![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 19-05-2019 ( MarioGom).
|
What exactly makes Mozart (software) non-notable? Maybe for someone who doesn't work with musical notation it is - there aren't so many scorewriting programs around and this one deserves an article more than some others listed here. If the article needs improvement, insert another, fitting template. I'm removing the Prod one. Rosier 12:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Can the user omit the top stave and then compose instumental solos? Musicwriter ( talk) 05:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mozart the music processor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the links to NorMusic as it isn't clear that the latest version of Mozart works with these fonts. Dave Webber ( talk) 10:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Please DON'T delete this file! It is the screen shot of Mozart 14, which replaces the previous one which was a screenshot of Mozart 10 - a much older version. Dave Webber ( talk) 10:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Dave Webber ( talk) 16:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: I'd like to remove the "Multiple issues" box.
Explanation of issue: I recently found that the Mozart the music processor page was out of date and inaccurate. Completely unaware of the 'request edit' and 'COI' procedures, I just made the appropriate changes, even though I am the author of the program the article is about. My apologies. However, I was aware that Wikepedia does not allow adverts, and was therefore keen to do it in a neutral way. With this aim I first studied pages about similar programs - in particular Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and MuseScore - and made sure I didn't do anything to the Mozart the music processor page that wasn't a direct parallel of material on one or more of those pages. I'm still confident that Mozart the music processor is not worded as an advertisement (I just want a neutral, accurate reflection of the program with a little bit of history), and I have now declared an interest with the appropriate templates here and at User_talk:Dave_Webber. I hope, therefore, that the removal of the 'multiple issues' box can be approved.
References supporting change: The Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and MuseScore pages, as noted above, are very similar in spirit and tone.
Dave Webber ( talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Please consult assigning editors
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Thank you!
Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.The sources used in the Sibelius article were primarily from Scoring Notes, a blog run by Philip Rothman and his NYC Music Services, a music preparation service in New York. While the term "self-published" may indicate references published by the software company, it could also mean sites such as blogs, which also count as "self-published". While the occasional major release note may work in the Sibelius article, the guideline is for common sense, and the number of notes that you've included seems to push that limit (no less than 7 for 2018 alone, with updates including "bug fixes" and details on innumerable minutiae such as the various features added). Spintendo 13:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I want to try to bring this to some kind of conclusion.
Colin Fine is unwilling to remove the 'needs additional citations' issue, and I understand why this is. I haven't kept track of the few Magazine reviews (and one broadcast media review) Mozart_the_music_processor has had over the years, so the only citations which could be introduced would be references to Mozart's own documentation. I wouldn't be entirely happy with that, for the same reasons you aren't, though others have done a lot of it - eg about half of the 19 references at Finale_(software) are to 'finale music' and 'Make music' (the manufacturers). (The site Mozart.co.uk has been Mozart's primary means of providing information for over 2 decades and has over 100 pages, so there's lots there that could be linked to, if it weren't deprecated.)
I think I now understand the Wikipedia definition of 'original research' as meaning 'statements that are not found elsewhere'. Again this could be easily overcome with references to where statements are made, such as [ History of Mozart] to the time-line - and I'm wondering if there might be a case for that particular one if it could result in the removal of the 'original research' tag'?
Finally I'd like to be able to continue to make minor changes without people thinking I'm trying to pull the wool over their eyes. So now that I've made the appropriate declarations of interest, can we remove the 'close connection with the subject' tag? (My interest is in maintaining the accuracy, and factual nature, of the article.) Dave Webber ( talk) 09:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: I'd like to remove the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." alert.
Explanation of issue:I've complied with the requirements of COI declaration and indications above are that this may be OK with some.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dave Webber (
talk •
contribs)
10:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
~~~~
. Or, you can use the
[ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)
Spintendo
13:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: External citations of Mozart Music Software. At the end of the first sentence where reference [2] is cited, I'd like to add references (with the usual "<ref>" fields), to 5 magazines which have reviewed various versions of Mozart:
PC Plus, Issue 105, July 1995, p373 | Computer Life, Issue 8, December 1995, p10 | Classical Music, No 680, 31 March 2001 p43 | PC Home, Issue 113, 2001, p45, ISSN 1351-5373 | PC Format, No 168, December 2004, p115
Explanation of issue: There's been a tag on the page since 2013 saying that it needs citations. I didn't think I had many but have just discovered an archive of magazines reviewing Mozart over a period of a decade. Until yesterday, I thought I had thrown them out, but now that I've found them, I'm in a position to add citations as requested. NB I don't plan to quote the articles, as this might look like an advertisement!
References supporting change: see above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Webber ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
|title=
is a required parameter for {{
Cite magazine}}. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)|quote=
parameter is helpful in situations where the reference is only available as a hardcopy and its text is not immediately accessible to everyone. For review puposes the qoute parameter is used during the review stage for verification and then may be deleted from the {{
cite magazine}}
template once it's added to the article.
Spintendo
20:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)I would like to move this article to "Mozart (music processor)" or "Mozart (musical notation software)" (other suggestions welcome!). The current title doesn't fit with Wikipedia's usual habit of giving the name of the subject first, and when clarification is necessary, adding the clarification in brackets (for example, Joseph Brown (astronomer). Wikipedia's usual habit is better, because it makes it clear what is the name of the subject, and what is an arbitrary clarification added by our own editors. In this case, the software is called "Mozart". Beyond this, sources differ in how they describe it. I don't want to do anything silly, so I haven't just done a bold move. Any comments? Elemimele ( talk) 21:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 19-05-2019 ( MarioGom).
|
What exactly makes Mozart (software) non-notable? Maybe for someone who doesn't work with musical notation it is - there aren't so many scorewriting programs around and this one deserves an article more than some others listed here. If the article needs improvement, insert another, fitting template. I'm removing the Prod one. Rosier 12:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Can the user omit the top stave and then compose instumental solos? Musicwriter ( talk) 05:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mozart the music processor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the links to NorMusic as it isn't clear that the latest version of Mozart works with these fonts. Dave Webber ( talk) 10:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Please DON'T delete this file! It is the screen shot of Mozart 14, which replaces the previous one which was a screenshot of Mozart 10 - a much older version. Dave Webber ( talk) 10:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Dave Webber ( talk) 16:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: I'd like to remove the "Multiple issues" box.
Explanation of issue: I recently found that the Mozart the music processor page was out of date and inaccurate. Completely unaware of the 'request edit' and 'COI' procedures, I just made the appropriate changes, even though I am the author of the program the article is about. My apologies. However, I was aware that Wikepedia does not allow adverts, and was therefore keen to do it in a neutral way. With this aim I first studied pages about similar programs - in particular Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and MuseScore - and made sure I didn't do anything to the Mozart the music processor page that wasn't a direct parallel of material on one or more of those pages. I'm still confident that Mozart the music processor is not worded as an advertisement (I just want a neutral, accurate reflection of the program with a little bit of history), and I have now declared an interest with the appropriate templates here and at User_talk:Dave_Webber. I hope, therefore, that the removal of the 'multiple issues' box can be approved.
References supporting change: The Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and MuseScore pages, as noted above, are very similar in spirit and tone.
Dave Webber ( talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Please consult assigning editors
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Thank you!
Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.The sources used in the Sibelius article were primarily from Scoring Notes, a blog run by Philip Rothman and his NYC Music Services, a music preparation service in New York. While the term "self-published" may indicate references published by the software company, it could also mean sites such as blogs, which also count as "self-published". While the occasional major release note may work in the Sibelius article, the guideline is for common sense, and the number of notes that you've included seems to push that limit (no less than 7 for 2018 alone, with updates including "bug fixes" and details on innumerable minutiae such as the various features added). Spintendo 13:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I want to try to bring this to some kind of conclusion.
Colin Fine is unwilling to remove the 'needs additional citations' issue, and I understand why this is. I haven't kept track of the few Magazine reviews (and one broadcast media review) Mozart_the_music_processor has had over the years, so the only citations which could be introduced would be references to Mozart's own documentation. I wouldn't be entirely happy with that, for the same reasons you aren't, though others have done a lot of it - eg about half of the 19 references at Finale_(software) are to 'finale music' and 'Make music' (the manufacturers). (The site Mozart.co.uk has been Mozart's primary means of providing information for over 2 decades and has over 100 pages, so there's lots there that could be linked to, if it weren't deprecated.)
I think I now understand the Wikipedia definition of 'original research' as meaning 'statements that are not found elsewhere'. Again this could be easily overcome with references to where statements are made, such as [ History of Mozart] to the time-line - and I'm wondering if there might be a case for that particular one if it could result in the removal of the 'original research' tag'?
Finally I'd like to be able to continue to make minor changes without people thinking I'm trying to pull the wool over their eyes. So now that I've made the appropriate declarations of interest, can we remove the 'close connection with the subject' tag? (My interest is in maintaining the accuracy, and factual nature, of the article.) Dave Webber ( talk) 09:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: I'd like to remove the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." alert.
Explanation of issue:I've complied with the requirements of COI declaration and indications above are that this may be OK with some.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dave Webber (
talk •
contribs)
10:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
~~~~
. Or, you can use the
[ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)
Spintendo
13:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: External citations of Mozart Music Software. At the end of the first sentence where reference [2] is cited, I'd like to add references (with the usual "<ref>" fields), to 5 magazines which have reviewed various versions of Mozart:
PC Plus, Issue 105, July 1995, p373 | Computer Life, Issue 8, December 1995, p10 | Classical Music, No 680, 31 March 2001 p43 | PC Home, Issue 113, 2001, p45, ISSN 1351-5373 | PC Format, No 168, December 2004, p115
Explanation of issue: There's been a tag on the page since 2013 saying that it needs citations. I didn't think I had many but have just discovered an archive of magazines reviewing Mozart over a period of a decade. Until yesterday, I thought I had thrown them out, but now that I've found them, I'm in a position to add citations as requested. NB I don't plan to quote the articles, as this might look like an advertisement!
References supporting change: see above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Webber ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
|title=
is a required parameter for {{
Cite magazine}}. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)|quote=
parameter is helpful in situations where the reference is only available as a hardcopy and its text is not immediately accessible to everyone. For review puposes the qoute parameter is used during the review stage for verification and then may be deleted from the {{
cite magazine}}
template once it's added to the article.
Spintendo
20:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)I would like to move this article to "Mozart (music processor)" or "Mozart (musical notation software)" (other suggestions welcome!). The current title doesn't fit with Wikipedia's usual habit of giving the name of the subject first, and when clarification is necessary, adding the clarification in brackets (for example, Joseph Brown (astronomer). Wikipedia's usual habit is better, because it makes it clear what is the name of the subject, and what is an arbitrary clarification added by our own editors. In this case, the software is called "Mozart". Beyond this, sources differ in how they describe it. I don't want to do anything silly, so I haven't just done a bold move. Any comments? Elemimele ( talk) 21:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)