[mb-style] Wikipedia AR using urls with hash

Bram van Dijk bram_van_dijk at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 10 13:18:29 UTC 2008 

As we usually don't like redirects, I think that this doesn't change 
anything in this discussion.

Bram

david scotson schreef:
> I'm not sure how this would be communicated to less sophisticated
> Musicbrainz/Wikipedia users but the following is possible:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_The_City_%2B_In_The_Woods
>
> has just been created by me, and consists only of a redirect to:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Bonham#In_The_City_.2B_In_The_Woods
>
> (Actually it keeps the original link title on redirect, so it's
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#In_The_City_%2B_In_The_Woods#In_The_City_.2B_In_The_Woods
> but that's a minor detail)
>
> There's a live example (which is now broken) given in the Wikipedia docs here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page (search for
> "redirect")
>
> This means that the new, anchorless link works the exact same as the
> current anchored link does now, but as soon as someone thinks that
> album deserves it's own page, the link points to something else.
>
> regards,
>
> dave
>
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Paul C. Bryan <email at pbryan.net> wrote:
>   
>> The consensus seems this far that we should not link to anchors within
>>  pages.
>>
>>  To best understand this, I guess my only question I have is, what
>>  balance are we trying to strike between preventing link rot and
>>  providing useful information?
>>
>>  As I mentioned in the edit that started this, sometimes a topic in
>>  Wikipedia is not considered non-trivial enough to warrant its own page,
>>  with attempts to create a separate topic resulting in a deletion.
>>
>>  I was on the fence on this one, and don't really feel strongly one way
>>  or the other. Whatever information you can provide though to help
>>  editors make better decisions in the future will help.
>>
>>  Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 11:20 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>  > This disussion is pretty lame and I think we all agree anyway: we
>>  > don't want to link albums to wikipedia:Artist#Album. If it doesn't
>>  > have a Wikipedia page of its own just don't link it (add an annotation
>>  > if you must). Unless someone is actually of the opinion that we should
>>  > there's no need to discuss the details of document fragments or
>>  > permalinks.
>>  >
>>  > We do get carried away on this list...
>>  >
>>  > Philip
>>  >
>>  > On 3/9/08, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:57 AM, Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > >  > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:11 AM, Brian Schweitzer
>>  > >  >  <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > >  >  >  I'm very aware what fragments are, and how they work, though I wasn't
>>  > >  >  >  aware that the CGI-parser behind Wikipedia's permalink system
>>  > >  >  >  maintained fragment support.
>>  > >  >
>>  > >  >  I'm not sure you do understand it completely. Wikipedia's CGI doesn't
>>  > >  >  need to understand fragments, in fact it doesn't receive it normally.
>>  > >  >  When a browser wants something like
>>  > >  >  "http://some.uri/some/resource#fragment", it sends the server just the
>>  > >  >  address "http://some.uri/some/resource", without the "#fragment" part,
>>  > >  >  it receives the complete page, and then the browser scrolls down to
>>  > >  >  the specified fragment (or a similar operation).
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > I'm not quite sure why this thread keeps harking back to my personal
>>  > >  understanding of page fragments, rather than the actual topic, but
>>  > >  that assumes the anchors the browser is looking for are maintained
>>  > >  within the page being returned by the server (it would be quite
>>  > >  possible, for example, that fragment identifiers within archived
>>  > >  documents be minified and renamed to save on storage space - as I have
>>  > >  seen archive.org do on several occasions, though I've never had cause
>>  > >  to check whether Wikipedia did it).
>>  > >
>>  > >  In any case, if I can again try to reference back to the original
>>  > >  question here: Should a url for Wikipedia (or indeed, any url AR) be
>>  > >  permitted if it is using anchors?
>>  > >
>>  > >  As I see it, it raises two questions:
>>  > >  1) Should we be linking to pages or to text within pages?  ie: Should
>>  > >  we be linking if the entire page doesn't concern the
>>  > >  release/artist/whatever?
>>  > >  2) If we are to decide to link to text within pages, how should that
>>  > >  link then be done?  Say what you will, but a link to a fragment
>>  > >  identifier within a live page seems to me a bad idea, as it is quite
>>  > >  easy that the linked fragment identifier be removed, even if the page
>>  > >  it is a part of still exists - say an album being originally a subpart
>>  > >  of an artist page, then later being moved to its own page.
>>  > >
>>  > >  It's worth considering Tim Berners-Lee's suggestions on such links
>>  > >  (http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html ):
>>  > >  * A bookmark to the whole living document, or
>>  > >  * A bookmark to a specific part of a "dead" version;
>>  > >  * Intermediate combinations (I'm not really sure quite what he saw
>>  > >  this as actually being)
>>  > >
>>  > >  If the link pertained to the entire page, we'd just be linking to the
>>  > >  entire page, and not just the fragment within, so the first is out.
>>  > >  That leaves us with:
>>  > >  1) Don't link anchors
>>  > >  2) Link live anchors
>>  > >  3) Link anchors, but only to permalinked pages
>>  > >
>>  > >  Personally, I tend to think 1 the best option, followed by 3 as second
>>  > >  best (since we Oliver has shown that Wikipedia doesn't break fragment
>>  > >  identifiers in permalinked versions), with 2 imho just a bad idea.  It
>>  > >  doesn't really matter if fragment identifiers still work in
>>  > >  permalinked versions, or how well/poorly I personally understand how
>>  > >  they work - noone has yet to address the point that such live anchor
>>  > >  links are much less stable when compared with full pages (live or
>>  > >  permalinked).
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >  Brian
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >  _______________________________________________
>>  > >  Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>>  > >  Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>>  > >  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>>  > Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>>  > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>>  Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>>  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
>
>

More information about the Musicbrainz-style mailing list