Candidate for Deletion / Archive

Special:Whatlinkshere/Artist ID

The information on here is covered by MusicBrainz Identifier. Nikki 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• +1 navap 19:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• -1 Permanent ids are an important aspect of MB, thus I do think it's important to have it explicitly referenced/documented for each MB entity. Anyway not a big priority, there are a lot more junk to clean up before these ones, we can discuss that one we've a clear path for the documentation part of the wiki. Murdos 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How about using sections on MusicBrainz Identifier so they can be referred to with anchors (i.e. MusicBrainz Identifier#Artist ID) then? I really don't see the point in having 5 pages to explain what MusicBrainz IDs are when the content of each page is pretty much identical. The pages themselves aren't even very long, one paragraph (which copy/pasted between each page, with Artist changed to Release or whatever), one example and then loads of included template stuff. Nikki 08:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• -1 For the same reason as above. Good or not, the current system for these pages is well linked by navigation cards, categories and a number of direct links to them. Changing all that for the sole benefit of aesthetic considerations is plain useless work IMHO. dmppanda

I think in general the wiki needs a lot of condensing, we seem to have a sort of one-page-for-every-thought kind of approach; not only is this aesthetically displeasing, but it is confusing and makes it hard to find all the relevant information on a topic one would want to look up. It is my opinion that we don't need to have an entire page dedicated to explaining what a Failed Dependency or Split Release is; I'm not suggesting that all the pages on Category:Terminology be merged, but I think a lot of the smaller ones (eg. CAE, IPI, ISMN, ISWC) can be safely condensed into one terminology/glossary type of page.

Following that train of thought, I think the same applies to "more important"/official WikiDocs pages; for example, it is my opinion that all the ARs in the Discography Relationship Class should be displayed in full on that page itself, instead of having small separate pages that become hard to interlink. In fact that same thing should be done for quite a few of the pages in Category:Relationship Class, Category:Edit Types, and wait for it, Category:Identifier. Putting the various external links, cards, and categories aside for a moment, I don't think there is any reason for Track ID to exist on it's own when virtually all the same information already exists on MusicBrainz Identifier. Additionally, the four examples I gave from the terminology category are also in the identifier category, but if you look at their "backlinks" page it's evident that they just link to each other and the two categories which means they are very well hidden.

I believe instead of throwing each little page into a category (and spreading all the information out over multiple pages) we should instead either flesh the page out or incorporate it as a section into a bigger or "parent" page, thus improving wiki navigation. I apologize if this sounded like a rant, but when I first joined mb I had a terrible time navigating the wiki and finding relevant information about ARs and style guidelines, so this is something I've felt for quite a while and felt it was an important topic to discuss. navap 01:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Was merged into MusicBrainz Identifier anyway.

Special:Whatlinkshere/Release ID

The information on here is covered by MusicBrainz Identifier. Nikki 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• +1 navap 19:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• -1 See Artist ID. Murdos 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• -1 dmppanda

Was merged into MusicBrainz Identifier anyway.

Special:Whatlinkshere/Track ID

The information on here is covered by MusicBrainz Identifier. Nikki 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• +1 navap 19:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• -1 See Artist ID. Murdos 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• -1 dmppanda

Was merged into MusicBrainz Identifier anyway.

Special:Whatlinkshere/Label ID

The information on here is covered by MusicBrainz Identifier. Nikki 03:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• +1 navap 19:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• -1 See Artist ID. Murdos 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• -1 dmppanda

Was merged into MusicBrainz Identifier anyway.

Old cruft. pronik 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• The page itself might be useless, but the "backlinks" might come in handy. navap 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• A category would be better. - Adan Aileron (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• +1 The page is itself empty, and any backlinks are likely made redundant via the Needs Review category. User:BrianFreud 28 Feb, 2010

It confuses more than it helps. If it's relevant, those parts should be extracted to an article, otherwise delete it. pronik 21:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Advanced Relationship Family
• Advanced Relationships History
• AmazonRelationshipType
• Co-Producer Relationship Type
• DiscogsRelationshipType
• LabelFounderRelationshipType
• MemberOfBandRelationshipType
• MySpaceRelationshipType
• OnlineDataRelationshipClass
• PartOfSetRelationshipType
• Performs As Relationship Type
• Proposed Advanced Relationship Type
• ReleaseArtistRelationship
• ReleaseReleaseRelationship
• ReleaseTrackRelationship
• ReleaseUrlRelationship
• RemasterRelationshipType
• Same Release Relationship Type
• TrackTrackRelationship
• TrackUrlRelationship
• WikipediaRelationshipType

I've fixed all backlinks, so none of these redirect pages are now actually used. — BrianSchweitzer 13:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• -1 These pages are not safe to delete, some of them are referenced at least in edits notes or annotations (e.g. CoverArtSites, AmazonRelationshipType or AdvancedRelationshipStyle). — Murdos 13:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• The same argument could be made about any page; do we really plan to maintain a massive collection of redirecting pages forever, just to avoid breaking links in edit notes, trac, jira, or annotations? — BrianSchweitzer 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• ... Just checking, we have 2160 pages which are redirects. We have 4849 total pages. So nearly 50% of the entire wiki is redirects... — BrianSchweitzer 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since the redirection pages are already present, you'll do more harm by removing them than by doing nothing and keeping them. — Murdos 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Advanced Relationship Class
• Affiliate Relationship Class
• Alternative Version Relationship Class
• Business Association Relationship Class
• Compilation Relationship Class
• Composition Relationship Class
• DuplicateSuggestions
• IdenticallyNamedLabels
• JoyDivisionWarsawDiscussion
• LabelSortName
• MainTitle
• Personal Association Relationship Class
• Remix Relationship Class
• Series/LisztHoward
• SingleArtistRelease
• The Style Dude (C4D since 2006!)
• TheStyleDude

 — BrianSchweitzer 14:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC), 21:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) and 22:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

-1 for the following pages that are IMO frequent in edit notes:

• LabelSortName
• SingleArtistRelease

 — Murdos 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem here - you have a better sense than I which ones should be kept; I'm just noting the ones that I find. :) — BrianSchweitzer 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Murdos, to clean up this section, any opposition to my clearing any comments to date, and just separating it into two sublists? One (a growing one) of pages still for consideration, and one for pages which qualify but should be saved anyhow? — BrianSchweitzer 09:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bad MoinMoin WikiName - only an AR-related page in that there's some AR pages on there, but in any case, this is useless at this point, as we're not even using MoinMoin anymore, let alone UseMod.
• Cataloguer Relationship Type Proposal - passed, redirects to Cataloguer Relationship Type
• Co-Producer Relationship Type - redirects to Producer Relationship Type
• How To Write Advanced Relationships Documentation - outdated and no longer current or in use
• IMDb - redirects to IMDb Relationship Type
• InternetMovieDatabase - redirects to IMDb Relationship Type
• Performs As Relationship Type - redirects to Performance Name Relationship Type
• Power Of AR - a useless stub
• Proposed Advanced Relationship Type - redirects to Category:Proposed Advanced Relationship Type
• Relationship Attribute Template - outdated and no longer current or in use
• Relationship Class Template - outdated and no longer current or in use
• Same Release Relationship Type - redirects to Earliest Release Relationship Type
• Unresolved Style Issues - ancient and dead

 — BrianSchweitzer 22:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Artist Artist Relationship
• Artist Track Relationship
• Compilation Relationship Class
• Contract Relationship Class
• Get Lyrics Relationship Class
• Get Music Relationship Class
• Label Artist Relationship
• Label Label Relationship
• Label Relationship Class
• Label Release Relationship
• Label Track Relationship
• Online Data Relationship Class
• Open Data Relationship Class
• Other Databases Relationship Class
• Relationship Class Template - unused and out of date
• Release Artist Relationship
• Release Release Relationship
• Release-URL Relationship
• Track-URL Relationship
• Category:Artist Artist Relationship
• Category:Artist Track Relationship
• Category:Artist URL Relationship
• Category:Discography Relationship Class
• Category:Get Lyrics Relationship Class
• Category:Get Score Relationship Class
• Category:Label Artist Relationship
• Category:Label Label Relationship
• Category:Label Release Relationship
• Category:Label Track Relationship
• Category:Label URL Relationship
• Category:Other Databases Relationship Class
• Category:Proposed Advanced Relationship Type -> moved to Category:Proposed Relationship Type (terminology fix)
• Category:Release Artist Relationship
• Category:Release Release Relationship
• Category:Track URL Relationship
• Category:URL Artist Relationship

 — BrianSchweitzer 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC), 14:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC), 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC) and 22:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

These are now redirects to the official proposal pages:

• Capitalization Standard Spanish Proposal
• Cataloguer Relationship Type Proposal

• User:Jacobbrett/Release Style

 — BrianSchweitzer 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC) and 06:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• How To Write Advanced Relationships Documentation
• Relationship Attribute Template
• Relationship Class Template
• Template:AdvancedRelationshipButton
• Template:AdvancedRelationshipFooter
• Template:AdvancedRelationshipHeader
• Template:Documentation/docname - ????

 — BrianSchweitzer 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC) and 00:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is a duplication of Editing Suggestions; the extra content is not worth being moved. — 91.66.137.176 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• +1 — BrianSchweitzer 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 — BrianSchweitzer 14:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Really bitrotted; 'recent' was four years ago, for maybe 2 months. :D Any dates worth saving I've copied to the relevant pages, in the history sections. — BrianSchweitzer 23:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

An empty, three-year old "temporary" redirect (that doesn't redirect) with the suggestion that it only be kept around for a couple of weeks. — BrianSchweitzer 23:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This was pretty bitrotted two years ago; now it's simply useless clutter. — BrianSchweitzer 00:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone still use this? IIRC, dmppanda and I cleared just about anything still current out of here three years ago. If it's not actively used, it's an empty dead-end stub. — BrianSchweitzer 00:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost empty, and never used. — BrianSchweitzer 03:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like anything here is still worth hanging on to? — BrianSchweitzer 08:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather unneeded now, eh? — BrianSchweitzer 09:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)