Talk:MusicBrainz

message: Moved from brenneman's talk 
*Edit removing links
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Link works fine here. Restoring Intersofia 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Can somebody put it back up? --Closedmouth 05:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (:Image:MusicBrainz favicon.png), thanks for reporting! -- intgr 09:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The favicon was deleted 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's certainly no lack of classical music represented in MusicBrainz. --Mperry 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Hardly an 'encyclopeadia' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linkara Not First Commercial Venture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  There is no mention of when MusicBrainz was first created/started 

message: 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)
replies: text: Currently (0.12.5), MusicBrainz. --Nemo 12:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rhythmbox]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of Jaikoz with MusicBrainz 

message: 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/.  Thank you. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AFD|AfD]] nomination of [[Jaikoz]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably this: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=About/Data_License&oldid=53325 --AVRS (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for -NC licence? 

message: 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.
—Freso (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: makes sense. -- intgr [talk] 09:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open content or open data