Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe3d0c73560> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d0c733a8> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d0c73088> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d0c72c78>


I’m requesting votes for the following edits:

These are all edits that failed dependency due to other edits I made that conflicted. With 1210 tracks (soon to be 1209), it’s hard to keep track of what edits I made and what I’m still waiting on. Now that I’m down to about 30 open edits, I’m going to try to refrain from making any more changes until these are successful.



Needing approval or votes for this edit. Her album leaked about two weeks ago and it was said that it was discarded and she’d start from scratch, so I added as a bootleg release, but now she’s releasing it officially, the tracks all the same, but the order changed as well as some extra information as seen on her Instagram Stories.

If you can also do the same for the recordings and the release edit, I’ll be very grateful. :slight_smile:


When you say “leaked”, do you mean the tracklist and art, or the recordings themselves? If the second, then the proper way to handle it would be to create a new release in the group reflecting the official album and leaving the existing entity because it’s a perfectly viable bootleg/demo release. Even if it’s the first, there still might be an argument to be made for leaving this one, I’m not entirely sure. I’m not voting “no” quite yet just in case it is the first and the others here don’t think it’s necessary to keep, but I’m definitely leaning that way.

Also, did you mean to create a new recording for L.A.LOVE? If not and this edit goes through, we’re probably going to want to merge the two afterward.


No, the actual album leaked, the tracklist was put up differently because nobody knew what the correct order was but now it’s been revealed, the album will be available for pre-order on August 25th. As for L.A.LOVE, I created a new recording because the version of the album features rapper YG and I couldn’t find an already existing recording of that version.


Hi, I need some votes on this edit:

Until this is done, I can’t attach DiscID’s and rip my CD’s.


There is no edit note, @mrgou.


It agrees with the discogs link. It looks like the original editor conflated the CD with the digital album on BandCamp.


For voters and for future reference, here is how we, editors, do: (Why and) How to write edit notes. :slight_smile:


The change was pretty self-explanatory.


Indeed for the link. The tracklisting would be fine for the digital release, but all other properties point to the CD release (format, barcode, catalog number…). I’ve requalified the link to purchase for mail-order.


May I have one more vote please, pretty please?


It really wasn’t. And still isn’t. I see what is going on, but I don’t see why. What is motivating you to do it? Why do you believe it to be more correct with more than half of the tracks removed? Anyway, that is for another topic. E.g., the one @jesus2099 linked.


He’s not removing half the tracks, he’s moving them to a second medium (CD). The album in question was released as a 2 CD set and as a single medium digital download. The editor who first added the release, added it as a single medium, but also added all the CD specific information to the release.


Exactly what @Freso was hoping to see on the edit note, I suspect! :wink:


Could I please get some votes on my edits here: ? These are new Monstercat releases being added by a new editor and I want to make sure there aren’t any more mistakes or missing information before the add edits are accepted. Most of my edits are just fixig the featuring artist in titles and correcting track durations from Monstercat’s Bandcamp, which I chose because it usually also matches the durations on iTunes, Google Play and Spotify. Much appreciated!


Any chance I can get additional votes on edit # 47480144. Trying to remove a digital link to a CD release. Main discussion is on the opposing voters edit, edit #47418285 which I voted no on.

Originally enter as a CD by a band member, later a digital link was added, almost a year later (most likely by same/different band member on another account).

Release added in edit #38565185
Digital link added in edit #44945887

Edit: Sorry had wrong link on the edit I wanted votes on. It’s been corrected.


Hi :wave:
I’m the editor that voted against for various reasons:
First of all, 221bbs is getting ahead of himself for my edit #47418285 is still open and what’s in question (there) is if release was (intended to be) added as CD or in Digital format (see discussion and arguments provided). Until there’s consensus on the format I cannot agree with deleting link (which I initially thought of doing until I realized no proof of CD existed and proof of Digital release abounded).
Secondly this edit is based on a assumption (of his).
To add to context, it’s noteworthy the fact that all their releases are found in digital format with CDs only provided at band homepage.
Finally, it’s not “ethical” practice.


4 posts were split to a new topic: True Care by James Vincent McMorrow iTunes release - [Worldwide] or not

True Care by James Vincent McMorrow iTunes release - [Worldwide] or not
True Care by James Vincent McMorrow iTunes release - [Worldwide] or not

Requesting votes for these edits:

Original editor messed up the release.

#102 seems to be a fake artist with release dates in the far future, and no edit notes to suggest that anything about it is real.

I need some votes on these: