Talk:List of music software

Thanks for encouragement, edits, hints and suggestions

Wow, as you've probably experienced, when you start a new article, you often get slammed with criticism, doubts and all those rules that I don't really get. I've been overwhelmed with all the support, thanks and assistance I've gotten from admins, beauros and editors! (Sniff). Thanks especially for the editing help and many suggestions on how to improve, I've tried to include EVERY suggestion and hint as soon as received. As for the numerous suggestions to "fold" other articles into this one, can I respectfully ask that we not do this (suggesting is ok, but let's discuss first until this takes shape) before making a mass inclusion. For example, one admin was going to post pulling other music software articles into this, but the one they suggested had only "free" software, and I'd like this list to include both commercial and open source/free, ok?

Also, I'd (to start) like to put the many other related articles in the see also section or main article/see also templates, with mutual links, rather than immediately merging certain other sections into this article. For example, many searches on Google/Bing refer to the "music software" template, but that template itself doesn't list any music software! IMHO the LIST of those should go here, but not the explanations, comparisons, etc. On the flip side, there are long articles on music software that only have one small section on an actual list, and if the consensus says integrate that here, I will, but I've already been doing that without removing it from the other articles. I leave it to wiser and more experienced editors to decide that one.

I've also gotten suggestions that I follow section titles of other articles, but checking on those suggested, they are all over the board! I am more than happy to completely revamp the taxonomy here, but would like to do it as a consensus exercise, not continual and varying revamps an editor at a time, where they don't agree? Let me know. THANK you again for your help and encouragement and especially edits and suggestions. Pdecalculus (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Catch on VLC

Thanks for adding this link, it is a great, free alternative-- GOOD CATCH. The only (slight) change I made is to change the link from a disambig to the actual player article (VLC vs. VLC media player). A wiki bot will warn/remove if article links are actually sent to disambigs, thanks! Pdecalculus (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Selection criteria

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, the simple selection criteria for this list is: 1. Membership as a link in the category of music software. If the software suggested is music software, but a new category or kind of music software, add it in a new section. 2. Notable enough to either a. Have its own wiki article, or b. Have an external download on an active website or known download site like sourceforge or github, with either inline cite, reference or external link to source. b applies to sections/categories of very new science, eg. music mining, and is current software, but does not yet have an article. Per the Manual of Style, a small number can have red article links suggesting that editors may consider writing an article, but the majority should be notable via article, download, cite, or common sense. Any entry should help readers by adding to human knowledge as well as navigation within Wiki. A final notability requirement is that this article is not intended to catalog wayback software that is now defunct (the list would grow too long). If that's your intent, you might consider a new list of defunct music software. Note: commercial software may be included, as this is not only a list of freeware.Pdecalculus (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

YES, thanks for the suggestion, I've added that to the description criteria: If a software program fits numerous categories (eg a DAW), limit the listing to the top few categories.Pdecalculus (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External link corrections completed

I've moved all the helpful external links (many of these need their own articles, as the field of computational music is a mess on wiki, I teach it) to references to comply with the "no body links" that the editor and his bot were tagging about. Please stop reverting my removal of the box, it has been fixed and is now compliant! When construction is complete, this will be peer reviewed. Pdecalculus (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup, NOT revert!

Thanks for notation add (IP user). I didn't revert it, I only corrected the parenthetical markup which I believe you intended to be a bracketed external link. I also moved that link to references (if you put too many externals in the body, the article will get boxed as link farming), but if the software is notable (which your add certainly is), we can simply put the external cite as a ref, thanks. Pdecalculus (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Organ edit

Admin/bot: Yes, I realize that the organ edit was out of format, but I'm letting it "be" for a bit as a thank you to the editor who did it (check, it wasn't my edit!). I don't want him/her to perceive that I'm copping or picking on his/her contributions, as I'm grateful for the contributions. I cleaned up the reference and will finish cleanup in a week or so once the editor sees I'm grateful and not reverting, tinkering, or getting petty, and thanks for your catch, and interest, too. Thanks also for the invitation, I'll check out the consolidations you requested.Pdecalculus (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Faith Spam?

An inexperienced, IP only editor removed a "redundant" entry in good faith, and while doing so, unknowingly removed column markups that spammed the whole bottom part of the article. Please CHECK to see the effects of your edit after it is done, thanks. I had to go way back to a legacy version as the undo wouldn't correct the problem.Pdecalculus (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)