Voting/Auto-editor Request Thread

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe3d3b3fa38> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d3b3f790> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d3b3f3d0> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d3b3ed40>


I’d appreciate votes in for a Release Group merge, to correct a mistake I made when entering a new Release. I should have specified the existing Release Group, but instead let the editor create a new Release Group. Votes are not critical, however, because the merge will go through anyway in a week.

Update 2017-11-08: thank you votes received, edit completed.


These average pseudo releases have high quality data flag set, they shouldn’t have that.

Because of that, IIRC, those edits will fail if they don’t get at least one yes vote within 7 days: :grin: thank you.


Can I please get some votes on ? I’d like to be able to see more clearly which recordings need fixing and which just need to be merged. Thanks!

Edit: Thanks, got enough votes.


I think removing incorrect data improves the database, so…


Hello. I’m fixing some credits for this group.
I’d appreciate your votes on this edit:


Editor is trying to remove feat. artist from a recording. Out of the 50 or so releases (official) only about 5-7 seems to have feat. artist listed (10%ish). Addition votes would be appreciated.


Would you please pay attention to
I cannot agree to using made-up information from Discogs as an argument.


I don’t know whether it should be removed or not, but the editor saying “I’ve seen it, but I won’t spend the time to search for it. Do as you please.” should provide proof for his statement since he was the one that brought up cover art. This is definitely a bad voting practice.


Exactly. Unless any proof is provided, I see no other option than to remove those “catalog numbers”. The problem is that there seem to be no agreement on what catalog numbers for Eilean Records are.


The option of contacting the label owners and asking them about any relevant numbers has been presented at the edit page.

There also, the creation of a thread on these forums, devoted to this specific issue, was suggested.


It is not about finding correct catalog numbers. It is about removing data that have no reliable source and presumably were made up.


The problem with that approach is that on MB we are very often taking a fellow editor’s claim that, “I saw it”, as reliable evidence - as in the editor’s statement is taken to form a reliable source.

And I think it would be better to continue to treat each-other that way if that can be done with no more than reasonable effort.

Having made editing mistakes myself and seen many many more by other editors I know that we all make mistakes. So I can see that there is a real possibility that the editor involved made a mis-interpretation of the situation and genuinely thought once, and remembers still, that those Discogs numbers are the same as these release’s catalogue numbers.
Or maybe they actually are right. Just like they are almost always.

The benefits of contacting the label directly and asking them include:

  1. If they reply we will have very good evidence for what goes into the database.
  2. Doing so brings some attention to Musicbrainz from the label owners.
  3. Getting much better evidence creates a good example to the rest of us of one way to use conflicts creatively.
  4. It demonstrates respect for the editor who you think is mistaken - they can say, “Wow, that sure is different to how I remember it, but that must be right cause it is coming from the label”. Or you get to say, “Well I’m glad we did that cause I was headed down the garden path. Those Discogs numbers actually are the catalogue numbers! Aren’t label people strange.”

And if the label doesn’t respond then we’ve got the weaker evidence that we could fall back on to come to a (provisional) lower confidence conclusion.
Provisional? Lower confidence? Yeah cause if the label eventually clarifies the catalogue numbering system then that would be better evidence and out-weigh our conclusions.


I clearly understand and agree with what you are saying. The reason I cannot take that editor’s words for granted is that several times I found them claim things which are not true. I have no idea was this intentional or not, but twisting the facts (when they can easily be checked) does not build trust. It’s all in the edit’s discussion if someone’s interested.

BTW, I contacted the label already – no reply so far.


Please approve edits 49742252, 49742253 and 49742254. That release needs some further fixes (explained in the edit notes). Thanks! :slight_smile:


I contacted them on facebook:


I have a couple compilations that I’m trying to enhance by merging the appropriate recordings together. One is Momus’ ahem Pubic Intellectual with a rather absurd 54 open merges:

The other is Superchunk’s Cup of Sand with 17 open merges:



Just FYI, “same recording” is not a useful edit note. A useful one would explain how you know they’re the same recording. Five years from now if someone looks at the edit history, that’s all that will be there.


Hello, I’d appreciate some votes on and the other recent edits that have just been down voted. I’m on my phone and can’t easily copy them all in here. The original editor voted no on my removing featured artists from the title because they prefer their tracks named in a way different from the style guidelines. I’d appreciate some yes votes to overcome the no if you agree with how I changed the tracks and recordings. Thanks.


I went through your open edits and added some votes. I also added notes on


Thanks, as I indicated there I haven’t edited a lot of single releases where there’s a featured artist. I usually put the feat artist in the track credit. Should I put them in the RG credits as well?