Fingerings: Some adjustments desired

Regarding 1 & 2, I could use a good reference for this. The examples I see are inconsistent with regard to whether fingerings are centered over notes or stems but notes seems more common to me (and if how "most" of Gould's examples appear to me, although she doesn't come out and say explicitly). So I wouldn't want to change this without a good authority to back it up, but it's a simple enough change. Similarly, 4 seems contrary to advice in Gould so I'd want to see an explicit statement from a respected authority before allowing such a change.

Regarding 3, we are a bit at the mercy of how the shape for beams is calculated - we break them into a series of boxes. So we avoid those boxes correctly, but the boxes themselves may or may not be optimal. If the beaming algorithm gets smarter, fingering will inherit it automatically. But there is also the matter that the first/last note of the group is only beamed in one direction, and so we can tuck in a little tighter but maybe subjectively it would look more tidy if we didn't. Not sure how to calculate "where the beam would be if it didn't end" then avoid that and can't see expending a lot of effort on that right now, but I acknowledge it could look nice.

Did you perhaps attach the wrong image? The one above is kind of inconsistent, but mostly I think it shows what I said - fingerings closer to the notehead center than to the stemSee especially the i's. The m's are maybe a little harder to tell. Check out the "a" and "i" on the first note of the secnd measure for the most obvious case of note centering.

MuseScore 2.3.2 actually does neither - it's not centered over the notehead or stem, but somewhere between. Like maybe centered over a half way between the stem and notehead center.

One practical advantage of moving the fingering closer to the stem is that it does tend to create a collision with the stem and thus sort of address 1 & 2. But I'm not comfortable putting it all the way over the stem since I see basically no evidence that this is the right thing to do.

So I would say, if you want to see a change here, please start a forum thread, and if I see something like a 5:1 ratio of users urging us to violate Gould and do something other than center over the notehead, then it's worth doing, but otherwise I'd rather stick with what still appears to me to be the standard.

Just the impression sometimes of being a spectator, and that the program is made by English-speaking members for English-speaking members :(

Hmm, not sure what you mean by this, but feel free to start the same discussion in non-English forums. I want to do the right thing, but right now, the example posted and the advice in Gould both seem quite consistently pointing to the answer that our defaults are optimum right now. I'm happy to accept arguments to the contrary from speakers of any language.

Don't get me wrong. It's just that the flow of words and writings is so important, for this question as for others, that it's just difficult to follow correctly for members who have to go through a translator (and it's not a panacea), and that you have the impression of missing episodes along the way!

In my personal opinion, your examples are not a good example for standard-fingering for classical guitar. This is a example for fingering with to less space.

Related to #311175: [EPIC] Engraving issues and suggestions