Talk:Logic Pro

message: Do we really need a complete listing of all technical specifications of this software on wikipedia? Wouldn't a link to Apple's page be sufficient?
Kickin' Da Speaker 05:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just searching for information about the audio engine (32 or 64 bit). Would've been nice to have it here, that information. :( 80.171.57.21 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tech Specs

message: I'm sure you're keen on this software, but sentences like "This was a tremendous event...and  "Notator was like a dream come true..." are POV and sound like they were written by an Apple marketing flak. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. Cavort 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In fact, the entire "Early history" section needs a rewrite. In addition to the POV comments, it is confusing (how can a software application have "a clean 'hi res.' paperwhite display, like the Mac, but larger"?), incomplete (when did Emagic acquire Logic?), and goes off on a U.S.-centric tangent (why is the U.S. debut of the software given special mention?). --emw 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enthusiasm

message: To , regarding your removal of information from this article that is supported by third-party reference an on-topic:
When you removed the information, the edit summaries you used were as follows:
*(No other software article on Wikipedia lists all the history of bugs or incompatibilities. Doesn't make sense to list ONE of the many bugs that are or have been present in Logic in the past.)
*(This article is not the place to make a history of features that were at one point in the past broken.) 
*(Many 3rd party compatibilities with LP have been broken at various point. We don't need the list here. Maybe start a page on Logic/TDM compability and link it at the bottom of the article?)
The reason I've restored the info each time is that this is an encyclopedia article about this software package, including both current and historical information.  The article must follow the Wikipedia core policy of WP:NPOV (neutral point of view).  That means, we don't leave information out just because it might seem negative.  There is another core policy, WP:V (verifiability), that asks us to include information only when it can be verified with reliable source references. 
The article already includes all sorts of detailed information that has nothing to do with describing how wonderful the program is today -  history about how and when it was started, the various names it went through, when various features were added, and even the list price when it was first released.
Instead of removing valid information, why don't you expand the article further?  You say in your edit summaries that there were other 3rd party compatibilities that were broken in the past.  You could add that information, and we could improve the article with a separate section heading about third party compatibility, how it's evolved, what worked when, and what didn't.
The point is, the article needs to provide as much information on the topic as we can, that has references to support it, without biasing the discussion to either the positive or negative.  I recommend that you read the links I included to the two core policies, and instead of erasing valid information, contribute to the article by adding more information.
Thanks.  --Parsifal Hello 07:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical info includes both features and bugs 

message: Lets face it. There's not a lot of difference between the two now. Most information about Logic Express on this encyclopedia is in this article anyway, so every time you want to find anything about Express you go to the pro article to find it.
If people want to make changes to the Express article to change information about Earlier differences between the 2 programs I think they should stay separate but as far as current versions of the software are concerned they are exactly the same except for 4 differences that could easily be (and I think, possibly already are) mentioned here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbi (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we merge Logic Express into this article

message: I added the following to the notable users section in a hidden comment:
"Please do not add any more artists to this list. The list we have is sufficient. If you believe a crucially important artist is missing from this list, please comment on the talk page."
The other day someone reverted a random addition to this list with the summary "the list could go on forever", and I'm inclined to agree. Practically anyone big who creates their music digitally with a sequencer is bound to use Logic, it's an industry standard. If anyone disagrees with my addition please feel free to tell me. - Zeibura (Talk) 05:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden comment added to notable users section 

message: :Image:Space Designer Logic Effect.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Space Designer Logic Effect.png

message: The Early History section was very confused about the origins of Logic. Logic did not originate as Notator, it was the successor of Notator, rewritten from scratch and totally different. I've tried to include sufficient detail to explain this distinction, but I'm now left with the feeling that there's too much here and what's really needed is a separate article about Notator to which this can link. Any views?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.15.38 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notator 

message: The final (2002) version of Logic available for Windows was not version 6 but version 5.5.  I know because I continued to use it for six years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarretc (talk • contribs) 06:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versioning 

message: An image used in this article, File:Ringshifter.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 June 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ringshifter.png)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ringshifter.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I just saw an ad for a Logic Pro e-cigarette device.  Is it the same company? 69.62.243.64 (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  That appears to be made by a different company, according to its website.  -Philippe  (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: E-cigarette?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Logic Pro. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20141202191148/http://www.blog.logitunes.com/history-of-daw/ to http://www.blog.logitunes.com/history-of-daw/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001083357/http://www.xlr8r.com/news/2009/07/first-look-logic-pro-9 to http://www.xlr8r.com/news/2009/07/first-look-logic-pro-9
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would like to change the image for the Space Designer effect to a newer one, as the plugin was redesigned. However, I'm not autoconfirmed, so I can't upload it. 
I took this screenshot of it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/170ywJNTofnkuKq-I0DAwHjoOkNWVw_ln/view?usp=sharing --Nzsaltz (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Designer Image 

message: Short-lived pared down version of Logic Pro can be covered as a section in this article ~Kvng (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, after this this discussion at WikiProject Apple Inc. This is pretty standard for software suites like Microsoft Office, or Adobe products; for example, Photoshop Elements redirects to Adobe Photoshop.  DFlhb (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Support. Usually, I'd be opposed, but looking at the article's size makes me realize merging them would be the best thing to do. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose. All the Logic Express article needs is some expanding, which most would be happy to do. Plus, Compressor and Motion still have their own articles even though they are just companion softwares to Final Cut Pro (like Logic Express was to Logic Pro). Just because the article is short doesn't necessarily mean it should be merged. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Support too small to stand on its own. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Logic Express]] into [[Logic Pro]]