Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidiNotate Composer: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Robot - Removing extraneous links to old VfD templates. |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 16:
*'''Response to rewrite request''' I would be happy to rewrite the article to sound more "encyclopedic". My apologies if the article sounded too "personal" - I've found many entries on Wikipedia to be quite helpful to me in finding out about many resources, and I was merely adding a voice to that community. I'm not quite clear that a rewrite would be appropriate at this time, though. It seems that it would be more appropriate as a resubmission after the vote is decided for the current article. Is this correct? [[User:Sherryc|Sherryc]] 22:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
**Rewriting during this voting process is actually encouraged; much better to rewrite now than to recreate the page later. Thanks for checking. [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] 23:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Spam. [[User:Amren|Amren]]
*'''Rewrite''' Ok, I can definitely rewrite it, but I'd appreciate some input. I apparently shouldn't use existing articles as a model, because I did that and it's caused the ruckus :) What are your suggestions? I'll start with 1) use third person rather than second person 2)more background on the evolution of the software 3) noted capabilities. Does this seem appropriate? Please remember, this article is listed in the category of "music software", and you can check out the other articles in the category. To my eye, this one follows the same model, so I'm honestly trying to find out what the major problems are here so we can make this an informational entry. I see part of the strength of the Wikipedia as giving current information about a myriad of topics, as well as resources related to those topics (hence the "external links" sections). I want to do this right! Thanks. [[User:Sherryc|Sherryc]] 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
**'''Response''' All the above would be good. Plus, I suggest you use an article like [[Finale notation program]] as a basis: it's the most well-rounded article of the [[Scorewriter]] bunch. You also need references to claims such as "in wide use" and so on. Your willingness to improve this article is very welcome! [[User:Randywombat|Wombat]] 17:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
| |||