Talk:Sibelius (scorewriter)

Computing: Software / RISC OS Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is within the scope of the RISC OS task force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Bfinn (talk · contribs) / Bfinn This user has contributed to the article.

Opening music

The program plays a brief passage from one of Jean Sibelius' symphonies when it is started up (which symphony is quoted depends on the version of the software).

Does this count for Acorn computer versions? Sibelius 3 for Windows quotes Symphony No. 5 while Sibelius 2 quotes Symphony No. 7. --Puzzlet Chung 06:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, the Acorn programs didn't have any startup music. Ben Finn 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a chart showing the versions of the software and the passage quoted, with rehearsal letter or bar number. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a great idea --Sauronjim (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh heh...

"(It is not clear what will happen to the name if and when the software reaches version 7.)"

Nice touch, guys =) Kareeser 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn 'version' numbers

The original Acorn version of the software was called Sibelius 7, but the "7" was not a version number.

Is this right? I could have sworn I used a 'Sibelius 6' on the Acorn... or read a manual, or something... chrismear 10:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius 6 was (is) a cut-down version of Sibelius 7 for schools/amateurs - it's not an early version of Sibelius 7. Sibelius 7 went through versions 1, 2, 3, 3.5, as did Sibelius 6. Ben Finn 10:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... it all becomes clear. Cheers! chrismear 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criminy, it says as much in the article, doesn't it? Another A-grade for reading comprehension over here please... chrismear 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

screenshot

Would it be at all possible to get a screenshot of Sibelius, preferably of the same musical passage as in the screenshot for the article on Finale? Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added such a Sib4 screenshot (different score though, the double violing concerto sample that is included with Sibelius) Moltovivace 02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I've deleted an external link to a (critical) review which is effectively a blog on an unknown author's website. There remains a (favourable) review on a saxophone web site which I have also deleted, both to retain balance and because I doubt that web site is at all well-known either.

I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on links to reviews, but given how many times Sibelius has apparently been reviewed over the years by proper magazines etc, can I suggest that any links to reviews at least be to reputable, widely-known publications that readers can trust? 84.69.158.125 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

In line with Wikipedia naming policy, shouldn't this article be renamed to e.g. 'Sibelius (music software)', since the product itself is called 'Sibelius', not 'Sibelius notation program'? (Declaration of interest: I'm one of the original developers.) Ben Finn 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, for two reasons: consistency with the policy ('Sibelius notation program' is not the name of the subject) and the fact that "notation program" is not a good specification anyway.

I will move it now, because the absence of objection during the 2-month period passed since your question indicates nobody will object if it's done, while the absence of approving replies doesn't indicate anyone will object.Magi pavra 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I just did a major cleanup of the article; merged SibeliusMusic in and tidied up the article so it doesn't sound like the ad. Could people please review and check what I've done? A million heads are better than one! Jaser 12345 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me so I've removed the issues tag. Ben Finn (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius 5

Sibelius 5 was just launched yesterday. It would be helpful to see some info about it on this page. Justin Tokke 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? A mention of the new features listed at Sibelius.com? Or something beyond that (which would probably require use of the program, which would be quite challenging given its very recent release)? (BTW, good to see your name around - I neglected to resubscribe to the SibeliusMusic.com fora when I changed machines, and don't really feel the need to now. How's the trombone concerto coming?) Stannered 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sibelius Screenshot.jpg

Image:Sibelius Screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Sibelius avid blue th.png

Image:Sibelius avid blue th.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The intro now seems a reasonable summary to me - so perhaps the boilerplate should be removed. I have made a few changes (disclaimer: I'm one of the original creators). Ben Finn (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilypond

I've noticed that some sad person keeps adding spurious references to the relatively little-known program Lilypond to this and other articles, and adding the word 'proprietary' as an oblique reference to the fact that Lilypond is non-proprietary (i.e. open-source). I assume this is a marketing drive by someone connected with Lilypond. I've deleted these yet again. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again Lilypond has been added by some saddo, and so I've deleted it. Whoever is doing this, please note that just because Wikipedia is free, it doesn't mean it can be used for free advertising for crappy freeware. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lilypond is not freeware, it is not crappy, and it is not little-known. I personally am not a fan of it, but it is the best-known open-source scorewriter. Stannered (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if Lilypond is removed from "See also" because it's advertising, then we'd have to remove Finale etc. for the same reason. Rigaudon (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finale is the main competitor to Sibelius, but it could be deleted too (as it is mentioned earlier in the article anyway). There have been dozens of scorewriters, so they should either all be included (which is ridiculous given the number), or none. So I have re-deleted Lilypond (which has reappeared, surprise surprise) and Finale. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Stannerd is correct. Lilypond is cross-platform, open source software that runs on Linux, among other operating systems, while Sibelius isn't, but I wouldn't expect anonymous user 93.96.236.8 and other Windows-only or Mac-only twits to be able to grasp the concept of "other" operating systems or "open source" free software. It's worth a mention in the article for music geeks and computer geeks who appreciate and use more than one operating system. Incidentally, the Lilypond article has a link to Sibelius (software): According to the reasoning of 93.96.236.8, that link should be deleted.—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the link to Sibelius in the Lilypond article should be deleted - whatever. But this article should not have any specific reference to Lilypond any more than to any of the other minor scorewriters. It's wonderful to hear that Lilypond is cross-platform and open source and runs on Linux; such information belongs in the Lilypond article and talk page, not the Sibelius one. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems editors on both sides of this debate are being driven by their own point of view, and not exactly being civil about it. What's right for the article? There is already a link to a list of scorewriters. Unless there is a reference to Finale being Sibelius's main competitor, I'd suggest that statement should be removed. The section on competitors could also have a general sentence to say open source software is available, without mentioning names. Readers can then view the list page if they are interested in the names of either commercial or open source competitors. JRawle (Talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another editor has just removed the section in question while I was replying. JRawle (Talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of List of scorewriters and {{Scorewriters}} (with no other mentions in the text) seems fair and sensible. Long may it remain that way! --Trevj (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius 7

Sibelius 7 has been released! I'm going to update the article as necessary. Please help! 204.78.0.199 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]