I’m late to the party, but wanted to chime in on a few points:
First of all, it’s painfully clear to everyone that we need a notification system. That is not news, but the priority level just went up a notch (the associated ticket if anyone is looking for it).
Hopefully, it will allow for a more concerted effort and prevent some communication failures.
While I work on this feature, the interim solution is to:
- Visit an editor’s profile page on BookBrainz (clicking on their name)
- Under “Basic Info”, click on their "MusicBrainz Account” name
- On the MusicBrainz profile page, under “General Information” > “Email” you should see an option to “send email”
Second, to @GLBW, I appreciate your contributions and the quality of your edits, and in particular the focus of your library. I would be quite saddened by your departure and urge you to rethink.
However accusations of vandalism and bullying are uncalled for and counterproductive, and I would hope that we can all rise up to a less emotional and more intellectual level.
I believe there was absolutely no nefarious intent in Goldilox’s edits, and entering a discussion by asking for clarifications or explanations would certainly be more productive than starting with accusations. A mistake is not vandalism.
I would also point out that a lot of the guidelines are in flux or not expressed at all, which will lead to changes in how to represent the data as we go along and clarify the guidelines.
To @Goldilox , as outsidecontext explained above repurposing entities might have been the norm in Bookogs, but is not something we do in BookBrainz or MusicBrainz. The goal is to have stable identifiers that will always point to the correct entity. Repurposing an entity breaks that expectation.
While merging duplicates helps maintain existing identifiers and redirect them to the merged entity, deletions also have their uses, specifically if an entity simply shouldn’t exist.
Furthermore it’s easy to forget to check and validate all the previous data when repurposing an entity, as we’ve seen with this work’s identifiers.
I’m sorry I didn’t clarify that point well enough or soon enough.
I also suggest to wait until we have a proper mechanism in place to express Series before starting to delete any Work or Edition Group that has been used as such. Perhaps the best solution for now is to use a collaborative collection where we add works-that-should-really-be-series-instead and do a concerted cleanup effort like we did with works without authors, once Series entities are there.
Any thoughts on that? I’m happy to create some cleanup collections and invite whoever wants to participate as a collaborator.