I would leave stuff like that blank - bootlegs, by nature, often have empty fields that we have to learn to live with!
Could I please have votes on Edit #47074594 ? A track is missing, and that keeps me from adding a disc ID to rip the CD.
I have a bunch of merges open that would be great if they could get closed a couple days early. These two artists still need a lot more clean-up, but right now there’s just yellow/orange everywhere. Once this initial round of mergings are complete, it’ll be easier to see what’s missing. Also, both of the artists have pending artist merges which will bring more Recordings to their respective Recordings tabs for more potential merge targets/subjects, so I also don’t want to initiate a lot more merges until they’re more consolidated.