Talk:Mozart the music processor

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can the user omit the top stave and then compose instumental solos?
Musicwriter (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (although not appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page:) I'm not quite sure I understand the question. The user can put as many or as few staves on the page as necessary. There are some illustrations and a fully functional evaluation version at the program's web page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instumental solos 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708103319/http://jazzfile.free.fr/NorMusic%20Fonts%20MOZART%20Examples.htm to http://jazzfile.free.fr/NorMusic%20Fonts%20MOZART%20Examples.htm
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) 08:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dave! As the file is stored at Wikimedia Commons, you have to argue your case at . Alternatively, it can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia with a similar fair use rationale (WP:FUR) as can be seen at :File:Mozart (software) logo.png. Those rationales are not accepted at Commons – they need an OTRS ticket to verify that you release the screenshot under a free license; see Commons:OTRS. Regards, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Hi Michael,  in that case I'm confused.  I tried to upload it on my Mozart page and the system refused, but directed me to go to the Commons area.   I'm happy to upload it however Wikipedia prefers, as long as it lets me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Webber (talk • contribs) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: One method of uploading to the English Wikipedia is at Special:Upload. The licensing to select is "Software screenshot" and then add Template:Non-free use rationale software screenshot to it after uploading it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Michael,  Thanks for this.  I've uploaded a second screenshot Mozart14a.jpg in the way you suggested, and linked to it.  (How on earth does one find out about stuff like this?)  I may not have completed the procedure but will attempt to do so.   I am now happy for the original mozart14.jpg, which I put in the Commons, to be deleted.   Do I have to do anything about that?
Dave Webber (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Spintendo  13:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry!  I'll try and remember!  Dave Webber (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who tagged it has untagged it. Explanations in the preceding section. Usedtobecool (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change

message: 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)
replies: text: Could you please add the titles of those magazine articles, and possibly their authors?  is a required parameter for . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Michael,  I've added the titles as requested - thanks for the 'cite' templates: I wouldn't have known how to do that correctly.   I hope it isn't too impertinent but I've added one more which I found after putting the 'request' here.  The citations now cover the period 1995-2010 and I think that's it, as I see no prospect of finding any more for the moment.  Dave Webber (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the  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  template once it's added to the article.  Spintendo  20:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I've now added 'quote' fields to the recent magazine citations.  I've tried to make them long enough to give a flavour of the respective articles and focused on passages which most directly support the Wikipedia page - particularly in the 'Features' section.   Hope they serve the  purpose!   Dave Webber (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed changes

message: 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)
replies: text: 1) "Mozart the music processor" is actually the program's trademark™, so it's not unreasonable as an article name. 2) Current disambiguators used for :Category:Scorewriters include "(notation program)", "(music software)", and "(scorewriter)" ("software" cannot be used for Mozart because of ), so there's no single standard, but "musical notation software" seems overly verbose. 3) "(music processor)" is a made-up disambiguator that fits no existing scheme. There's already a redirect from , which is the name on the box. I'm not convinced that a move is necessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, if that's its actual trademark name, then let's leave it where it is. I agree, in any case, that it's hard to find a better title that's not verbose. Thanks for the information on the trademark. As a dedicated MuseScore user I didn't know its official full name! Elemimele (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move