Talk:Cakewalk by BandLab

There is a duplicate article on this topic: Cakewalk (sequencer) and Cakewalk (company). Merging (instead of just deleting this article) is likely a good way to solve this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to do this, to the extent of my ability. If you have any more specific suggestions as to how to go about this, please let me know. I'd like to start by rolling some of the article about Cakewalk (sequencer) into the Cakewalk by BandLab article's History section. I don't know what to do with the content in the Cakewalk (company) article, the company is defunct and has no relation to the current owners of the Cakewalk name (and code). If anyone can suggest to me what sources are better than the ones I used in the article, I would most appreciate it. I had thought that "straight from the horse's mouth" (or whatever orifice corporate documentation comes from) was the best authority. Perhaps this is not the case, and Wikipedia likes sources from some place other than the company that makes the product? If so, I will try to hunt some down. Thank you for the guidance, this is the first article I have written beyond my years of making small edits. I also want to know how to publish a screenshot or even logo that would satisfy Wikipedia's legal use requirements. Regards, Erik "Cruciblefuzz" Cruciblefuzz (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... The pink box thinks that it's too close to Cakewalk_(sequencer). A brief inspection of that page will show that it refers to the earliest, DOS text mode version of the Cakewalk software, which hasn't been marketed in over 25 years. The old Cakewalk_(sequencer) page is worthy of being retained as it refers to a software product that is of historical significance. The current Cakewalk by BandLab, while a distant descendant of this software, has gone through enough changes in ownership and name to be considered a distinct entity. --Cruciblefuzz (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is not that it's "too close to Cakewalk_(sequencer)"; or Cakewalk (company). The problem is that all three articles (including the one being discussed) are basically about the Cakewalk DAW software. In my opinion, all the three articles should be merged into one (since they are all talking about the same software, instead of being spread into 3 separate articles. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Stefka Bulgaria. I'll see what I can do about merging the Cakewalk_(sequencer) and Cakewalk_(company) pages. I've never merged articles so I need to read up on it. It's "scary" to me to delete content.--Cruciblefuzz (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)