Talk:Max (software)

	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.

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move Max to Max (software) and Max (disambiguation) to MAX, with Max then red'ing to MAX.

Requested move

There is no reason why the article on the software should take the main "Max" article. So "Max" should be a dab page. Neurillon 14:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Strong Support - I've never even heard of the software! This is clearly a multi-meaning word with no primary topic. — SteveRwanda 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It might be even better to have the dab at MAX, as is usual with TLA's. Septentrionalis 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... so Max and MAX will both be disambigs? There will be no default article at all? Couldn't Max be moved to Max/MSP, since that's what everyone uses? — Omegatron 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just suggest that the dab page be MAX instead of Max. Max/MSP is impossible for technical reasons: that's a subpage. Septentrionalis 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually MAX redirects to Max (disambiguation). In the end it does not matter which one is used. Vegaswikian 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Vegaswikian 00:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think have the dab at Max and have MAX redirect to Max (as per current). Sparkleyone 04:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dead link

"Many other artists use Max/MSP/Jitter, but prefer not to mention it. For more on this subject, see this discussion on the Max/MSP mailing list."

The link in question is no longer available, or was removed, from the archives. It should have been archived it was significant.

I deleted the line. The problem is hardly the dead link. Why is that sentence in there anyway? Many lists of notables could contain such a statement, but I have never seen anything like it. The list should contain people who can be verified to use the software. Saying (in an unverified way) that there are secret users, hiding their use, is absurd. If this using Max in secret is a real thing, it should be given its own main section in the article, but that should only happen when someone can come up with actual sourcing on the topic. 128.200.46.129 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Function

The article currently doesn't say what you can actually do with the program, at least for an outsider it may not be clear. --Abdull 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link

The link at the bottom, "many artists uses Max but prefer not to mention it," is broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Replicate (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This whole "article" reads like an advert. 131.30.121.23 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does read like an advertisement. 128.200.46.129 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly agree, this article is too far from encyclopedic quality. Full of weaselwords, unverifiable claims and marketing blubber. 62.85.99.68 13:50, 13 October 2009

Clean up

What citations / sources are needed for this article to be good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.11.100 (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than that

This is an uninformative mess, as an outsider. The point at which I gave up was the use of jargon acronyms at the start (MSP, for example) which are only explained by chance later in the article. If you must use non-standard acronyms, then you have the responsibility to explain them, otherwise you defeat the entire objective of the article, to elucidate the uninformed, but simply adding to the confusion. The use of personal names is unprofessional, and so needs substantiation, too.

I would suggest that you stand back, pretend you don't know anything about the subject, and examine every word and phrase to ensure it's as clear as possible to the outsider. For example, "for the NeXT, and later Silicon Graphics (SGI) and Linux" confuses hardware manufacturers and operating systems: as this is software, I presume you mean the manufacturers' proprietary operating system NeXTSTEP in the first case, but you do need to be far more specific about the SGI configuration, as they produced a huge range of systems using every operating system under the sun. Although the top structure is possibly coherent, it's become fragmented: history should be a sequential chronology, so later derivations can be seen to develop from the first rough-cut approximation, explaining the changes made as you go.

The Language section should only deal in the structure and concepts of the Language ("Max is named after the late Max Mathews" for example belongs in History) describing what it is setting out to achieve and how it does it. That should ideally extend into a superficial primer guiding the beginner into the language's more useful aspects, avoiding the data overload many manuals dump on the tyro.

Once you've restored logic to the article, you need to substantiate what you say with links to academic studies, ideally, failing which press reports and other source. These should give the reader a view of the different takes on the subject, and help them find a balance between any conflicting subinterests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.30.32 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Autechremax.jpg

The image Image:Autechremax.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M

Was Zicarelli's interactive composition software called M an early version of Max? 93.96.236.8 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, M is a completey independent of Max and was conceived by composer Joel Chadabe. Zicarelli did the programming. (User:Esslk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]