Talk:Sibelius (scorewriter)/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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.Magipavra 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)


 * 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.&mdash;QuicksilverT @ 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

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.  J Rawle  (Talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, another editor has just removed the section in question while I was replying.  J Rawle  (Talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

Did the purchase of the original Sibelius 7 include all updates?
I have a vague recollection that the original Sibelius 7 for Archimedes was a one-off purchase, which was to include all subsequent updates. Is this right? If so, I would like to see the fact included in the early history part of the software. Gerry246 (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was true for users who bought in the first few months of the business. After that we stopped the policy. Ben Finn (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AVID
Who wants to add some information about the purchase of Sibelius by Avid_Technology and their disastrous decision to close the UK office?


 * Refer Save Sibelius Chrisdevelop (talk)

John Link (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Degrees?
When I first saw Sibelius running shortly after its release, I was old that one of the twins had done a maths degree, and the other a music degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.255.115 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I ended up doing a philosophy degree (having switched from music); Jonathan did a music degree. Ben Finn (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Import Finale files?
Will it? Enquiring minds want to know. Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not directly, though it imports MusicXML files which you can export from Finale. Ben Finn (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Sibelius Software
There is a merger suggestion at the top of the article more than a year old (since November 2012). No one discussed it (including the person who originally placed it), and I disagree with the proposal: Both the company and its flagship product merit separate articles. According to my understanding, Sibelius is an industry standard, along with Finale. Products that are industry standards must have have their own articles. Therefore, I will remove the merger suggestion. - The Aviv (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger, per WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG. Therefore, I agree with The Aviv's removal of the merge tag. (In fact, I was close to removing this myself the other day!) -- Trevj (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The names are too similar. Perhaps ‘Sibelius (scorewriter) is more appropriate. Chrisdevelop (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This subject has come up again at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_22. Avid Tech are the owners of Sibelius and have their own page, so there is no need to have a separate page for Sibelius Software. The proposals are to Merge the two articles, and to Rename the new article 'Sibelius (scorewriter)'. Chrisdevelop (talk)

'Save Sibelius' campaign
Save Sibelius

This page was originally a paragraph in an article being constructed in Sandbox about the activist and musician, Derek Williams. It was migrated in an attempt to reduce the size of the Williams article, despite adding to his notability. However, the article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was not a notable campaign. After that, there was one vote to Keep, one to Merge to Sibelius (software) and another to Merge to Sibelius Software, so it’s hard to see this as ‘consensus’ to Merge to Sibelius Software (different page to Sibelius (software)). Summary of the 4 votes:
 * Speedy deletion
 * Keep
 * Merge to Sibelius (software)
 * Merge to Sibelius Software

No option received more than one vote, so the current consensus is 3/1 not to erase the content, and 2/1 to Merge to either Sibelius (software) or Sibelius Software (one of which should be renamed to avoid confusion). Another option is to reintegrate the content back to the Derek Williams article, and see what fate that suffers. If the entire Williams article ends up being deleted along similar lines, then mention could still be made of the Save Sibelius campaign under the articles: orphaned technology, abandonware, planned obsolescence, asset stripping Chrisdevelop (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a Deletion Review going on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_22 Chrisdevelop (talk)

Proposal to merge Sibelius Software into this page and rename this page 'Sibelius (scorewriter)'
Please refer: Merging


 * Merge - Sibelius is owned by Avid Tech, with Sibelius Software a subsidiary. There is no need to have three separate articles for the holding company, its subsidiary and the product the subsidiary produces, as the primary interest lies in the Sibelius scorewriter software itself.  Confusion is also caused by the two articles having nearly identical names, moreover 'scorewriter' is now accepted in concomitant nomenclature and is less generic than 'software'.  Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge some of Sibelius Software into Avid (company) and some here. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article has now been renamed 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' in accordance with this notice, and in accordance with contemporary parlance for music notation software. Notes for changes are in the history. Other changes and improvements to the article's organisation have been made in preparation for the Merge. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge from Sibelius Software completed
Chrisdevelop (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge from 'Save Sibelius' campaign completed
Chrisdevelop (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

copyvio and sourcing
Yes the content was supposed to be merged however the article was essentially hijacked and turned into a Derek Williams-fest. The content was taken from here and here and is promotional and sourced to Williams' website which is not a reliable source. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

reverted article to version 14th May, see diff, on the grounds that the article now was non neutral, copyvio and non notable. A lot of the edits done recently by seem to be improvements to me without the attributes made by the claim. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The changes are attributed to a non-notable person for whom he is being paid to write about and while I appreciate the disclosure, it isn't encyclopedic, it's a copyright violation and essentially hijacks the article. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intervention. On the reverter's Talk page, I have requested details of the alleged copyright violations, and for the reverter to specify the  violations.  I am not being paid to edit anything on Wikipedia! Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a way forward would be to take the improvements from the contentious version and remove any copyvio and excessive use of any source.
 * It is probably best for discussion regarding the article to be here rather than on talk pages.
 * Unfortunately, I haven't got time now to review both versions of the article at the moment.
 * Jonpatterns (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The 'Save Sibelius' campaign was up for a very long time, and was initially nominated for deletion. After some discussion, a consensus was reached to Merge with Sibelius Software.  I meanwhile nominated Sibelius Software to be merged with Siibelius (software) for reasons given out on the Talk pages of both articles.  That has sat unchallenged since last year, and so after merging those two, I then carried out the merge with Save Sibelius.  I don't see this as a "Derek Williams-fest", since the Save Sibelius campaign was deemed notable, and had his name in numerous articles about it.  I could remove his name from the Add-ons section, but the control surface by Tobias Escher would also have to be removed, and that then diminishes the coverage of the article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Would a Dispute resolution noticeboard/request be a good idea? Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think its too early for that, it would be useful too know the specific paragraphs that are claimed to be in copyright violation. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reverter claims above that the material was copied from here: here and here.  The former was as the result of another editor in the old revision asking for the fleshing out of 'numerous features' for Sibelius 2, and I just took the heading for each item in the list, so it isn't a wholesale copy and paste.  In any case, the terms used are too generic to be copyright violations in my view.  If there is anything copied from the second site, it wasn't by me!  If it turns out that some of the material is identical, then all we'd need to do is reword or delete that.  Undoing a huge amount of work in its entirety isn't necessary.  All I did was substantially reorganise the existing material into comprehensible sections, including placing the Versions into a table which is now lost. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have time or the ability (I'm mobile now) to detail each part of the copyright violation. I will however note that the discussion at the merge was that the campaign itself was not notable and all that could be mentioned were a few sentences however the entire article has been essentially hijacked to talk about Williams' campaign and is not supported by reliable sources and is ref bombed. I have added stuff to one of my sandboxes to work on and request improvements so as not to violate consensus or 3rr but I would request, strongly, that refrain from editing this article further as they have a declared WP:COI and it is evident in their attempt to fluff up the resume of Williams by adding the promotional and greatly exaggerated content here and instead, request further edits to be made here.  CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please supply the links you intended for "here" and "here"? The original speedy deletion nomination was on the grounds that the campaign was not notable, however after material was sourced to corroborate its notability, a consensus was reached to merge.  There was no mention of "a few sentences".  I simply merged the content as it had been for months, with no intervention by other editors to remove Williams from the story or to remove 'cruft' or to strike out refs.  Williams is mentioned in many of the citations sourced, and I suggest MacUser is an example of a reliable source. For those where he isn't, his campaign is, but it was his idea, and he organised it, so I don't agree it's a "fluff up". I note you are currently going through my article on Williams, deleting huge chunks of that, so perhaps we will have this conversation again. Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can not see any copyright violation with sibelius.com details and musicprintinghistory.org. Similar information is contained but not in the same format.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Back to top
I've removed some of the page links from the article. They add little and I'm not sure if they comply with wp:style. Also, they my be picked up by automatic text readers. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As a related note, a user can add similar functionality to every Wikipedia page using the following instructions Back to top. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I was wondering when/if that might get picked up. I have previously used the Back To Top code you've linked to, but that keeps getting reverted every time I've tried it, hence my attempt to do the equivalent with the  functionality. (*edit actually I have just noticed you reverted it on my Draft:Derek Williams (musician) article.  Is that a different one?)


 * I do think having something to click on takes the reader back to the top is useful for longer articles, and I prefer the generic one if only it would stick. Not sure what the objection other editors have to it.  Probably better to have fewer of the  though.  Chrisdevelop (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think with JavaScript one it allows users to choose - if they want it they can add the script to there user JavaScript. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Save Sibelius campaign
This section is disproportionately long. 82.71.12.56 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your various edits, including those to this particular section, which have actually lengthened it slightly! I wrote this section on the 'Save Sibelius' campaign originally as a standalone article, and after an AfD discussion, the consensus was to Merge it into the then separate 'Sibelius Software' article (there was also a 'Sibelius (software)' article, which was cause for confusion).  There wasn't any suggestion there should be a reduction in the material, on the contrary it was described as "pretty useful".  I then proposed that these two similarly named articles with much duplication between them, be merged and that the merged article be renamed 'Sibelius (scorewriter)', and the consensus was for the Merge and Move to go ahead.  I decided it was better to carry out this task before merging 'Save Sibelius', so I left these notices up for several months, during which time there was no dissent.  I first rebuilt the merged article into more rational sections, and added a table for the versions right up to the present one, prior to which the latest event showing in Timeline section had been 2012, made numerous other improvements including the addition of citations and many links to other relevant articles, and then merged the 'Save Sibelius' article into 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' as per consensus.


 * There was a dramatic period around 14 May, where an editor reverted 100% of this work (history above), but my rebuild was quickly reinstated by two other editors whose edits had also been reverted by the aforementioned major revert. The rebuilt article has survived up until now, and has received dozens of visits in its new form.  I recognise that the 'Save Sibelius' section is longer than each of the other sections when viewed individually, but I don't think it's unduly large in relation to the overall size of the article, given that it includes history leading up to the firing of the development team and obviously the rest of the article will continue to grow over time, rendering 'Save Sibelius' proportionally smaller with each update.  The 'Save Sibelius' campaign was significant enough to make BBC News, Mac User and a 12,000 strong petition hand delivered to Avid executives at a BASCA meeting called at its offices in London solely for the purpose of discussing the survival of Sibelius.  Unless you can see something that shouldn't be there, I think the 'Sibelius (scorewriter)' article is best left to grow organically around it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Biased
Hello

Yes, I know that Sibelius is great (I use it) but here at Wikipedia we're not supposed to try and sell Sibelius off to non-Sibelius people...

Rebestalic (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please point to specific parts of the article that you believe are trying to "sell Sibelius off to non-Sibelius people"? Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Chrisdevelop. My account was less than a month old when I posted that original comment. I have a bit more experience now, and would rather insert an "advertisement" template.


 * After slightly more in-depth analysis, I'd like to say that the introduction is most affected by poor tone. Somehow, the way that the introduction is written implies that Sibelius is a "benchmark" in scorewriting programs--yes, it is, but again, here at Wikipedia we're not supposed to try and sell Sibelius off to non-Sibelius people.


 * Thank you,
 * Rebestalic [dubious—discuss]  02:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)