Talk:Audacity (audio editor)

What happened to the Muse Group article

Does anyone know where the Muse Group Wikipedia article went to or did the shady company get it to "disappear" somehow? NantucketHistory (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It was deleted as a non-notable company in June at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse Group. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it not notable that the company has THREE notable apps that have articles on Wikipedia? Stevethefiddle (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because a company has products that meet WP:GNG, doesn't mean the company itself does. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the examples:

• If a poet is notable does not mean that all their poems are notable
• If a radio station is notable does mean all their programs are notable
• If an artist is notable does not mean that all their albums are notable
• If an author is notable does not mean that all their books are notable

but the inverse seems rather unsound:

If an author has multiple best sellers, or an artist has multiple hit records, or a film company produces multiple blockbusters,... then surely that illustrates that the parent subject has at least WP:SIGNIF ? Stevethefiddle (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. An article on the company has to stand on its own, in particular WP:INHERITORG explains: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member. Aside from these sort of theoretical or policy arguments, there is a very practical reason for this: if we don't have refs that specifically discuss the company, its staff, history, location and so on, than we have nothing on which to base an article. If all your refs are about its products only, then all you get is "this is a company that makes the following products...." WP:CORP is really the key. If you have third party refs that provide info on the company itself then we can create an article, if not then we can't. What do we have for refs? - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

and yet Wikipedia has a lengthy article about The Hoover Company that is known only by association with a brand of vacuum cleaner ;-) Stevethefiddle (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You are missing the point. That company is notable because there are third party refs that describe it. If all we had were refs about its vacuum cleaners, then we would not have an article on the company itself, either.

What refs do you have on the Muse Group? Do we have enough to start an article? If there are none then we can close out this discussion, because there is nothing to discuss. - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia bullshit and 0 logic again.

because that article is deleted, and so no info about the company or all the things related to muse group, muse hub, tenacity, etc. is written down somewhere, i just had to waste 1 hour combing thru various websites to find out that:

1. muse group is probably a fake american/international company but actually owned by a russian company.
2. tenacity is probably not as good as audacity?
3. using audacity is still probably safe?

RZuo (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Derivatives

All listed derivatives are now out of development, with none of them seeming to have done any significant releases. Can the section be removed? 185.5.164.214 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and incorporates history, not just a project's current status. If these forks need updating then they should be updated, but we don't erase history. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You yourself removed Sneedacity for never amounting to anything. One could argue this is the case for the other forks as well:

• While Tenacity had a lot of press attention, it never had a release and thus very clearly never amounted to anything.
• While Audacium had a release, it barely had any attention from users and developers (~600 issues/PRs for Tenacity vs ~100 for Audacium, vs ~2900 for Audacity) and the changes it did make were mostly superficial.

I'll concede that Tenacity in particular is a different league to Sneedacity though - let me try to incorporate the section into the other history bits. LWinterberg (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The Tenacity fork on GitHub has been archived and is now read only. During its brief life it only made superficial changes. I don't think that it can be considered sufficiently "notable" for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Stevethefiddle (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. At this point in history, I think that whole section needs trimming.  Done. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: Audacium merged with Tenacity last year and, as of this week, development of Tenacity is active. Aingotno (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Sections lacking secondary and tertiary sources

I noticed the section of the article regarding forks had primary sources, but lacked secondary and tertiary sources. I'd like to bring them to attention to add some secondary and tertiary sources.

This spawned several forks, most prominently among them Tenacity[63] and Audacium.[64] The company reversed course, falling back to error/crash reporting and optional update checking instead.[65][66] As a result, the developers of the forks lost interest[67] and sent their forks into an indefinite hiatus.[63]

References 63, 64 and 67 in this passage point to the repositories of each project. While this helps for Wikipedia:Verifiability, it makes it difficult to evaluate Wikipedia:Notability and decide which forks (and which events) are worth mentioning and which ones are not.

I believe there must be some third-party articles that mention some of the most notable forks, but my research has so far been unsuccessful. Can anybody help and find some sources for this passage?

Skencer11 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Features list

I have started converting the big features list to prose and in the process removed some run-of-the-mill stuff (such as: copy-paste and undo exists, multi-platform support as that's in the infobox anyway) and moved some other stuff down to the version history. However, in the process I stumbled a bit into the question of which features of Audacity are important, which aren't and what's run-of-the-mill. In particular, I'm unsure about:

• Individual effects (change tempo, noise reduction, vocal reduction are directly mentioned, but a lot more could be mentioned)
• Whether or not any individual file type or plugin type is supported
• Audio analysis using FFT (what audio analysis isn't doing FFT at some stage?)
• UI Themes and waveform colorways

Even the non-destructive editing thing is fairly standard, and the only reason it's worth mentioning here IMHO is that Audacity didn't have these features for so long.

NB, I can't promise I'll have the time to implement feedback on this myself, but I thought having this discussion is going to be helpful for the future anyway. -- LWinterberg (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)