Talk:Other Databases Relationship Type/Whitelist: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: ==MusicMoz== Why this site has had its own AR for many years is beyond me. Am I the only one who never consults it for anything? Is this an in-joke? Was there an behind-the-scenes or open...) |
Reosarevok (talk | contribs) m (User talk:Reosarevok/Other Databases Relationship Type/Whitelist moved to Talk:Other Databases Relationship Type/Whitelist) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Why this site has had its own AR for many years is beyond me. Am I the only one who never consults it for anything? Is this an in-joke? Was there an behind-the-scenes or open agreement made in early years of MB to let them have their own AR? Unless someone can point me to a few examples where MusicMoz adds anything of value to MB, I'm suggesting to not only subsume this AR under "Other Databases" but to remove it from -- or, in the first place, not add it to -- the whitelist. There's also an unanswered (and unsigned -- nikki?) question concerning MusicMoz' alleged redundancy at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:MusicMoz_Relationship_Type [[User:HumHumXX|HumHumXX]] 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
Why this site has had its own AR for many years is beyond me. Am I the only one who never consults it for anything? Is this an in-joke? Was there an behind-the-scenes or open agreement made in early years of MB to let them have their own AR? Unless someone can point me to a few examples where MusicMoz adds anything of value to MB, I'm suggesting to not only subsume this AR under "Other Databases" but to remove it from -- or, in the first place, not add it to -- the whitelist. There's also an unanswered (and unsigned -- nikki?) question concerning MusicMoz' alleged redundancy at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:MusicMoz_Relationship_Type [[User:HumHumXX|HumHumXX]] 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
: It wasn't me, I was just moving discussion from the page to the talk page (I know how to sign my comments ;)). As for why we have it at all, http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-April/008774.html might interest you. --[[User:Nikki|Nikki]] 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:18, 28 May 2012
MusicMoz
Why this site has had its own AR for many years is beyond me. Am I the only one who never consults it for anything? Is this an in-joke? Was there an behind-the-scenes or open agreement made in early years of MB to let them have their own AR? Unless someone can point me to a few examples where MusicMoz adds anything of value to MB, I'm suggesting to not only subsume this AR under "Other Databases" but to remove it from -- or, in the first place, not add it to -- the whitelist. There's also an unanswered (and unsigned -- nikki?) question concerning MusicMoz' alleged redundancy at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:MusicMoz_Relationship_Type HumHumXX 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't me, I was just moving discussion from the page to the talk page (I know how to sign my comments ;)). As for why we have it at all, http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-April/008774.html might interest you. --Nikki 16:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
