|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Libraries||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 See also
- 2 WikiProject
- 3 External links
- 4 The favicon was deleted
- 5 Hardly an 'encyclopeadia'
- 6 Linkara Not First Commercial Venture
- 7 There is no mention of when MusicBrainz was first created/started
- 8 Rhythmbox
- 9 Proposed merger of Jaikoz with MusicBrainz
- 10 AfD nomination of Jaikoz
- 11 Rationale for -NC licence?
- 12 Open content or open data
- Template:MusicBrainz artist (links, talk)
- Template:MusicBrainz release-group (links, talk)
- Template:MusicBrainz release (links, talk)
- Template:MusicBrainz track (links, talk)
- Template:MusicBrainz label (links, talk)
- Template:MusicBrainz wiki (links, talk)
Moved from brenneman's talk
Why did you remove  this link ? It isn't spam, it seem like reasonable information for the article. Could you specify which part of WP:External links you think applies ?? Regards, Intersofia 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Per the guideline, the removed links do not "provide a unique resource," and the ldodds link returns a 404 error for me. - brenneman 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Link works fine here. Restoring Intersofia 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The favicon was deleted
Can somebody put it back up? --Closedmouth 05:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hardly an 'encyclopeadia'
- MusicBrainz has no bias; It's just a database so it has what people enter into it. I've found that it has extremely obscure bands in it that I listen to. If you think it has a bias towards popular genres then it may be that you are only looking for artists that are in popular genres. --Mperry 02:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Just what people enter into it" means that whatever the bias of the users have is reflected in the product. If mostly people interested in popular bands add to it, mostly popular bands will be in the database, and classical composers will be less represented. I'm guessing 90.204 has noticed the bias because of its lack of classical/Renaissance/Medieval music, not its popular music. Mak (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- "whatever the bias of the users have is reflected in the product." This is true of most information sources. No Encyclopedia is 100% complete. Encyclopedias also reflect the bias of their editors-- the "Encyclopedia Brittanica" has several articles on "Classical Music", but I cannot always find an article on a popular genre. Even Wikipedia reflects the bias of it's user-editors. Musicbrainz can be called an Encyclopedia, because it does provide a comprehensive reference work of the music field. Gigglesworth 22:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Linkara Not First Commercial Venture
The current version of this article states the following:
- On 20 January 2006, it was announced that the first commercial venture to use MusicBrainz data is the Barcelona, Spain based Linkara in their Linkara Música service.
This is false. Last.fm, which is also a commercial venture, uses MusicBrainz data, and has done so before 2006. It is true that most of Last.fm can be used at no cost, there is a Subscriber feature which does cost money. -- Christopher C. Parker t c 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- In addition, Metaweb is using MusicBrainz data for their Freebase database. I don't know the history, but the product was only publicly released in spring 2007, after a long internal testing phase, and the Musicbrainz data presumably existed before then. --Gigglesworth 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of when MusicBrainz was first created/started
I can't currently find a mention of the date when MusicBrainz was first started in the article. It seems one might have been in there before because there are some sentences that seem to relate to it (e.g. "By 2005 it became obvious..."). If anyone can verify when it first came about then this crucial piece of information should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick808 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- This link has some info, I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment to scan it properly. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Rhythmbox uses MusicBrainz or freedb? It doesn't mention Rhythmbox's stance in either three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Currently (0.12.5), MusicBrainz. --Nemo 12:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Proposed merger of Jaikoz with MusicBrainz
The article on Jaikoz has been targeted by a WP editor for deletion. I'd rather that the content be included in a section here than be lost. Comments, pro or con? Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Support - Sounds like a good idea. Go for it! --Explodicle (T/C) 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: The MusicBrainz article is about the music database and project, which is unrelated to "Jthink" or Jaikoz. It's simply not relevant there, besides perhaps a passing mention. Also, this article is not being deleted. Don't merge anything until there's an articles for deletion entry. -- intgr [talk] 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure the two aren't affiliated? Jaikoz already has a passing mention in this article. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "affiliated". Jthink is paying a percentage of sales revenue to the MetaBrainz foundation, but other than that they are two unrelated groups with different interests. -- intgr [talk] 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not anything is to be merged, the Jaikoz article fails WP:N so I've redirected it here. If anyone decides to merge content from that page, the last version is located here. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- If only you were as clever with your pen as you are quick with your knife. You are not a law unto yourself, brother. If you want that article deleted, do it honestly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
An article on a MusicBrainz client, Jaikoz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaikoz. Thank you. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Rationale for -NC licence?
- Probably this: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=About/Data_License&oldid=53325 --AVRS (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Open content or open data
As I understand it, open content is about providing some kind of creative output under free/libre terms, e.g., what CritiqueBrainz does (and I would absolutely agree with classifying CritiqueBrainz as "open content"). MusicBrainz is a database of facts, a comprehensive one, but it's still just facts, not prose or graphics or audio/music. Open data seems like a more applicable terminology to use in relation to this, and is also what I'd use for e.g., Wikidata.
I will refrain from editing though, as I am currently employed by the MetaBrainz Foundation.