This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Audacity (audio editor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know where the Muse Group Wikipedia article went to or did the shady company get it to "disappear" somehow? NantucketHistory ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member.Aside from these sort of theoretical or policy arguments, there is a very practical reason for this: if we don't have refs that specifically discuss the company, its staff, history, location and so on, than we have nothing on which to base an article. If all your refs are about its products only, then all you get is "this is a company that makes the following products...." WP:CORP is really the key. If you have third party refs that provide info on the company itself then we can create an article, if not then we can't. What do we have for refs? - Ahunt ( talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
All listed derivatives are now out of development, with none of them seeming to have done any significant releases. Can the section be removed? 185.5.164.214 ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed the section of the article regarding forks had primary sources, but lacked secondary and tertiary sources. I'd like to bring them to attention to add some secondary and tertiary sources.
References 63, 64 and 67 in this passage point to the repositories of each project. While this helps for Wikipedia:Verifiability, it makes it difficult to evaluate Wikipedia:Notability and decide which forks (and which events) are worth mentioning and which ones are not.
I believe there must be some third-party articles that mention some of the most notable forks, but my research has so far been unsuccessful. Can anybody help and find some sources for this passage?
Skencer11 ( talk) 21:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I have started converting the big features list to prose and in the process removed some run-of-the-mill stuff (such as: copy-paste and undo exists, multi-platform support as that's in the infobox anyway) and moved some other stuff down to the version history. However, in the process I stumbled a bit into the question of which features of Audacity are important, which aren't and what's run-of-the-mill. In particular, I'm unsure about:
Even the non-destructive editing thing is fairly standard, and the only reason it's worth mentioning here IMHO is that Audacity didn't have these features for so long.
NB, I can't promise I'll have the time to implement feedback on this myself, but I thought having this discussion is going to be helpful for the future anyway. -- LWinterberg ( talk) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
muse are globohomo. audacity is dead. "protected groups"? BS. Yeah, I know, this comment will be removed by globohomo (you). 80.43.63.48 ( talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Audacity (audio editor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anyone know where the Muse Group Wikipedia article went to or did the shady company get it to "disappear" somehow? NantucketHistory ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member.Aside from these sort of theoretical or policy arguments, there is a very practical reason for this: if we don't have refs that specifically discuss the company, its staff, history, location and so on, than we have nothing on which to base an article. If all your refs are about its products only, then all you get is "this is a company that makes the following products...." WP:CORP is really the key. If you have third party refs that provide info on the company itself then we can create an article, if not then we can't. What do we have for refs? - Ahunt ( talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
All listed derivatives are now out of development, with none of them seeming to have done any significant releases. Can the section be removed? 185.5.164.214 ( talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed the section of the article regarding forks had primary sources, but lacked secondary and tertiary sources. I'd like to bring them to attention to add some secondary and tertiary sources.
References 63, 64 and 67 in this passage point to the repositories of each project. While this helps for Wikipedia:Verifiability, it makes it difficult to evaluate Wikipedia:Notability and decide which forks (and which events) are worth mentioning and which ones are not.
I believe there must be some third-party articles that mention some of the most notable forks, but my research has so far been unsuccessful. Can anybody help and find some sources for this passage?
Skencer11 ( talk) 21:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I have started converting the big features list to prose and in the process removed some run-of-the-mill stuff (such as: copy-paste and undo exists, multi-platform support as that's in the infobox anyway) and moved some other stuff down to the version history. However, in the process I stumbled a bit into the question of which features of Audacity are important, which aren't and what's run-of-the-mill. In particular, I'm unsure about:
Even the non-destructive editing thing is fairly standard, and the only reason it's worth mentioning here IMHO is that Audacity didn't have these features for so long.
NB, I can't promise I'll have the time to implement feedback on this myself, but I thought having this discussion is going to be helpful for the future anyway. -- LWinterberg ( talk) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
muse are globohomo. audacity is dead. "protected groups"? BS. Yeah, I know, this comment will be removed by globohomo (you). 80.43.63.48 ( talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)