Talk:TuxGuitar

Proposed Merge

I suggest that this page be merged into the Tablature page since TuxGuitar is actually mentioned on that page and I would be happy to discuss this on the Tablature page's talk page. Bubble anonymous (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Okay well since no one has commented on or said anything about the proposed merge, the merge will take place in about a week or two.

Bubble anonymous (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This does not sound like a good idea to me, this article here is already substantial, and it would overload Tablature article with too much detail about one piece of software. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. Adding all the program into the Tablature article would just clutter up an already long page with material that is only tangentially related. The programs, when notable, deserve their own article. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not a person who is knowledgeable about the TuxGuitar program, but I am familiar with the conventions of Wikipedia. Below I make the case that TuxGuitar has not been shown to meet the Notability Requirements for Wikipedia and recommend that it be merged with the Tablature article. I would like to remind my fellow editors that the Burden of Evidence falls to those who added TuxGuitar. Unless adequate sources can be found, this article should not exist as a separate article.

The Case: I will now go through the ``References`` for this article and indicated how they size up to the expectations of Wikipedia. None of them meet the criteria to support this article as notable. Some of the items listed under the ``References`` section are actually notes. I skipped these in my analysis since they are not relevant to the notability of this article.

1- TuxGuitar Authors-This website is part the homepage for the TuxGuitar product. This constitutes a primary source and thus is not considered to be an indicator of notability.

2-TuxGuitar license-A different page of the TuxGuitar homepage. Again a primary source

3-Software Informer Review-If you go to this site’s Homepage it describes itself as a “software-related social network.” This review appears to be written by a user of this social network named Daniel Mantilla. The notability guidelines require verifiable sources. Verifiable sources require a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This source constitutes a questionable source because it has “no editorial oversight” and is “promotional in nature.”

4-TuxGuitar website-This is again the website for TuxGuitar. See #s 1 and 2.

5 and 6 skipped because they are notes, not references

7-TuxGuitar Documentation-See #s 1, 2, and 4

8-TuxGuitar version 1.0 RC4 Description-is a broken link. Not useful for anything.

9,10, and 11 skipped because they are notes, not references, though the note in # 11 cites #1 as a source. But we have already talked about that.

12-CNET Ratings-Another crowd sourced kind of site. This has exactly the same problems as # 3. Though I think it is correctly used in as a source in the “reception” portion, it still does not contribute to the notability of the topic.

13-SoftPedia Ratings-see # 12

14- [1] -See # 12

15- [2] -See # 12

So, In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that there is not sufficient source material to count this topic as Notable. I recommend that it be merged, as suggested with the Tablature article. (Lexandalf (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

Why it would be wrong to delete this article or merge it

if you do not want start deleting many many articles about all kinds of software, you should consider a software with the following numbers absolutely notable:

• over 30000 downloads a week (!) from the software´s homepage http://sourceforge.net/projects/tuxguitar/files/TuxGuitar/stats/timeline
• additionally 135000 downloads from the page of one of Germanys major commercial (mainstream) computer print magazines http://www.chip.de/downloads/TuxGuitar_31278363.html
• 650000 entries in google
• included in a DVD http://www.heise.de/software/download/cdd_131 of another mayor German PC Magazine (380,000 / issue) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C't (sorry for not listing English magazines, but I do not know which is big..)

...

it is also hard to find articles about the software "guitar pro" (one of the big commercial competitors) in commercial guitar magazines and you won´t find any of those reference in its wikipedia article..

The German article is bigger than the English, as long as the discussion is going on whether to delete the English one it may stay that way (see next topic). Therefore: I suggest to reject the deleting plan soon (maybe you can include a note the additional references are missing).

(Saimondo (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

...........

@ Saimondo The article on Guitar Pro fails to meet the inclusion standards for Wikipedia in exactly the same way as the TuxGuitar article. Thanks for bringing that up. We need to get on that one. However, the low quality of another article does not justify the existence of this article.

That said, one of the sources that you provided above is definitely of interest. The Chip Online site seems to be the only one you provided that comes close to constituting a reliable and notable source. The problem is, that It is in German and I can not read it, and thus am not able to review it for you and provide an opinion. I will try to find someone to translate it for me so I can give you an informed evaluation of the source. I also think that our situation requires seeking out a precedent. The Chip Online site seems to fall into a grey area of the Wikipedia guidelines. It seems to clearly to constitute a "vendor" since it is a site that provides a download for TuxGuitar software. But since sites like this one that provide software have only a very minor intensive to promote the software, it seems like it might be a reasonable exception. In short, I am not sure if Chip Online counts as a neutral party or not. I will try to find a precedent or consensus opinion regarding this sort of source. Until such a judgement can be made, I say that the TuxGuitar article should not be deleted, but retain the "considered for deletion" banner (Lexandalf (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

............

I have used Google Translator to get the gist of the information from the Chip Online. The text on the page with the download link reads like an advertisement. Since the site is a vendor in the sense that they are attracting people to their site by providing TuxGuitar as a free download and they information they provide is in the style of an advertisement, I assert that they should be considered a "vendor" (see WP:SPIP). I will include the transalated text below for others to review, but I also think that it should be considered a "trivial mention" (see WP:GNG) since the text seems to be aimed at getting people to download the product rather than to inform the reader. Also the text is only a few paragraphs.

'The Text (translated from German using Google Translator):'

Jimi Hendrix in you? Find it out and compose your own songs for the guitar with Frets on Fire.

Frets on Fire is an easy to use program with which you can compose your own songs. Either you use it the familiar music notes or you can use the Tab for guitar notation. Also polyphonic songs are no problem for the open source TuxGuitar.

Tempo, key and much more you can adjust according to your wishes, or subsequently adapted. The result can be attributed to different musical instruments play in the program itself. However, the sound files are available only in MIDI quality.

While playing you will see either a guitar neck or a keyboard on which the currently ailing tones are displayed.

Conclusion: Frets on Fire is a great compositional tool. Do you want to hit myself in the strings, then you should "Frets on Fire" try.

Note: To TuxGuitar run on your PC must be installed Java runtimes.

So given the above considerations, I reaffirm my earlier conviction that The Burden of Proof for TuxGuitar has not been met and this article should be deleted or merged.

Lexandalf (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the link to "TuxGuitar version 1.0 RC4 Description". Someone forgot a space between the URL and the description. Ndanielm (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the English version: Chip Online - EN. Ndanielm (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone working on this?

Is anyone working on this page? I think I'd like to make a good article out of this. I'll get to work this week making this article make sense. I seem to remember a good article for TuxGuitar a few months ago, but perhaps it was deleted? ronnycary (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just started this article because it was requested from a long time on the requested articles page, it will be remodelled from its barebones analysis hopefully soon. This program is Open source and quite well known, so it's not as if there is any risk of self promotion. It should stay because all the other guitar programs such as guitar pro and powertab have a page and they aren't even open source, meanwhile this program is quite mature (its not beta or anything), and on the spanish wikipedia they have an article on tuxguitar why shouldn't the english wikipedia have this article. the spanish wikipedia article for tuxguitar is http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/TuxGuitar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122589423KM (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just finished adding quite a bit to this page.

Bubbling anonymously (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion?

I definitely don't think that this article should be deleted. Not only is the program a common FOSS alternative to Guitar Pro, but I don't see any reason why the article's existence lacks relevance. It is a very noteworthy program, and deserving of an article. ronnycary (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I realize that this article was at one point deleted, but I'd like to see the criteria for that article's deletion. Being that versions of this article exist on non-English Wikipedias, I believe that it at least has that much relevance. ronnycary (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody wants to work on an article that might get deleted anyway. Above I noted some numbers/facts that underline the relevance of this software.

Therefore: I suggest to reject the deleting plan soon (maybe you can include a note the additional references are missing) to motivate people working on it.(Saimondo (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

Reviews/ratings

I'd love to see more independent reviews of TuxGuitar. Does anybody know of any besides the CNET ratings? I'll admit, this is the first article I've really wanted to build up, so any help would be appreciated! ronnycary (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Additions and Edits

The operating systems that are supported by Tux-Guitar are listed in the main description box that is found at the top of the page, should a more thorough description concerning Tux-Guitar's performance on various operating systems be added to the article in question?

Bubbling anonymously (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the main descrpition's list of supported operating systems is somewhat inaccurate as it is going on the basis of the assumption that all operating systems made by said manufactorer will be supported by TuxGuitar. However, there is no evidence that I know of that proves whether or not TuxGuitar is supported by Windows 7 therefore shouldn't the article be revised so that it will be more concise and reliabe?

Bubbling anonymously (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I use it on Windows 7. As java program it is a multi platform software (the portability is one mayor advantage of java). Additionally there is a version that runs in most browsers.. (Saimondo (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

I also wanted to add a thumbnail of the Blue_serious skin but I haven't been able to find one as of yet.

Bubbling anonymously (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Official site link may be harmful

I clicked the link at the bottom of the article, titled "Official website", and it lead to a long chain of URLs that switched faster than each page could load, eventually landing on some landlord forum(?)

I just wanted to bring that up to anyone who may be working on the article, thanks. Toothpicksinmyhair (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Toothpicksinmyhair: Thanks. The change must have happened recently. I have removed the link. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

new repository

There is no more tuxguitar.ar, julian casadesus and others seem to have vanished into the air. Another repository exists https://github.com/helge17/tuxguitar with recent updates (2023) if someone could update this wiki 176.142.14.36 (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)