![]() | 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 page was proposed for deletion by SpacedFarmer (talk · contribs) on 8 December 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm starting a wikiproject to link articles to musicbrainz and vice versa. Info on it here and here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved from brenneman's talk
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)
Can somebody put it back up? --Closedmouth 05:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
The current version of this article states the following:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)