Talk:MuseScore

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Classical music: Compositions

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The following Wikipedia contributors 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.

ZackTheCardshark (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Volunteer contributions to open source project development and documentation writing http://musescore.org/en/user/101731 https://musescore.org/en/node/98661/revisions https://musescore.org/en/node/104676)
riaanvn (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (http://musescore.org/en/user/1123171 Volunteer contributions to open source project documentation)

Notability and Neutrality[edit]

For those with an interest in establishing clearer criteria for notability of FOSS articles such as this one, please see this WP:N discussion.

Thanks.

ThomasNichols (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Neutrality is an issue on this article. If I had been in the discussion, I'd vote to keep the article. Rustyfence (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article really seems to be an advertisment. Can a neutral source write about this, and if they can find it, include a third party review? Thanks! Mr. Anon 515 05:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, article marked as such now. To start with, sections like Internationalization and localization and Support are of no value, Development talks too much about GitHub and Git, the external links section has a lot of links to reviews which should either be removed or included as references to have any value.--Forage (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment and reply are 8 and 6 years old respectively. Having recently started contributing to the article, I cannot see any of the original concerns being an issue any more. Localization was moved to the Infobox; the Support section was removed. External links section had links to Musescore and OpenScore, which have been linked to from the main article. I therefore removed the "External Links" section. Riaanvn (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importing Capella files[edit]

I wrote that MuseScore can only import Capella files in "cap3" format, not the current CapXML format. Actually I am not sure, if MuseScore cannot also include the cap2 format, which was used by the first Windows version of Capella, i.e. version 2.x. There are quite a number of musical scores in that format available on the Web. User Etsnyman seems to have first hand knowledge about MuseScore, so maybe this user can clarify this question. Cap3 files are distinguishable from Cap3 formats by having the string "cap3" în the first four bytes of the file, while cap2 files begin with just binary characters (it seems that those are always hex '8B E2 B3 74', but that is not certain). So, if user Etsnyman or his colleage Toemaz could clarify this, and this "cap3" replace by "the binary formats 'CAP'" or something to this effect, if both cap2 and cap3 formats can be imported by MuseScore. Thanks in advance! --L.Willms (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the MuseScore version Handbook, 3 File Formats page, "MuseScore imports version 2000 (3.0) or later fairly accurately". If this is still relevant and important to you, please ask on the MuseScore support forums. Riaanvn (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

contributor license agreement[edit]

shouldn't this be acknowledge somewhere near where it is called 'free software' and under which license it is?

http://musescore.org/cla

under the developing heading on https://musescore.org/en/development

MuseScore source code is available at GitHub (commits feed). The preferred way to contribute is via Pull Request. Read our Git Workflow page to learn how to make a pull request. You need to sign the MuseScore CLA for your request to be merged.

the CLA contradicts laws in many regions and surrenders rights that can't be surrendered ever in countries like Germany

72.35.155.144 (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been added to the Development section in the past 6-9 months (could not find the exact edit). Riaanvn (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of languages "available"[edit]

The article currently claims that Musescore is "available" in 65 languages, but this is not true in any reasonable sense. What it means is that Musescore is open-source, and anyone can translate the system strings into any languages; currently the translation project has 65 languages registered. The show/hide box lists 15 languages, which we can presume to be (at least more or less) supported, and 10 more at "75%". I think this could be best written as "Available in ten languages, plus partial support for many more". I will remove the Transifex reference, as it does not support the claim. Any other suggestions? Imaginatorium (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reasoning of 65 languages being an unreasonable claim. Or how do you get to 10 instead of 15? I believe the Transifex reference does support the claim of 15 languages since it shows the 15 languages 100% or very close to at the top). How would you argue it does not support the claim? Riaanvn (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

My (Riaanvn (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)) suggestion for the language-related infobox fields:[reply]

| language count = 15
| language footnote = <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.transifex.com/musescore/musescore/dashboard/ |title=Transifex.com translation portal for MuseScore}}</ref>
| language = Afrikaans, Catalan, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, Galician, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Swedish

I thought I counted 10, but if it's 15 that's fine by me. I suggest restoring the Transifex ref to support this. I just removed it because it did not support the spurious 65. I think it would be reasonable to say something like "Languages: 15 plus partial support for many more", but these infobox parameters are horribly rigid and this may not be easily possible. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I just reread my own comment above, and realised that my "ten" was a misreading of my own previous sentence. Sorry! Imaginatorium (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. I have applied the edit. You are welcome to close/archive this thread, if you think it can be closed. Riaanvn (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is no need in general to "close" talk page threads, except for special RFC (reqest for comment) and similar bits. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence removed from article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section Adoption, VALO-CD from 2012 distributing MuseScore 1.3[edit]

"MuseScore was also included in the VALO-CD collection, which provides free software for Microsoft Windows." The version on the CD and the version that their site link to is 1.3. I don't think this is notable (any more). Any objections if I delete this sentence? Riaanvn (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts[edit]

Shouldn't there be a split be a split between the website and the software (since there is in real life)? Adamilo (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they're distinctly different things. I suggest splitting most of § Online score sharing, § Crowd-sourced engraving projects, and § MuseScore.com copyright issues into Musescore.com. Eman 235/talk 00:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Product manager Martin Keary[edit]

I think the MuseScore project has really gained some steam with the hiring of composer/designer Martin Keary. The application seems to be rapidly developing with visual overhauls and improvements to user friendliness. With version 3.6 they included two new typefaces for better engraving, one of them was even painstakingly designed from scratch.

It seems reasonable to mention these changes in some form in the article. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mu̇̑sescore[edit]

mu̇̑sescore is a stylization for Musescore. Can I detail that on the article? Faster than Thunder (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Faster than Thunder: My guess would be no per MOS:NOSYMBOLS, however there might be something that allows that if it's only stylization as I had a hard time finding something related to this, whether it was permittable or not. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is musescore owned by Russians?[edit]

It's a simple question - is Musescore owned by Russians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Herbxue (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does this question relate to improving the article? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles on companies have some history or background info, including ownership and headquarters.Herbxue (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MuseScore 4.0[edit]

@Robby.is.on: If development releases can’t be listed, then why is there a section called Pre-releases? SportsFan007 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsFan007: Already, the article relies only primary sources, i.e. pages from MuseScore's official website, for the sourcing of version updates. We shouldn't be doing that. :See WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Exhaustive logs of software updates. 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."

If we were unable to source MuseScore releases to secondary sources that would suggest they are WP:UNDUE. I think with pre-releases like alphas, betas and the like we're safely in WP:UNDUE territory.

The "pre-releases" before the release of version 1.0 were the only releases of MuseScore available. See this quote from Software versioning#Pre-release versions: "Some systems use numerical versions less than 1 (such as 0.9), to suggest their approach toward a final "1.0" release. This is a common convention in open source software." I think it's more likely they're due for inclusion. Does that make sense to you? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: Ah ok, thank you for explaining. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MuseScore notation app rebranded as "MuseScore Studio". How to refer to it now?[edit]

I made an edit that added the news about the rebranding of the notation app as "MuseScore Studio".

Now I am wondering how to refer to the notation app in this article...should we replace all instances of "MuseScore" into "MuseScore Studio" when specifically talking about the notation app? Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't had a release of MuseScore since the rename. So I'd wait at least till version 4.3. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]