User talk:Murdos

From MusicBrainz Wiki

Edits on MusicBrainz Identifier

Why shouldn't the URIs have the '.html' extension? Also, can "absolute URI" be changed to just "URI"? --navap 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ruaok clarified on IRC that the URIs should have the extension and shouldn't have "absolute". When NGS is released the page can be changed to reflect the appropriate URIs without the extensions.--navap 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You're mixing URI and URL. See MusicBrainz_XML_Meta_Data#IDs_and_Types: URIs don't have the html extension. BTW the various <entity>_ID pages were correct on that point, so I think that your responsibility to make sure that everything in the pages you're removing appears correctly in the replacing page. Murdos 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I don't have a very clear grasp of the difference between a URL and a URI, and I until you linked it I hadn't even come across MusicBrainz_XML_Meta_Data. Because I was unclear as to the definitions I discussed it on IRC with a few other people to try and understand the situation, Rob being one of them. Please read the conversation I had with Rob, because he made it clear that the MBID is just the UUID, and that the current URI displayed on MBID should have the extension. --navap 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I had already read this IRC discussion, and I disagree with what has been said but agree with what is documented on the wiki (former <entity>_ID pages + MusicBrainz_XML_Meta_Data#IDs_and_Types).
  1. The UUID alone doesn't have any sense. If I ask you "So do you like 8970d868-0723-483b-a75b-51088913d3d4 ?" I doubt you'll be able to know what I'm talking about. Since we're both MB editors you'll only guess that this an MB identifier, but you have no way to know if I'm talking about an artist, a release, a track, ... Whereas if I'm asking you "So do you like ?", there's no ambiguity. Absolute URI vs relative URI. Murdos 00:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  2. Regarding .html, you can't change history and the public API v1 MB exposes. URI have always been without .html, you're the one who have introduced them in documentation. None has ever used MB URIs with .html. I think Rob is mixing URIs and URLs too. Murdos 00:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, okay. I submit. I finally understand what you mean, and after really thinking about it - I agree. What I gathered from the research and discussions I had with people was that an MBID==UUID and that you can construct a URI out of that MBID/UUID, I now know that doesn't make much sense and is in fact backwards. An MBID==URI and the URI can be used to construct the 36 character relative-path URI that we all know and love. I've done yet another rewrite of the page and I think I've made it very clear what a MBID officially is (the absolute URI), and that using just the relative-path form of it is alright aswell. --navap 08:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And about the various <entity>_ID pages, no one responded to either my or Nikki's comments on Candidate_for_Deletion/Current where we voted for merging the various pages together. I strongly feel that duplicate/redundant information should not be spread out among several pages, especially when the resulting page (not counting header/footer templates) is all of 3 or 4 sentences like it was with these <entity>_ID pages. You mentioned that permanent IDs are an important part of MusicBrainz, and I agree, but I think that if documenting them means just talking about the permanent IDs themselves - and not the entities - then any and all documentation can fit comfortably on MusicBrainz Identifier. --navap 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was especially surprised by this way of doing things. I would have expected that you announce your move on Candidate_for_Deletion/Current. I'm ok with these changes (the redirections) on the strict condition that <entity>_ID pages themselves are never removed from the wiki. Murdos 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for making the merges without any warning, in the future I will give more of a heads up when making merges like that. As far as ensuring the original pages are not deleted, I'm not sure how that can be accomplished other than to manually make sure neither of us or the other administrators delete it. --navap 22:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Databases‎ revert

Why did you revert Other Databases‎, rather than the redirect? It now is a clone of Category_talk:External_Website_Relationship_Class. BrianSchweitzer 18:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)