Talk:Bitwig Studio

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

More detail needed[edit]

There's some things this article doesn't mention that I feel are notable. When I have time I'd like to add more info on the Unified Modulation System. Additionally I'd like to mention that Future Music Magazine called Bitwig "the most creatively powerful DAW for electronic music making" but I'll need to check the issues to find which month it was. If anyone else had recommendations for expansion please add them here. Thank you. CanningIO (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a category for notable Bitwig users and a bit on the new plugin standard, CLAP - that could get an article of it's own. I think the features section could be expanded with an explanation of the different views, like in the article on Ableton Live. Hirnlego (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a section on notable users, as present in FL Studio, to preserve the content behind Category:Bitwig users in case of deletion. Hirnlego (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid channeling the PR of the subjects of our articles, or else it makes Wikipedia look like an extension of their web presence, and we avoid that with a passion. Consider that the content of articles, or sections of them, about companies shouldn't be selected substantially from their own press releases or otherwise what they've chosen to write about themselves. Similarly, an article section shouldn't look like the company itself touting its most famous customers. The stars may be notable, but that doesn't make it worthy of note that they use that equipment. You should find independent sources that have found the people's ownership of the products worth mentioning. Certainly, you can use the company's own site to guide you in who to research, but your research ought to be elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to follow your advice, now @Drmies removes my whole list and says "All this needs much better sourcing, and even then, is it encyclopedic?". I am at a loss why the music magazines I have cited, plus one academic book publication, are not considered proper sources. Also, these publications make it quite obvious to me that the (specific) instruments used for making music are of general interest. When discussing the category I tried first, @Marcocapelle even suggested a list - I am glad to take such advice, but this back and forth is a bit frustrating. Hirnlego (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]