Conflicting metadata
Conflicting metadata requires comparison of entity, field meaning, scope, version and provenance before selecting or correcting the displayed value.
Two differing values are not automatically contradictory. They may describe different entities, events, languages or resource versions.
A useful conflict comparison first asks whether the values are meant to answer the same question.
Test scope before choosing a winner
| Differing values | Relationship to examine |
|---|---|
| Original title and translated display title | Different valid labels for one work |
| Festival year and regional release year | Different release events |
| 20:15 at offset +02:00 and 18:15 UTC | Same instant in different representations |
| Source video width 1280 and current width 1920 | Different encode/file versions |
| Film synopsis and same-title series synopsis | Different entities or a mistaken match |
| Camera capture time and file-copy time | Different activities |
For the timestamp example, subtracting two hours from 20:15 yields 18:15 UTC. Replacing both strings with one without retaining the offset can instead remove useful context.
Likewise, changing a translated title to match the original title can discard a deliberate presentation choice while doing nothing to improve identity.
Genuine competing claims need provenance
If two sources disagree about the same release event, both should be tied to their source and scope. Check whether one reflects a correction, a different edition, a parse/mapping error or unsupported inference.
The provenance article explains those annotations. Retrieval time alone does not make the newly fetched claim authoritative: it may be an older catalogue value copied into a fresh response.
A technical claim can be verified against the intended current file. A descriptive claim may instead require the relevant catalogue or release evidence. They do not share one universal proof method.
Identity errors have broad consequences
A wrong provider match can install a consistent title, synopsis, date and cast set for the wrong work. The fields agreeing with one another does not prove they belong to the local resource.
In that case, correcting only the display title leaves the underlying relationship unresolved. Identification develops how the intended entity is selected.
A correct identity with two local title candidates is a different problem: precedence can determine which presentation value remains.
Keep a correction specific
In Emby, review the entity and fields being edited through Metadata Manager, using its documented persistence controls where appropriate.
Record why the selected value fits the intended scope. A correction can preserve both an original and a localized label, retain two different event dates in their proper fields, or replace an old probe result. It need not erase every difference to make the record useful.