Talk:Mozart the music processor

Untitled
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)

Instumental solos
Can the user omit the top stave and then compose instumental solos? Musicwriter (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (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)

External links modified (February 2018)
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)

I've removed the links to NorMusic as it isn't clear that the latest version of Mozart works with these fonts. Dave Webber (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Mozart14.jpg

Please DON'T delete this file! It is the screen shot of Mozart 14, which replaces the previous one which was a screenshot of Mozart 10 - a much older version. Dave Webber (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave! As the file is stored at Wikimedia Commons, you have to argue your case at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mozart14.jpg. 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 OTRS. Regards, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Some proposed changes
Information to be added or removed: I'd like to remove the "Multiple issues" box.

Explanation of issue: I recently found that the Mozart the music processor page was out of date and inaccurate. Completely unaware of the 'request edit' and 'COI' procedures, I just made the appropriate changes, even though I am the author of the program the article is about. My apologies. However, I was aware that Wikepedia does not allow adverts, and was therefore keen to do it in a neutral way. With this aim I first studied pages about similar programs - in particular Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and MuseScore - and made sure I didn't do anything to the Mozart the music processor page that wasn't a direct parallel of material on one or more of those pages. I'm still confident that Mozart the music processor is not worded as an advertisement (I just want a neutral, accurate reflection of the program with a little bit of history), and I have now declared an interest with the appropriate templates here and at User_talk:Dave_Webber. I hope, therefore, that the removal of the 'multiple issues' box can be approved.

References supporting change: The Sibelius (scorewriter), Finale (software), and MuseScore pages, as noted above, are very similar in spirit and tone.

Dave Webber (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 19-MAY-2019

 * It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editors who assigned the templates — in this case,  for the advert and refimprove templates and  for the COI template — in order to find out from them if they can be removed. Since they placed those templates, they are in the best positions to know whether or not the issues which caused their placements have been corrected. You may contact them by placing new messages on their talk pages. In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please reopen this request by altering the  template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  16:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Spintendo: Note that I was myself just doing quick patrol on COI edits and I did not review this thoroughly. I am ok with removing the COI template given that other editors consider that it is reviewed and the issues with advert language are solved. The bullet listing of features here is what makes it look as an advertisement, in my opinion. Although I see that it is common practice on other similar articles. --MarioGom (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mario for your reply. I would modify then, my suggestion that the COI editor contact only ColinFine to determine what is needed for the templates they placed to be removed. Although they placed those templates almost 6 years ago, ColinFine is still actively editing Wikipedia, and may be able to offer input. The COI editor should take note of their suggestions, should they have any, and then suggest those changes as a COI edit request. I hasten to add that in my opinion, the needs addressed by the advert and refimprove templates have not been met. Much of the content remains unreferenced, and the listing of different releases of the software appears like an advertisement — not to mention that it appears to violate WP:RELEASENOTES. Regards, Spintendo  16:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone. I'm confused by the release notes comment.  I deliberately modelled the time-line on those of Sibelius (scorewriter) and Finale_(software) which no-one seems to have taken exception to.    Can you explain how it's different - especially from the latter?   Dave Webber (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RELEASENOTES states 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. The sources used in the Sibelius article were primarily from Scoring Notes, a blog run by Philip Rothman and his NYC Music Services, a music preparation service in New York. While the term "self-published" may indicate references published by the software company, it could also mean sites such as blogs, which also count as "self-published". While the occasional major release note may work in the Sibelius article, the guideline is for common sense, and the number of notes that you've included seems to push that limit (no less than 7 for 2018 alone, with updates including "bug fixes" and details on innumerable minutiae such as the various features added). Spintendo  13:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the conflict of interest tag can be removed because I don't see content which can be said to be biased by virtue of having been added by the editor with a conflict. One of "Additional citation needed" or "original research" tags must remain at this time because a lot of information is not sourced and we have only your word on the accuracy of the information. It's even likely that some other editor might remove these uncited contents. Usedtobecool (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Finale cites plenty of secondary sources. Its also likely that no experienced user has looked closely at those articles. And they may be tagged with similar issues, if they have it when they do so. Usedtobecool (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I want to try to bring this to some kind of conclusion.

Colin Fine is unwilling to remove the 'needs additional citations' issue, and I understand why this is. I haven't kept track of the few Magazine reviews (and one broadcast media review) Mozart_the_music_processor has had over the years, so the only citations which could be introduced would be references to Mozart's own documentation. I wouldn't be entirely happy with that, for the same reasons you aren't, though others have done a lot of it - eg about half of the 19 references at Finale_(software) are to 'finale music' and 'Make music' (the manufacturers). (The site Mozart.co.uk has been Mozart's primary means of providing information for over 2 decades and has over 100 pages, so there's lots there that could be linked to, if it weren't deprecated.)

I think I now understand the Wikipedia definition of 'original research' as meaning 'statements that are not found elsewhere'. Again this could be easily overcome with references to where statements are made, such as [History of Mozart] to the time-line - and I'm wondering if there might be a case for that particular one if it could result in the removal of the 'original research' tag'?

Finally I'd like to be able to continue to make minor changes without people thinking I'm trying to pull the wool over their eyes. So now that I've made the appropriate declarations of interest, can we remove the 'close connection with the subject' tag? (My interest is in maintaining the accuracy, and factual nature, of the article.)  Dave Webber (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello again Dave, I think it'll hold if you cite all the claims in the article with the score-writer's own website and/or documentations. In that case, original research tag will be removed, even needs additional citations tag could be removed; but it will get tagged with "mostly cites primary sources". If and when all that happens, I am willing to go over the whole article and edit it for neutrality and then, if no one else objects, I could remove the conflict of interest tag as well (so far as I understand it, COI isn't compulsory if independent editors can vouch for neutrality), but only if you will stop editing the article yourself afterwards. You can suggest edits in the talk page with precisely what you want removed, and precisely what added and where. Wikipedians seem to like this approach than directly editing your own page. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am promising more than I can deliver. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Template:COI page makes it clear that any independent editor can remove the tag on their discretion if the user that added the tag didn't start a discussion about what content (apparently affected by the COI) prompted them to add the tag. And, the tag can be removed after those issues are resolved. So, Dave Webber, it seems I can do that. So, that's that. See what you can do, about what I said on the preceding paragraph. Usedtobecool (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the COI tag (added it myself initially). Dave is on his way to proper compliance. --MarioGom (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello again Usedtobecool, I've now cited the timeline page of the program's web site.   And I've reformatted other references into what appears to be the proper format for them.
 * I'm still a little conflicted about citing the program's own pages. For example, I could support the 'intermediate releases' statement with a link to [Mozart news page] (which has continuous news entries of major and intermediate releases starting in 1997!) but I don't think many people would find it interesting, and so I've been sparing with citations and not done so.
 * I'm more than happy to use the talk page to suggest any new edits I want to make - I didn't know about this mechanism, or the talk pages (or indeed viewing history) two days ago, or I'd have done it then. (Probably my fault - I'd never looked.)   But anyway I don't envisage wanting to do anything major in the near future.  (As I say my objective was to have the article reflect its subject as it is now, rather than as it was 10 years ago!   Now that it does, I'm happy enough on that score.)  Dave Webber (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change
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)


 * Spintendo 13:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


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

Some proposed changes
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 " " 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)
 * Could you please add the titles of those magazine articles, and possibly their authors? title is a required parameter for Cite magazine. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The use of the quote 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)


 * 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)

Proposed move
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)