MusicBrainz Picard was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 12 February 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
MusicBrainz. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Why did you remove
[2] 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)reply
Per the guideline, the removed links do not "provide a unique resource," and the ldodds link returns a 404 error for me. -
brenneman{L} 00:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Link works fine here. Restoring
Intersofia 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)reply
The favicon was deleted
Can somebody put it back up? --
Closedmouth 05:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't call MusicBrainz an encyclopedia. It's a recorded music database, with a massive bias towards popular genres. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
90.204.63.53 (
talk •
contribs)
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)reply
"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)reply
Oh, and yeah, looks like it's a database, not an encyclopedia - there should be a big difference.
Mak(talk) 06:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
There's certainly no lack of classical music represented in MusicBrainz. --
Mperry 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
"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)reply
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. Parkertc 15:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Does anyone know if Rhythmbox uses
MusicBrainz or
freedb? It doesn't mention Rhythmbox's stance in either three. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.221.94.160 (
talk) 02:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Currently (0.12.5), MusicBrainz. --
Nemo 12:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Oh, ok, gotcha. Changing to weak oppose - the bullet point we've got now is sufficient. --
Explodicle(
T/
C) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Is there any verifiable documentation of the reasoning behind the -NC licence? (We can think of obvious reasons, I'm looking for stated ones.) -
David Gerard (
talk) 10:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)reply
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.