Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Startup

I have outlined my intended goals for this project on the project page. Now I ask for input for guideline ideas. akuyumeTC 05:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some useful information for our cause

One might find these pages interesting or insightful.

Project beginnings

I'm not sure how much time I will be able to spend here, but I set up a WikiProject once and can offer some ideas.

  • Create a to do box (in the manner seen at WikiProject Figure Skating
  • Create a project template (with a simple name!) with which to implement the grading system
  • Create a list of all articles covered under this wikiproject. That shouldn't really be that difficult, considering musical instruments are a pretty defined category.
  • Determine all the templates used to organize musical instruments (see WikiProject Musical Instruments/Templates)

--Fang Aili talk 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Musical instrument templates

I'd like to see the musical instrument templates standardized in some way--perhaps give them a semi-standard look, or at least shape. The Iranian instruments template is in particularly bad shape; it is poorly organized. I can take a stab at some changes, but I'm not much good at template coding. Thoughts? Volunteers? --Fang Aili talk 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure if I should be doing this >slowly raising hand<, but I could take a stab at some of the templates.... I just need a little guidance as far as what the end result should be. - NDCompuGeek 03:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read what I typed, and it didn't make too much sense. Let me try again: I can do the coding, but I'm rather imagination-handicapped.... If you can describe to me what you want, I'm pretty sure that, through either wiki-coding or HTML or any of a bunch of other languages, I can make it happen. Better? sheepishly looking at other comment - NDCompuGeek 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Standardization

In general, I think the layout of pages for instruments, particularly those involved in Western Classical music, should have a standardized layout. The article on Double Bass has a good layout box; this should be brought around to all of the other pages. Standard article requirements could include Range, Techniques, Selected Repetoire, etc. Thoughts? Kntrabssi 09:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{Infobox Instrument}} looks pretty solid. The notes say it's "meant to be used on all musical instrument pages". I think the code could be simplified, but I'd have to play with it a bit. Let's try to add it where we can. --Fang Aili talk 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Templates, Userboxes, Infoboxes, and other shtuff

Greetings,

I am in the process of working on a few templates for the WP, and am having some writer's block, or whatever is the coder's equivalent. not quite as bad as a brain spasm, or cranial-rectal inversion though… I would like opinions on what the project picture should be (instead of having a whole bunch of different templates that pretty much do the same thing), and what the coloring scheme should be. This way, we can start to work on a consistent appearance, and I can get past my brain block and churn out some of these templates for the project! I was thinking of a djembe, but it really isn't representative of the project.... Anyway, please let's discuss this! - NDCompuGeek 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just use the picture that works the best (meaning it's sized properly, is clearly a musical instrument of some kind, etc). There's no way we'll be able to somehow represent all instruments or even more than a few kinds of instruments, so let's not worry too much about which one we pick to put in the project template. Anyone have a favorite from Commons:Category:Musical instruments? --Fang Aili talk 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding the Template

As of now, I have added the talk page template to all instrument in Category:Percussion instruments and sub-categories Bells, Brazilian Percussion, Cymbals, and Drumkit components. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:String_instruments

IMO, {{String_instruments}} would work better as a footer. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter Issue 1 - erratum

Hi,

I noticed that the inaugural newsletter suggests that the project only has 1 GA, and names string instrument (actually a start class article)!. Pipe organ on the other hand is currently GA and is at Peer Review. Any comments welcome there please. –MDCollins (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Profusion and Relative Merits of Links

Please excuse me 'cross-posting' as it were - have just put this on talk page for the Lute - but I think it is becoming a bit of a general problem for instrument pages.

I agree in principle that wikipedia articles should not become 'link farms' as one recent editor termed it, and that the Lute article is one which still has a substantial number of external links.

Nevertheless I do feel that it is simply not appropriate for editors to just add and take away references (particularly internal wiki ones) for their favourite/ least favourite musicians without reference to real importance in the context of the article. I think this goes for a lot of music-related articles, but this one is a good example of the issue.

Thus, I dare to suggest that Lynda Sayce who for 20 years has been learning, teaching, playing and writing about the lute and associated instruments, is more significant for the lute than is Sting, whatever his undoubted merits! Yet reference to her has been struck out (not sure which editor did this, as there have been many changes in the last month or so).

In other words, it seems to me that the fact that Sting is undoubtedly better known to the world in general, is an inadequate reason for his name to appear, while Lynda's does not: since the article is about the lute, not about popular culture.

[Please note that I do not pretend in any respect to speak on behalf of Lynda, or anyone else - she would be embarrassed to read the comment above!]

I have seen the same thing on other instrument pages - but I'm not sure how to police this. --Ndaisley 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarinet

Clarinet is pretty comprehensive. It's not a GA because it doesn't have inline citations. If someone knows a lot about clarinet it could be pretty easy to bring this article up to GA, A, or FA status. --Fang Aili talk 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alto flute needs major cleanup

I hope this project isn't dead or anything, as it seems noone is posting about helping to improve instrument articles. Well here's one. Alto flute just has a large dump of info added, but is in need of major stylistic cleanup. So anyone willing to help? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that whole section. I'm pretty sure it was a copyright violation from a music book, and even if it wasn't, it would've had to be rewritten completely. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 14:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Trumpeters" or "Trumpet players"?

Currently we use both descriptions in category names; we ought only to use one for consistency. I've suggested on the WP:MUSCAT talk page here that we stick to "trumpeters" as that matches e.g. Category:Trombonists (rather than Category:Trombone players) - further input welcome at the MUSCAT talk page. Bencherlite 09:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Timpani FAR

I placed Timpani on Featured article review if anyone wants to comment Jaranda wat's sup 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Timpani has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Synthesizer task force

Hi. Yesterday I started the Synthesizers WikiProject but NDCompuGeek suggested making it a task force of this project. I agree. Can anyone help mentor me on how we can integrate our goals with yours? I'm completely new to WikiProjects. --Mperry 06:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Balafon: assessment and contributions

I just expanded the stub Balafon: assessment and contributions needed. :T L Miles 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Drumtar AfD input requested

I have nominated the Drumtar article for deletion. The drumtar is a sort of guitar-banjo hybrid incorporating a snare drum. One of the participants in the discussion has suggested that the discussion would benefit from more input from people who are knowledgeable about music. So I mention it here in the interest of getting more input from the project members. Please visit the discussion to weigh in. Thank you. Nick Graves 00:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Mrindangam

  • Mrindangam (via WP:PROD on 16 August 2007) Redirected→Mridangam
    • Mridangam already exists as large article, so I redirected T L Miles 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Would '-inda-' be a misspelling or an alternative spelling relative to '-ida-'? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Roland CM-300 and Roland CM-64

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Z3TA+

updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Celesta

As it's gotten to the point where people are adding ANYTHING with a celesta in the score, it's probably time to give this a major cleanup, as was done similarly with bass clarinet, and stick to prominent uses. Anyone wanna give this a go? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MS2000/MS2000B. Review (and remove MS2000B article?)

I've recently completely rewritten the article on the Korg MS-2000. I actually didn't see the article on the MS-2000B, but I have included that information in the MS2000 article. Perhaps the MS2000B article should be either removed or redirected to the MS2000 article(?). Also, the article title needs to be changed. There is not a hyphen in the product name. How does one go about editing an article title?

Frankdog 05:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)frankdog

This is accomplished with the "move" tab, up at the top of the page. I've done this one for you. --Fang Aili talk 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Crystal (software synthesizer)

Crystal (software synthesizer) (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox instrument usage

Thanks to 88.244.215.226, lot of plucked string instruments have gained an instrument infobox which, in my opinion, carries a list of "related instruments" that overwhelms some of the smaller articles and stubs. The info in that list is generally available through wikilinks in the articles themselves. Not sure how to proceed with this... I trimmed the list a bit drastically where it showed up in Appalachian dulcimer. Comments? __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was added to arpeggione, completely overwhelming it. I have no idea how to proceed from here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been pondering this one as well, at a loss so far. Am of the opinion that a list of related instruments should be of a sufficiently limited number (5 to 10-ish max(?)) of the closest relatives to any instrument to be of any value whatsoever. Doubtless well-intentioned as these infoboxes are I think it'd be better if they all were reverted as they are not helpful in their current form, possibly pending re-addition in considerably leaner form for someone who feels inclined. Old 88.244.215.226 has been such a busy boy/girl though, could an admin make an en masse revert of all affected articles (i.e. all edits made by that editor by the look of it)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mass revert might be one way, but I'm now thinking more in terms of pruning the lists to fit individual pages. I'm willing to put some effort into that, as well as dealing with absent or redundant images. (I can't spend a huge amount of time on it right now, but will be able to do in a day or so.) In general, I think the infoboxes are not a bad idea. It's just the enormous lists hanging onto them that bother me some. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the boxes are a good idea in principle but you've a hell of a job on your hands to whittle all these down. Best of luck and have fun but don't drown! Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The font size for the instruments should be made much smaller. Bandurist (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The list need to be customized for each article. Otherwise it is WAY TOO LONG.Galassi (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agree with the above; 10 seems about right at most, and 5 or fewer is probably better, and they should be pretty closely related (not, say, both bowed string instruments). If, Bill, you think you can do it, we can just leave it as they are for a few days while they get cleaned up. If it's going to take much longer, we could just revert the infoboxes, or remove the list of related instruments to have a more thoughtful one put in at a later date. Rigadoun (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh; I just deleted the entire list from the double bass article. The bass related to the erhu? I don't think so. And as I pointed out in my edit summary, this list was so haphazardly inserted that it actually redundantly included double bass itself. This seems extremely not useful (or at least very poorly implemented). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see some of you have been at it already; don't stop now.. :) If I do this all myself, it will take several weeks to get around to them all. I've made a start, trimming the lists fairly brutally. Not many instruments will reach 5, much less 10 "related" others, depending. Is a shamisen related to a banjo, or are they just similar by happenstance? I'm tending to go with "family relationship" over "similarity" but that's not at all consistent in what I've done so far.

Feel free to grab a few that still show as top edits on the list, and hack away at them. I've also been fixing the broken wikilinks in the Classification part. Plucked instruments becomes Plucked string instrument, for example. When there's an image duplicated, I've been mostly removing the one in the article, unless it's got an interesting caption, in which case I leave the infobox without a picture, which it doesn't like very much. oh, well.

I've about had it for tonight, will get back to this as time permits. __Just plain Bill (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are done, pretty much without losing any pre-existing info or style. Later, __Just plain Bill (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This is only a hunch, but having seen another good intention gone awry, I wonder if this was the result of an Amazon Mechanical Turk. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I might have got all of them. Strange: somebody did a lot of work pretty consistently, but with iffy diligence. __Just plain Bill (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just made the Image optional in Template:Infobox Instrument hopefully without breaking anything in the process. Now there won't be text junk above the infoboxes that don't have an image. I think there are still a few pages where the image used in the infobox also appears in the article, usually with some interesting particulars in the caption. No time to chase them all right now; I figure this will correct itself as the wiki proceeds. __Just plain Bill 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists of instruments

A long time ago, I got List of Caribbean drums to featured list status, and then real life intruded, as it is wont to do, and I never created any similar lists. Would anybody be interested in trying to expand and create a whole series of such lists? (Not just on drums, but on every kind of instrument)

Also, any comments on the format for list of Caribbean drums? I'm thinking of moving the type of instrument into the "name" column, below the actual name, and perhaps tinting that box a shade to indicate the type (e.g. it would say "snare drum" under the name of the drum, and the boxes in the "name" column for all snare drums would have the same color). I'd also like to include the Hornbostel-Sachs number, but I've never found a comprehensive source for that (or even somewhat approaching complete). Anyone know where to find such a thing (preferably in some sort of free, downloadable format)? Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Article for deletion: Italian Violinmakers

Italian Violinmakers at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Violinmakers (20 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Davul

Hi all. I recombined tapan and davul into davul and tried to blend the article so it discusses the drum as equally as possible for different cultures. This is kind of a pain since it has many names in many languages with many character sets. Well, it's a start. Anyone feel like giving it a quick review? Thanks! Swellbow (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurdy-gurdy article

You might want to add the hurdy-gurdy article to your project. It is currently GA status. I'd do it myself, but I really don't know the protocols and practices for doing so. -Fenevad (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Template messing up: cowbell

Cowbell has some template issues. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Experimental musical instrument

Experimental musical instrument is an odd article, it talks a lot about one-offs built by contemporary artists but does not even mention Leon Theremin, Robert Moog or the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, to mention just a few experimenters of interest to me. I'm reluctant to pitch in in case there is some specifically defined usage that escapes me, is that the case? Guy (Help!) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty Rating

I was wondering whether or not it would be possible for me to begin a section within an article on any given song to describe how difficult the song is to play, i think that would make the wikipedia song section one of the first points of call when an interested listener wants to learn how to play, anyone who is interested please talk to me on my talk page. THis would include, drums, piano, guitar, bass, harmonica, and many other band related instruments. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that would border on OR. After all, is not difficulty dependent on the skill and experience of the player? bibliomaniac15 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The dificulty does depend on the player, but not the skill level need, like medium skill, above average skill etc. Tom.mevlie (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's really not something that should be in WP, at all. If a piece is known to be particularly easy or hard for whatever reason (say, Islamey as a good example), then adding into the PROSE of the aritcle with sources is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Sources are the key here. If multiple sources could be found that identify certain repertoire as unusually challenging, I have no problem with mentioning it, but it's unlikely we could find a consensus "difficulty rating" however helpful that might be. It also depends on the performer, in some cases. I do follow the difficulty ratings in my Haynes Manuals, but usually work out how easy or hard a piece is for me by reading through. Example: some people think the baritone solos in the Fauré Requiem are difficult because they require good breath control and pitching. I find that very easy, but have a hard time with some other repertoire that has intervals of augmented/diminished sixths, though I have a friend who has no toruble at all with those. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You have good points, what is difficult for me, may be really difficult for someone else, what if we held an open forum to decide on a song's difficulty if there is some dispute? Which would mean that we are democratising it instead of one person controling it. Tom.mevlie (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a discussion forum, nor a place to conduct original research, which is what such a forum would amount to. I'm not hugely fond of the idea of willy-nilly adding info on difficulty to articles on musical pieces, but that's just one editor's opinion. Whatever does get added must be verifiable. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should should look into diversifying into that sort of area, because if wikipedia stays the same and other sites move on, then people will move away. and it wouldn't be willy-nilly, it would carefully researched and well looked after, a forum on each song would be included, discussing the difficulty, other wise there is room for error, and if there is an open forum, that is all the verification we require is it not? Tom.mevlie (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Electronic bagpipes

Original article DegerPipes was just about one single name-brand of electronic bagpipes, with all other variants dumped into one sub-section. Since the scope had clearly expanded (and an article about one single marketed product didn't seem appropriate) I re-named the whole article Electronic bagpipes and downplayed the Deger variant. However, the article is still awfully sparse and could use some editing from any e-pipers. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Accordion expertise sought

I recently had a great opportunity to photograph some old and rare accordions (and could probably get to photograph more at a later date). However, I don't know a great deal about accordions. The images are at Commons:Category:Petosa Accordions collection. If someone can add more detail to some of the descriptions there, it would be appreciated; also, some of these might be useful to illustrate one or another Wikipedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


While we're on the subject (if this project isn't totally dead), there's no info on Cajun accordion music. I'll go try and rile up some Cajuns on an outside discussion board. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ukulele

I cut out Tahitian ukulele to its own article, ditto with Electric ukulele and Resonator ukulele. Tahitian and Reso both have enough material to justify articles in their own right, but Electric is still just a stub and could use some work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs additional references and major expansion. Constructive comments for improving the article on the talk page would be helpful from editors who don't have the time to participate. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Vital article

I'd like to start a drive to get Musical instrument up to FA status. It is listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles and is marked top-priority for this WikiProject. I am doing some research right now to find sources. I have also requested three books from the library that should be a good start. If anyone is interested, please visit Talk:Musical instrument and read the most recent heading. I'd like to start by developing a working outline so we can at least identify what should be in the article. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearing out the clutter from "Musical Instruments"

Further, the vast majority of articles sitting in the "MI" category already fall under one or more subcategories. Yes, they are musical instruments, but there's no need to file them in every single sub-cat from "Music" to "Musical Instruments" to "String Instruments" to "Zithers" to "Box Zithers" etc. ad infinitum.

Is anyone going to put up a huge fuss if I go through and move the categorizable articles into their appropriate categories? I already went through and did this for "String Instruments", categorizing about 100 out of 300 articles, and only managed to ruffle two feathers. Different editors insisted that Washtub bass and Kora stay in the main category rather than a subcat. *shrug*

There's probably a way to subcat 95% of the remaining articles in "String Instruments" or remove their overcategorization, but I'm loathe to dive into trying to categorize a large variety of non-WestEuropean instruments, since some subcats are organological ("long-necked lutes"), and others are historical-genetic ("mandolin family instruments"). If anyone has any input, I'm all game. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If the subcats are correct, it would be fine. The kora is a harp-lute and the washtub bass isn't a double bass. Badagnani (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly open to being corrected, and no dispute on the two you mention. The washtub bass (and about eight similar instruments) can probably go in some sort of subcat though. Any ideas? They're almost Musical Bows, but I don't want to get too doctrinal here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. There's a lot of variation in construction. Maybe something like "bass string instruments" or "bass plucked string instruments." The biggest problem with the musical instruments subcats is that they overlap too much, some being "common sense" terms and others being very specific organological categories, with the later making it take up to 5 or more clicks to find common lutes (which is why I added some more of the lute subcats on the main cat page). An elegant solution should be found. Badagnani (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you there. One potential solution would be to have parallel chains of subcats for technical vs. cultural distinctions. Though there would be some initial brain-pain, one possibility would be to break out both "Chordophones" and "String Instruments" from "Musical Instruments". "Chordophones" could follow the Hornbostel-Sachs system of very dry "short-necked bowl-back lutes" details, and "String Instruments" could be more historo-genetic categories like "Banjos" (meaning instruments directly related to early American banjos, not just string instruments witha head) and "Lutes" (meaning theoboros and the like, not just necked strings).

There would end up being quite a bit of overlap, but two basically different category trees branching out from Musical Instruments. How does the idea strike you? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Antique instruments, why not just call it Stradivarii or whatever?

All but a couple of these articles are about Stradivarii. Why not just rename the subcat "Stradivarii", separate out the others into "Luthiers" or "Violin makers" and move the whole subcat over? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"Chordophones" vs. "String Instruments"

There seems to be quite a stick mess with the issue of the term "Chordophone". The category exists, with essentially no articles of its own which can't be just as easily filed under "Stringed Instrument" subcats. Its only subcats are "Stringed Instruments" itself, and "Composite String Instruments", which has a nearly 1:1 concurrence with the "Harps" subcat.

Should we just moved "Stringed Instruments" into the "Musical Instruments" subcategories and do away with "Chordophones" entirely? It seems, at present, to hold no particular use. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a tendency, primarily in European books to use Chordophones. They prefer specific terminology. My feelings are;: Keep chordophones. Bandurist (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Revising the Instrument Infobox

I've been taking a look at the instrument infobox, and it seems rather haphazardly non-standardized and lacking some potentially useful features. I've thus cooked up a few demos of what I think the infobox should look like at the bare minimum, and I'm trying to hold a discussion on the instrument infobox talk page. I hope people take a look at it and discuss there. --Pipian (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. --Laser brain (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijani banknotes depicting instruments

Is the fact that certain musical instruments are depicted on Azerbaijani banknotes worthy of mention in the corresponding articles ? – Please, provide your imput at:

Thank you already. - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Messiah Strad

The Messiah Strad article states that the instrument has never been played. Toby Faber's book, Stradivari's Genius indicates that it has. 70.248.147.213 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Zither

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but the zither article really needs some tender loving care. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hurdy gurdy

I have reviewed Hurdy gurdy for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. In summary, it is a "good article", but it no longer meets the requirements of a GA in respect of WP:verify; and it already has {citation needed} tags on it. In all other respects it is: well-written, informative, and well-illustrated. It would be a disappointment to me if this article lost its GA-status and was downgraded (to B-class), I therefore put the GAR On Hold to allow time for these points to be addressed.

Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There don't seem to be too many active participants here (see the unanswered request right above this) but I'll try my best to look at it in the coming week. --Laser brain (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Instruments

Is there any guideline to how to list the orchestration of a work, I mean the order of the instruments. Please reply on my Spanish wikipedia page. OboeCrack (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I would like to join this group, would this be possible? ---- Daniel Jones (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pipe organ GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Pipe organ for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Recorder

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a lot of concerns with the referencing and the licensing of images which you can see at Talk:Recorder/GA1. Consequently I have de-listed the article. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Tronichord

The Tronichord talk page referenced this project so I thought I'd come over here and let you know I fixed up the article a bit. Expansion would still be good, but I'm not sure it still qualifies as a stub any longer. I mean, it's still pretty short, but there's not a lot to say, as far as I know. Solarbird (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I am currently working at the unassessed wp:guitar articles. If I cross any unassessed templates for this project I will gladly fill them in. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

What's with Mute cornetto & Mute Cornett? Surely, only one of them is needed. Neither article seems to have a properly styled title, so I'm not sure which way a merge should be performed. I think the correct title would be "Mute cornett". By the way, Mute Cornett seems to be the only one with meaningful incoming links. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Drum Kit manufacturers

Hi guys, I'm here seeking help with a List of Drum Kit manufacturers. Since WikiProject percussion is inactive I came here. I started work on it but kind of got side tracked and am currently busy with other stuff. If anybody could be of help, I would be much obliged. Thank you. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 19:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a history of the modern drum kit?

In the article on drum kit, there is currently no history section. I would really like to know the history of how the arrangement of drums into a collection for a single seated percussionist came to pass. My guess is that it started in Germany in the mid 19th century, by beer hall musicians like polka. This is a guess though. Any drum historians out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.203.132 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  • No, this is invented by jazz drummers. See "История" section in ruwiki, if you can. --Drakosh (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe the seated percussionist at the drum kit is even older than that, friend! There were drum kits in the late 19th century in the United States, though the bass drum at that time was hit by hand with a mallet ... the bass drum pedal not being invented until 1909. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdelaguerre (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Taille (tenor oboe)

There is currently no article about the taille, which is a straight version of the baroque curved or angled cor anglais or the oboe da caccia. I don't know more about it than I have already written, except that it was used as an alternative to the other two instruments, especially in French baroque music, as well as some Bach cantatas... A description can be found at the bottom of this page. -- megA (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Musical instruments articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Musical instruments articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a horn

Can anyone identify just what type of horn the woman is playing in this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/4516266689/? It's like a mellophone or euphonium, but I'm pretty sure it isn't either of those because of the curved bell.

Also, related: is anyone aware of a good online chart for identifying horns? - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a marching baritone to me. It doesn't look at all like a mellophone though, though are more like big trumpets with large bells. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right that it is more the size of a baritone. But, again, I've never seen one of those with a curved bell. Might just be an unusual baritone, but if anyone knows anything more specific, I've uploaded it at Commons:File:Honk Fest West 2010-296.jpg, you can just edit the description there. Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a German Baritonhorn, which is similar to the baritone horn, (which is called "Tenorhorn" in German) but with a more conical bore. -- megA (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you will find that this is an "American Euphonium" or "American Baritone" in the current vernacular. During the 20th century, companies such as C.G. Conn (Conn-Selmer) built horns of a mixed bore, some were closer to euphonium (conical bore) than this, but many were sold as baritones and were virtually identical to this. This horn is remarkably similar to horns built by Conn, Reynolds, and others (It may be a conn- the heavy armor on the back and the thick bell base are suggestive of that, but I'm stretching my memory 30 years).
The bell is positioned oddly, in a manner reminiscent of continental baritones and tenor horns (as someone from central europe would be accustomed to), but if you look closely, you will see one of the screws for holding the adjustable bell in place on the thick collar at it's base (above the bright reflection on the leadpipe as it crosses). It would normally be more forward in a traditional bell-front baritone position. A fixed-bell horn by the same designer can be seen in File:BP Oil Flood Protest NOLA Baritone Fleur.JPG --Rwberndt (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New cat Category:Mari musical instruments

I've created Category:Mari musical instruments for instruments of the Vola-Finnic Mari people of Russia. Thus far we only have one zither and one bagpipe, but hopefully potential for more. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:African musical instruments

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Redheylin#Where did you get consensus for dumping everything into "African musical instruments"?. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Gyro; User:MatthewVanitas has requested that this discussion be moved here, which seems fair. I'll just point out that I made the edits as a temporary measure in the course of a great deal of work on Sub-Saharan African music traditions and Rhythm in Sub-Saharan Africa. The former, particularly, used to be List of Sub-Saharan African music traditions and contains referenced lists of the incidence of various instruments under various names, but categorised by a mixture of peoples, regions and modern nation-states. The same exists in wiki categorisation as a whole, with articles on regional, national and tribal music that overlap and are partial and incoherent. For a discussion of categorisation difficulties, see [1] There is no categorisation of African instruments by type and no Hornbostel Sachs classification.
It seems to me that the use of terms for instruments is inextricably linked with language groups, and traditional or "folk" music with ethnic groups. While I am respecting Merriam's ethnomusicological regions (which had been wildly at variance among different articles and categories), most sources define African music by ethnicity itself, which is frequently spred across nations and regions. On the other hand the music industry may be categorised by nation-states. To respect WP:NOTDIC there's really no need for Erikundi and what is the point of Kisanji and Ilimba, considering we also have mbira and kalimba and thumb piano and kaffir piano ?? Just one example - you should see the harps, drums and xylophones. I am happy to sort it out slowly by myself, but then it will be done my way, obviously, so please comment. Redheylin (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm overall fine with the merges, with my personal caveats being that sometimes a morphologically similar instrument may represent a completely different tradition. For example, there are many fretted instruments which are substantively similar to the guitar in construction and often tuning, but we have separate articles for many guitar "variants" which comprise very different traditions. From a hard morphological sense, you could easily combine ukulele and guitar (just to give commonly-known instruments), but we've had no trouble fleshing out lengthy and totally separate articles about those instruments. Similarly, morphologically there's little difference between the Great Highland Bagpipe and most of the bagpipes of Germany, France, and Spain, and yet we have dozens of articles for these, as they have become separate traditions unto themselves, and also that way fit into the category trees for their given areas, such as Category:Asturian musical instruments and Category:Catalan musical instruments (both of which are within Category:Spanish musical instruments.
I definitely agree that many instruments, and not just in Africa, cross nation-state boundaries, which aren't adequate to solely categorise them. I definitely support a stronger cat tree to organise them morphologically and culturally. And if an instrument is played both in Burundi and Rwanda, can we not say that Category:Rwandan music and Category:Burundian music can't really be complete unless they contain that instrument? And if so, why not have Category:Rwandan musical instruments? If a given instrument is specific to a given musical culture, I have zero problems with a Category:Hausa musical instruments, etc. (in the past I either meant to make this, or did and someone deleted it). We do have, as mentioned, parallel cultural/regional cats in Asian and European instruments, recognising that the shuvyr bagpipe, for example, is a Category:Mari musical instruments specifically, rather than falling directly into Category:Russian musical instruments simply because the Mari people happen to live within a nation currently called Russia.
In sum, I think what you're doing is great, and fleshing out the category tree, and adding some better organisation by morphology and by culture vice solely by nation-state could be most helpful. I just disagree with wholesale removal of the "Fooian musical instruments" category in Africa, particularly as such nation-state cats are used throughout Category:Musical instruments by nationality, granting that nation-state boundaries are an imperfect method for categories, but allow the instrument to be category tree-linked into the nation where it hapens to occur. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I just disagree with wholesale removal of the "Fooian musical instruments" category in Africa, particularly as such nation-state cats are used throughout... For the first part, this was a strictly temporary measure - just too much clicking around looking for stuff I am trying to borrow from, sort, edit, link, reference and merge, particularly as there are also logically-unnecessary regional categories. As Gyro mentioned, I am normally very keen on diffusion. But as things stand, there's just no way to make sure I've seen everything on, say, the mbira, without clicking on every single African instrument to find out if it's a mbira under another name. If I forget to write everything down, I have to search again. I am also getting used to finding large tracts purely about, say, Yoruba music under Music of Nigeria or vice versa when peoples cross frontiers as is entirely normal - and of visiting pages about specific peoples and finding large tranches of good musical info that is not categorised under "Music" at all!
I'd add that the comparisons you make with European instruments, while true in principle, differ simply because of the far larger amountof usable material on those instruments, and also because national identities are much, much older in Europe than in post-Colonial Africa. To use your example, there IS no distinct Rwandan and Burundi traditional music, there is Hutu and Tutsi and Pygmy music. In this case EVERYTHING about Hutu music needs to appear under both Burundi and Rwanda (and a few more) and this can only be done either by recategorisation or by extensive text duplication. Given that there are about more categories than instruments just now! - I personally would prefer to use only regions, linking thoroughly to ARTICLES, not categories, of nation-state music, and to general instrument articles, general nation-state articles and key articles like Sub-Saharan African music traditions and African music instead, and creating categories lie "Hausa" when needed for major groups. BTW, my reference-point for the whole lot is; Ethnic groups in Africa and the linguistic articles. Talking of bagpipes - surely Scotland is a region of the nation of the UK??!! Lastly I take your point about the context and use of instruments - in fact, I am doing this partly because I have found really good sources like this and cannot readily find a way of incorporating the musicology of them as things stand. Redheylin (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is the better place for a centralized discussion. Redheylin, I see the point of what you're doing. But I wish to point out, regarding Ethiopian instruments, that these do cross ethnic and linguistic lines (if not cultural lines (though I could be mistaken, perhaps they do)). And in most or all cases, these instruments are also Eritrean instruments (I am not certain whether the reverse is true). I haven't personally seen Ethiopian music broken down into "Amhara music" or "Tigrinya music". There may or may not be differences although I think it would be more broadly categorized as "Highlander music" (or Habesha if you will) while being more specific about, e.g., Konso music. Adding to what MatthewVanitas said, I do not imagine we should merge (for example) krar and tanbūra, although based on pictures I've seen they are visually similar (if not identical). (I am guessing we don't want to muddy the waters right now by discussing whether we should have a "Category:Musical instruments by country".) Again, I do see the point of what you're doing, and can see how this would apply to (again, for example) tom (instrument): this is not used in "typical" (at least to Westerners) Ethiopian music, but they happen to be used in Ethiopia (sort of analagous to the Mari being in Russia). Thanks, and I hope this is helpful, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Gyro, having spoken to to other editors I propose to add a category "Musical instruments of the Horn of Africa", as this will allow us to follow Merriam's ethnomusicological divisions while avoiding arguments that "these countries are in the east!". Knowing, like you, the extreme editwarring that occurs over related articles, that's about all I am inclined to do. Anyhow, there's so much to do in Sub-Saharan. Redheylin (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Additions to new article African harp, particularly comparing middle eastern instruments, most welcome. Redheylin (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Klaxophone

Looking for some help to clear up a subject that seems a bit uncertain. The Klaxophone was supposedly invented by Henry Fillmore 80 years ago. However Damon Albarn built one recently and is listed all over the internet as the original inventor. From my understanding of the article on Klaxon, they are the horns that go AAAOOOGAH. Damon's just uses regular horns, so it doesn't seem to me that it would qualify for that title. My main question is whether or not the original Klaxophone, built for the musical piece called 'The Klaxon' at a car expo, really used Klaxons or Henry just called it that. I have found some recordings of 'The Klaxon' but none were from the car show and all replace the horns with some brass french horns or something. 24.145.60.38 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulbul tarang vs. Taishōgoto

Is there any difference between a Bulbul tarang and a Taishōgoto, or are these just two regional names for the same instrument? If so, the articles should be merged. Kaldari (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Morphologically similar, but generally unrelated traditions. I would support keeping them separate as though they share a common origin, they've pretty much totally separate fields. There's also the Pakistani/Sindhi/Baluch instrument Benju, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to merge that one either. I'd almost like to have a category WP:Typewriter zithers, but that might be OR since I can't find an RS using it (though it pops up in online forums). MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thinking on it further, I'd definitely keep bulbul and taisho separate, though not convinced the benju isn't basically a bulbul, and culturally/socially close enough. Thanks for the reminder, as I ended up going and adding refs to bulbul to remove the {{unref}}. The photo is a bit rough though, so it'd be good to track down another. There's a dude who runs a website about typewriter zithers in general, so might ping him for pics. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Drum kit components template image

I'd like to change the image but would like some discussion, particularly as the one I'm wanting to replace is a featured image. See Template talk:Drum kit components#Image. TIA Andrewa (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm... it seems that the image is a featured image at Wikimedia Commons but not at English Wikipedia, where the criteris are rightly different. If I get no discussion I'll be bold and change it. Andrewa (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Electric/electronic organs

I am wondering if there would any interest in creating a WikiProject for electronic organs? Such a project would cover the history and development of the electronic organ, beginning with the Telharmonium.. I believe this would be a good project similar in scope to the pipe organ project. There are, and have been, many manufacturers of electronic organs throughout the 20th Century, which I firmly believe calls for its own project.

Some of the more significant electronic organ builders, then and now, include: Hammond; Conn; Lowrey; Allen; Rogers; Lowrey; Johannus; and Thomas. Many of these articles are either stubs or poorly written, while a few have yet to be created.

I'd like to know everyone's thoughts. I believe the subject is significant enough to warrant its own project. You may reply to me either here or on my personal talk page. Thanks. Erzahler (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to create a whole new WikiProject for organs specifically, given that the overarching WP Musical Instruments is awfully quiet. I'm not familiar enough with the overall WikiProject culture to know whether, for example, a thriving WikiProject Quebec should be maintained even if WikiProject Canada is moribund. As a middle-ground, have you considered making a sub-category of WPMUSINST? I don't even know the exact names for these sub-projects, but you'd still have the {{WPMUSINST}} on the Talk page to categorise it into the project, but you'd augment it to {{WPMUSINST|organ=yes}} so that it'd be sub-categorised as well. I had thought of doing similar for bagpipes, since we have well over a hundred articles on bagpiping. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Improvements at Electronic bagpipes

Degerpipes electronic bagpipe chanter

This article had been been pretty iffy since its creation in 2006, with a tendency to either fanboyism for a particular make, or possibly even inappropriate advertising slant. Various editors would drop in and remove or add mentions of Brand X or Brand Y, or jam in overly enthusiastic content about what an amazing evolution Brand Z was.

I was getting tired of this, so today went and pinned down a 1962 attestation, well predating other "first" claims in the article, added a few refs, removed some unsupported content, and replaced a redpipes advert photo with a historical photo of an earlier form of e-pipes. I still would like to replace the initial photo (a rather murky, probably 2006 photo of Degerpipes) with a better-quality photo perhaps showing several brands of e-pipes for contrast. Article still isn't great, and I'd love to get more refs on the earliest forms of e-pipes since there are many tantalising clues on gBooks snippets. But I think it's an improvement, and I'll solicit some help on the Dunsire Bagpipe Forum as well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Instrumentalist categories at instrument articles

I removed a category "Clarinetists" from the Clarinet article because it appeared incorrect. The instrument cannot be an instrument player. Is there more need to remove such categories from instrument articles? Bass clarinet is in the "Bass clarinetists" category at the moment, and Trumpet is in the "Trumpeters" category, but I expect to remove those and any others I find. Note that Piano is not in the "Pianists" category, and Flute is not in the "Flautists" category. I think all the player categories should be removed from the instrument articles.

There should be consistency no matter which way is chosen. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your objection to the logic of it, but I lean towards including the category of players in the article on the instrument. Bass clarinet, for example, does not include an explicit bulleted list of bass clarinetists, so it is useful to have, at the bottom of the page, a one-click link to such a list.
Consistency in Wikipedia will always be an elusive goal. I would rather see things like "ease of use" and "least astonishment" given precedence over "consistency for its own sake." That calls for case-by-case evaluation. Open to discussion, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with the Hornbostel–Sachs system help clean up and/or standardize this a bit? If I have the time, I'm going to read up on it and see if at least the commonly encountered woodwind instruments are categorized systematically and correctly. I'm fine with the usage above, where, for example, the Clarinet article is in the category of Clarinetists. But a lot of the straightforward categorization seems to be a muddle still. - Special-T (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mislabeled photo of a mandole?

File:Anka1.jpg
El Anka playing the ?????

In the photo at El Hadj M'Hamed El Anka , I'm 90+% sure that the instrument is not a mandolin (as in the caption) or an oud (as in the photo description). It's way bigger than a mandolin, and unlike an oud has a flat back, mechanical tuners, and frets. I submit instead it's a mandole (an article I just started and added the pic to). Anyone object to changing the caption/description to reflect this? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi contrabassoon

Anyone with knowledge/expertise in this area? It's not clear from this article whether these instruments exist, or ever existed. I could help with the copy-edit and POV/OR issues of the article, but I'm not sure the article should exist in the first place. - Special-T (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Help ID this fretless lute from Himachal Pradesh (northern India)?

I've run across a few clips of a small fretless lute apparently played in Himachal Pradesh (perhaps by the Gaddis?). I think I've seen some spellings like ruwana/rowana/etc., but found one single forum post somewhere (google "riwana melodyjunction" to see the forum) where someone shows a nice clear picture, description, and labels it riwana. I made a very rough stub riwana, but would like to find more data on this instrument to get the article going. Anyone have any idea? I've had similar experiences with Asian instruments where just finding the right spelling/term to GoogleBooks suddenly allowed an article to flourish. In the meantime, here's a cool YouTube clip of a singer strumming the instrument with one hand while playing drums with the other: just search "A Folk Singer, Himachal Pradesh, India". Note that I have to provide search-terms vice links since YT won't allow ELs to such non-RS sites. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The 5-note train station tune

Hi music people. I want to make an article, or add a section at Public service announcement or the right one, about that 5-note tune they play before to tell everyone an annoucement is coming. You know the one. At airports, train stations, etc. I want to know the notes and if it has a name, and how it was popularized. Can anyone help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Alerts

I notice that the homepage doesn't have an Alerts box to update project members when major changes - deletion, move - are happening to project articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nord Stage

I've put Nord Stage up for a Good Article Nomination. In the light of this, somebody might want to review the current assessment on its talk page, as it will hopefully be better than a "Start" class now. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Castanets

I have removed the one member of Category:Castanets, which was castanets, and intend to propose the deletion of the category. Comments welcome. Andrewa (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No objections; the issue is that way back in the past someone created a massive "skeleton" of categories based on a very strict reading of the Hornstobel Sachs system. While this is a formal organology system, it's not necessarily the most logical way to arrange an encyclopedia, and also made for a lot of micro-categories. I agree that HS-based categories with only one or two entries should be upmerged. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been adding some HS classifications recently as part of a cleanup of Template:Percussion (and not always accurately [2]!). Most of the instrument articles linked to from the percussion footer template weren't even START class. There's obviously been a lot of work on HS classification in the past, but I was surprised (shocked) at how many of the articles on fairly significant instruments had no image even when one was already available in commons, no infobox and often no HS classification.
I'm now intending to look at the subcategories of Category:Idiophones and Category:Membranophones with an eye to creating subcategories, probably diffusing ones, for some of the more numerous HS designations.
I'm not an HS expert (obviously!) and have found a few puzzles that I think an experienced hand could probably solve very quickly. Where is the best place to get help on this? Here? Andrewa (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The categories-of-instrumentalists issue

There's a discussion going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) about musical instrument articles (e.g., Trombone) being put in the category for instrumentalists (e.g., Category:Trombonists. It's certainly illogical, but it has been done a lot, ostensibly because those instrumentalist categories were convenient places to group related articles. Could we not change the categories to just bundle all things (e.g.) Trombone-related into something called Category:Trombone instead? - Special-T (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've responded at Village Pump. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I have some help

I could use some help with my baritone I am having trouble hitting higher notes that I have to play in jazz, and in pep band during basketball games. Any tips on how to hit higher notes. Thanks Nhog (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Double bass review

It's not clear how to do it, so I'll post here. I think Double bass is an excellent article, and was only removed from GA quality (5 years ago) for lack of references (of which there are now 38). Would someone re-evaluate it please? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Major cleanup on Indian drums

I was reading up on Indian percussion instruments recently, and a lot of the articles are in a terrible state. I did some major cleanup (though the articles still aren't great) at mridanga, dhol, ghatam, tabla, and some others. This seems to be a problem with a lot of Indian instruments: copyediting errors left for months/years, drive-by edits putting in non-notable performers, excessive technical minutiae of no interest to generalist readers, etc. If anyone is interested in basic copyediting/sourcing and wants to explore another part of the world, some going-through of the Indian instruments would be productive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Chordophones and string instruments

We have a mess on our hands with the two above articles. In my view, these two terms are very distinct, one being specific to Western orchestral music (strings) and the other having worldwide significance (Chordophones). This needs so major cleanup and re-organization, but I'm not sure how to do it. I started discussion at Talk:String instrument#Scope of article - please comment there. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bluegrass mandolin

I have created a article about the Bluegrass mandolin style. If anyone here has anything to add, I would be grateful. I also removed a bit of duplicate material from the Mandolin article and linked to the new article instead. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion occuring here, regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cymbal manufacturers - OTRS request

A representative of Impression Cymbals has asked that this article be corrected. Currently it reads: Impression Cymbals is a Turkish cymbal company founded in 2010 by four partners that had previously worked for Bosphorus Cymbals for more than ten years and decided to establish their own cymbal foundry. In February 2013 three of the original four founding partners left the cymbal business. All cymbals produced by this company are made by using exclusively B-20 alloy (80% copper, 20% tin) and are exclusively hand hammered by expert cymbals smiths. Impression Cymbals also makes OEM for Exodus Cymbals.

The representative states that: We produce our own cymbals and nobody works for us. We need to stop this hoax ASAP.

Would someone please take a look at this? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a job for WikiProject Percussion. I might cross-post it there. The article is painfully under-referenced, and has had recent input from a number of single use accounts and anons. Lots to do there!
But my initial response to this specific request is that the rep seems to misunderstand what the article says. This may be the whole problem. What the rep seems to be trying to say above doesn't contradict the section of the article quoted at all. The article asserts that Impression make Exodus cymbals. The rep seems to be saying that Exodus doesn't make Impression cymbals. Ummm, nobody said that they did. No hoax there.
The one thing that might be a point of contention is the sweeping statement that nobody works for us. I'm guessing that this is simply saying again that Exodus don't make Impression cymbals (and that neither does anyone else). But if it's saying that Exodus is a one-person operation with no employees at all, then yes, that isn't the impression (no pun intended) that the article currently gives. Again this may be more a language problem with the rep than a problem with the article, unless my guess is wrong.
Their home page http://www.impressioncymbals.com/ currently has a redirect loop. The Impression Facebook page [3] is confusing, it seems to be more about a different brand called Crescent. Their catalog PDF, 3.79MB just lists series, no models or sizes, doesn't mention Crescent cymbals at all, and gives the home page URL that loops.
At http://www.musicradar.com/gear/drums/cymbals/rock-jazz-series-cymbals-515412 there's a review that definitely reads as if this is a fairly large operation, rather than a one-man band, as do some other less informative online reviews.
At http://www.percussionplus.co.uk/impression-cymbals.aspx there's a sort of review, mostly lifted straight from the last page of the Impression PDF catalog (see above). Again, it's consistent with our current article.
Happy for you to put this rep in touch with me. If they can provide better sources (dead-tree magazine articles for example), that would be a real help. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cello, lets get it back to GA status

Hello- Hope to find folks who want to get the cello article back to GA status. I have played for 25+ years and think I have some refs which could get the article back on its legs. ANYONE want to help??Coal town guy (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up

I submitted a WikiProject proposal for Project Vocaloid, which is, as the name implies, a project focused on Vocaloid-related articles, their improvement, and the addition of Vocaloid-related articles that currently do not exist. Since Hatsune Miku (and other Vocaloid products) articles' are voicebanks for voice-synthesizer engines, which are among the musical instruments exclusive to computers, I just came by to inform the project of its (potentially) being listed as a related project.

I wanted to make this an entirely new project because Vocaloid has many things related to it that would fall under several projects' jurisdictions. For example, individual Vocaloid characters, such as Hatsune Miku and KAITO could fall under this project's scope, due to their products being voicebanks as well, but pages like MikuMikuDance would fall under WikiProject Animation's watch, due to the software being a tool used for 3D animation, as well as being related to Vocaloid. The Vocaloid WikiProject would unify them and make them easier to associate with a single general topic.

I just wanted to give the project a heads-up that it'll (potentially) be shown in the "Related Projects" section of another WikiProject.

Have a nice day! N Studios 2 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kelhorn

Dear musicians: I have found quite a few references to this instrument in published sources, but they do not seem to support the information in the article that this is a medieval instrument. Is this a notable instrument? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal of WikiProject Recording Artists, restructuring of WikiProject Musicians

I have created a proposal to create a WikiProject Recording Artists, which would be split off from the existing WikiProject Musicians with the intention of redefining it as a WikiProject Instrumentalists. Since this proposal would affect a large number of people, it will be very helpful to have as much input from Wikipedians as possible. Please stop by the nomination and leave some thoughts/suggestions. Thank you, WikiRedactor (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sumerian Pandur,Greek Pandura

Not Sumerian

[4], Mauricio Molina's book Frame Drums in the Medieval Iberian Peninsula says "While it is also possible that the term pandero derived from the latin adjective pandus (curved, bent), the most current theory based on phonetic development from Latin to Spanish sustains that the word pandero comes instead from pandura pandorius. It also has been explained that the term pandura itself derived from the Sumarian pandur or pardur (little bow), which suggests that the pandura was an instrument that evolved from some kind of musical bow. However, these words are never used in the Sumerian literature in connection with musical instruments. See H G Farmer. "An Early Greek Pandore," in The Science of Music in Islam. ed Eckhard Neubauer (Frankfurt Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. 1997), 2/301. Organologists have commonly identified the pandura as a kind of Greco-Roman lute. Their conjecture is based on the description by Pollux of Naucratis (second century A. D) of the instrument as a trichordon (instrument of three strings) The pandura is rarely found in Greco-Roman literature or musical iconography. It was comprised of a long, thick fingerboard and a small resonating body. Representations in late Roman sarcophagi indicate that the instrument had three strings or more and was plucked with either fingers or a plectrum, It is also important to take into consideration that both Marcianus Capella and Isidore of Seville identify the pandorius with a wind instrument made out of cane. Isidore, quoting Virgil (Eel. 2.321, further ascribes the instrument's invention to the god Pan. and" Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Harp or Pandura,Pandur (musical instrument) ?

File:Sumerian pandura.png is clearly from [5] although it's interesting that it is called there a harp. Your rename is clearly original research. I note that 3 of the files you uploaded there have been deleted, one of them as recently as the end of November. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Noting that it's now been deleted. You seem to be being less than truthful in licensing the images you are uploading. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Samizambak (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't post any of the above here. I'll add other material I posted and Samizambak replied to:
The Sumerian word for lute is probably gudi. [6]. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
And [7]. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Sumerian word for Sumerian long-necked-lute e is probably pantur or pandur.[8]Samizambak (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That's ironic and a reason why we don't use Google searches. Your very first link, Molina, is the quote I posted above which says after that snippet that the the Sumerian pandur or pantur (little bow) does not mean a lute. Your 2nd is a music teacher, your 3rd says "Still, no such words have come down to us in Sumerian which actually indicate an instrument of music." The next 2 are music journals, clearly failing WP:RS, then an Indian musicologist, and the rest are the stuff Google throws in for reasons I still don't understand as my experience is they usually don't mention the subject of the search. And I didn't look at the publishers. A search with 'Gudi'[9] turns up 2 academics specialising in the geographical and language area, and Dumbrill whose book is self-published (key to find that out) so can't be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk

Real Sumerian harp

The website is a personal website, fails WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this project, and its banner template {{WikiProject Musical Instruments}}, be named WP:WikiProject Musical instruments (with a lower case "i" in "instruments"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Brass redrot

A notice about red rot (brass) has been placed at WT:CHEMISTRY -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles LoBue

Hello, musical instrument experts. Is this a notable luthier? The page is an old abandoned Afc submission that will soon me deleted as a stale draft. Should it be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please expand Headstock

Hello, the article Headstock would benefit from expansion to include instruments other than US electric guitars of the 20th century. Design (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Factcheck Kemane

According to this new article, this string instrument is made out of maize. I left a note on the originator's talk page and on the article talk page to ask if that's really true, and in what sense it is true. The source for it is in a language I don't speak, so I'd say I'm at an impasse in researching that. Might be good if someone familiar with traditional string instruments could have a look at it. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Musical Instruments articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination for Taiko

Hey folks. An article I've been working on, Taiko, is being reviewed under the Featured Article Criteria, and a reviewer there has requested someone to check over the prose. If you'd like to help conduct this review, please check out the article and leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taiko/archive1. The relevant criteria are described here. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:List of Wurlitzer Pipe Organ Styles

The Draft:List of Wurlitzer Pipe Organ Styles was removed from an article in main space in April 2014 and moved to an AfC. Work on it ceased in May 2014 resulting in it becoming an AfC deletion candidate. Would someone evaluate whether it needs to be rescued and if so, solicit assistance in getting it ready to move to Article space.
SBaker43 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Unknown Instrument

Can someone tell the name of this instrument?--Catlemur (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Taiko as a Featured Article Candidate

Hey folks, I've just posted Taiko as an FAC and would really appreciate if you could take some time to review it and leave feedback on the FAC page. Any constructive comments or questions are appreciated. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reed (instrument)

I've started a move discussion. Eman235/talk 00:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Unidentified instruments

I came across this photo (Google translation: A collection of Karo Batak objects including musical one basket a sword a wichelboek a palm wine tube and some cloths) and was wondering if anyone knows what these instruments are? Would the photo be useful somewhere? OrganicEarth (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Stradivari violas

Category:Stradivari violas, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

New member!

Hello all I have recently joined the project and am here to help! I have a lot experience on the subject and will be overhauling this project! Feel free to contact me so we can get this rolling. --Xavier (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Piano burning

Does piano burning only involve uprights, or does it also include baby grands, and grand pianos? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

First sentence includes "most commonly an upright" and section 3.1 includes "centred on a burning grand piano", so the question is answered in the article! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

New userbox created!

I created a new userbox for the project! I have already done all the edits to the lists that list userboxes and on the userbox page itself. Plus, I have tested it and it works beautifully! --Xavier (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Piano burning needs eyes

Both the legends concerning the origins of its practice in the US and UK air forces are clearly designated as "legendary" in the article. In addition, the article states that there no evidence to suggest that descriptions of its origin have any historical authenticity four times, including in the lead. In my view (expressed on Talk:Piano burning), a complete account of the subject also requires an account of the two main legends surrounding the practice. This is standard practice in Wikipedia articles on everything from haunted castles to witchcraft to ancient Greek figures. Yet, two IPs (50.192.73.146 and 216.3.207.34) both tracing to Houston, Texas and undoubtedly the same person, have been repeatedly removing the accounts of the legends with no discussion or explanation whatsoever. In the process, they strand references, add inappropriate editorialising commentary, add statements before references which do not support the statements, and have repeatedly damaged the coherence and punctuation of the text. This article has few watchers. Could member here put some more eyes on it and/or add to the discussion I started on the talk page? Voceditenore (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with banner template

Just pinging page watchers, please see this discussion. Eman235/talk 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fife size nomenclature

The Fife page describes well the notational transposition conventions for Bb and Ab fifes. Those conventions are applicable to any size fife. What it does not do is to describe the nomenclature conventions for different size fifes. I don't play fife, but I believe that, for six-hole fifes, what is termed a "Bb fife" is one which, with all holes closed and playing its lowest note, is an instrument that sounds a concert Bb. Similarly an "Ab fife" is one which, with all holes closed and playing its lowest note, is an instrument that sounds a concert Ab.

The relationship between the acoustic pitch name of an instrument and the notational convention name can be tricky.

A baritone horn which is acoustically a Bb instrument is notationally a C instrument (i.e. the notator expects that written C should cause a concert C to sound) when notated in bass clef but notationally a Bb instrument when notated in treble clef (i.e. the notator expects that written C should cause a concert Bb to sound).

A D lysarden (thumb hole, six finger holes in front) sounds G when the left hand holes (thumb and upper three finger) holes are closed. A C lysarden (thumb hole, six finger holes in front, and a seventh hole covered by a key) also sounds G when the left hand holes (thumb and upper three finger) holes are closed. Notationally, both instruments are C instruments (notated C should sound concert C).

The bottom line is that when describing an instrument as being in some pitch (e.g. in Bb) there are two distinct nomenclatures that are often not the same. There is the acoustical pitch, the concert pitch produced with a clearly specified fingering or other configuration (e.g. woodwind fingering, brass key positions, trombone slide position, guitar fret position and string). This is fixed by the physics of the instrument and is immutable (at least for woodwinds--strings can tune up or down cf. scordatura). Then there is the notational convention, which describes what pitch is expected to be produced when a C is written on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strepthroat (talk • contribs) 04:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Music

An alto flute in G by Yamaha (model YFL-482H).

Hi! Together with some other German Wikipedians, I have created a project called Wiki Loves Music to improve the quality of musical instrument images on Wikipedia. As part of this project, the image on the right was recently donated to Wikimedia Commons by Yamaha. I am currently working with them to get the full range of Yamaha instruments on Commons. I am also in touch with a number of other companies and institutions in Germany. In June, we will meet in Hamburg for a musical instrument editathon and photo workshop. Please let me know if you have any comments or ideas! ----Gnom (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Coordination with Category:Wikipedia requested musical instrument audio files?

I noticed that several of the instrument articles on my watchlist have been recently tagged with {{Musical instrument requested}} on their Talk pages. Maybe there is interest here in coordinating efforts to add audio to pages that have been identified? It would be good to develop a guideline for what type of content is desirable in an audio file for inclusion on instrument pages. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Flute Makers page suggestions

First, I see very little "advertisement-like" content on this page. I'm researching Boehm system wooden flutes and found the list useful, if cumbersome, and if I were looking for a high-end flute I would find the links very useful -- where they work at all.

That said, an adjectivotomy would please me. "Well-known," "historic," "famous dynasty," distract from parsing useful information.

I wish it were possible to separate mass-production instrument factories (Conn, Bundy, Armstrong, etc) from specialist flutemakers (George Koregelos, Louis Lot, Albert Cooper,) though I can't quite see how to do it: which is Haynes since they created a group of lower-end flutes for higher-end students?

Also, it seems to me that it would be useful to separate flutes as used in bands and orchestras -- one dare not say "traditional" in this context-- Boehm system, C, A 440 or thereabouts, metal -- from the makers of wood flutes, possibly including the two makers of Boehm system wooden flutes (Abell and Verhoef). It would be to their advantage (and mine).

I've listed makers and other items I feel are problematical below.

First, I do not feel that links to Facebook pages are appropriate. Some but not all of the FB-linked makers have websites and appear to really make flutes. (Miguel Arista, Brian Bertrem)


The link to Aihara flutes (http://members3.jcom.home.ne.jp/aiharaflute) is not what I'd call functional, or maybe the page as such no longer exists: it's a screen of plain text in Japanese characters only.

I don't see that this is a necessary addition to the description of Michael Allen flutes: "Myall-Allen - brandname for treble flute in G made by Allen and sold by Jonathan Myall Music (a.k.a. Justflutes)". Possibly it approaches self-promotion.

The listings for the Arista flutes are confusing and I don't feel that linking only to a Facebook page is appropriate (Miguel Arista).

Bruce Bailey flutes now seem to exist only as a few Flickr photos (https://www.flickr.com/photos/12157552@N02/tags/bis/)

Cibaili's link (http://www.aboutus.org/Cibaili.com)is a dead domain and I find no instances of recently produced Ciabaili flutes for sale. They were evidently cheap knockoffs of better-respected brands and given those two facts perhaps Cibaili should be removed from the list.

Tom Green Flutes: the link goes to a Jupiter flute on Amazon (hijacked?) This address will get the reader to Tom Green's workshop: http://www.flutespecialists.com/tom-green-flutes-1

J Michael appears to be a distributor (of brand X?) rather than in any sense a maker. (http://www.jmichael.jp/)

Alton McCanless died in 2016 as did his workshop. (http://mccanlessflutes.com/)

The RagaFLute link is broken and I couldn't find an actual ragaflute workshop or brand.

Roosen may still be making flutes; the website (http://www.roosen.fr/) is "under construction."

Weril does not make or sell flutes (as nearly as I can make out from the site). (Weril - BRA - http://www.weril.com.br/)

This Wisemann sells other makers' flutes. (Wisemann http://www.jbwflutes.com)

This Chinese site lists flutes branded Wisemann. (http://www.wisemann.com.cn/english/class.asp?aid=54&nid=487)

Equisetum (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons Photo challenge of July 2017 is "musical instruments"

If you have any picture to upload, please take a look to commons:Commons:Photo_challenge/2017_-_July_-_Musical_instruments. It ends on July, the 31st but maybe we will postpone the deadline.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal of interest to this project

See Talk:Lap steel guitar#Merge proposal. Thanks. --Jayron32 17:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 proposal to make Organ (anatomy) the primary topic of Organ over Organ (music)

There is a proposal to make Organ (anatomy) the primary topic of Organ. This would change the current consensus that there should be no primary topic between Organ (anatomy) and Organ (music). Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Organ (anatomy). Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dilruba

Please help.Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Swarmandal

Howdie. If anyone's able to upload a free image of a swarmandal, I'd be mighty grateful. It would be good to add at "Strawberry Fields Forever". (Ideally, a 21-string version, but no worries if not.) Many thanks. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Backlog of unassessed articles

I have started on the backlog of unassessed articles. Does anyone know why, after I add the quality and importance to the WikiProject Musical Instruments tag in the article's talk page, it still says "unassessed" at the top of the article? And why the statistics chart at the top of the project's page about assessment also doesn't change to reflect the changes? An example of one I tried to assess: Archtop guitar.Jacqke (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You may need to clear your browser cache to see the change. I've just had a look and it shows importance as "mid". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That worked for the top of the article. But on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments/Assessment table or the list of articles it pulls up that are supposed to be unassessed there's a problem. It still says 522 unassessed articles, after I assessed all those starting with A.Jacqke (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that it will be picked up by a bot some time in the next 24 hours, see the logs: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Musical instruments articles by quality log. If anyone knows for sure, please chime in! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I just found a way to purge the cache of the page with a purge tag. It seems to work now. I appreciate your help.Jacqke (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
However pages such as Aerophor still report a unassessed article.Jacqke (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UT

I'm going to restate what I now think are separate issues.

  • The table is not updating when articles have been assessed. Not sure if the bot is having problems, but other projects have reported that.
  • Some pages have been marked with tag that isn't effective. I picked up the tag {{WikiProject Musical Instruments}} somewhere and it appears to work on an article's talk page. However the main page of the article doesn't register the assessment (saying the article is unassessed). When I switched to {{WPMusInst }} both the talk and article page registered the change. An example of an article where this occurred is AvantGrand. As I go through articles, I will make sure the effective tag is in place.

Does anyone have any experience dealing with the WP 1.0 bot?Jacqke (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) This table does update: Category:Musical instruments articles by quality.

I ran the bot once yesterday which changed the numbers, but didn't remove the archtop guitar from the list, so did no more. Go to this web form click on the drop-down list and select "Musical Instruments". It should fill it in in the line below. Click on "Go". It takes several minutes, so don't panic - best to go and make/get a coffee/tea/wine/beer and come back. I'm off ringing some bells, but I'll be back here later this evening. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I will work on it.Jacqke (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

lifted text in Giovanni Battista Guadagnini article

If there is anyone willing to take a look at this article, Giovanni Battista Guadagnini, it appears to have sections of text lifted from other websites, without crediting them or rewriting it. The article is listed as high importance to the Wikiproject musical instruments and is also on the level-5 vital article list. I may take it on, but am currently working on rewrites for two other articles on the level-5 vital article list.Jacqke (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Slots open for important instrument makers on level-5 vital article list

My interest focus is on stringed instruments, so I don't feel qualified to populate the list. But right now the list of articles that every Wikipedia should have is building. There is a place for musical instrument makers. So far there is a piano maker, a saxophone inventor, violin, bass and mandolin luthiers. There are going to be a very few slots available, and who occupies thoses slots will be debated, once room runs out. The list is at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Artists, musicians, and composers.Jacqke (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about guitar

Can someone please advise me of what kind of guitar she is playing? Gnosis (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

List of music museums

Please note that there is a new music list, see List of music museums. Please give your opinion too whether this list has been referenced enough. See the talk page for that. Ymnes (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is not if it has been referenced enough but whether it should only contain museums that have their own pages on Wikipedia. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Is a fife a concert flute?

Is this addition correct. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The article Fife (instrument) doesn't mention any use as a concert instrument, so I would think it shouldn't be in Template:Western concert flutes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Keyboard instrument, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Keyboards

What's the difference between a musical keyboard and a keyboard instrument? That is, why are there two separate articles? Is it that one is an article about the keyboard itself, while the other is about instruments which are played by a keyboard? If so, wouldn't it make sense to merge the two articles? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the difference. The topics are obviously close, interrelated and overlapping, but they are distinct things. For example, musical keyboard could report more about different keyboard systems, keyboard instrument more about the instruments' varied performance history. I wouldn't merge, just like I wouldn't merge mallet percussion and percussion mallet, or string instruments and string (music). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Percussion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Percussion is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Percussion until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Classical guitar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Classical guitar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Classical guitar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Pipe organ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Pipe organ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pipe organ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Guitar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Guitar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Guitar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-energize and reorganize this WikiProject

I am interested in trying to breath life into this WikiProject. I wanted to see one with energy and have been looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history which seems to be doing it right, improving articles. I invite anyone interested in improving musical instrument content to contact me.Jacqke (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Log of work done for this WikiProject

Logging days I work on backlog of articles for this project. If you do some work, why not log it here?

  • 2019 06 10 went through Category:Wikipedia requested images of musical instruments, A-L, looked at pages with photos that still had request. Down to 372 articles needing images (from about 450)Jacqke (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 2019 06 11 Looked at M-P pages with photo requests; down to 345 that still need images.Jacqke (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 2019 06 12 Added photo of Roneat thung
  • 2019 06 13 Added photo of Francis William Galpin; Looked at Q-S pages with photo requests; down to 332 that still need images
  • 2019 06 14 Added photo of Tromba marina and Giorgi flute (to Western Concert Flute). Finished review of photo requests; final count 305 articles needing images.Jacqke (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 2019 06 14 Added images to Konghou and started galleryJacqke (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 2019 06 18 Added references for Pong lang Jacqke (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 2019 06 23 added image for Pong Lang, articles needing images 304
  • 2019 07 13 created Sneng; added ref/content to Krap, begin adding Khmer text to Traditional Cambodian musical instruments, working on article for tube zithers, reworked Tro (instrument), added image to Kong ring

Proposed bass guitar article split

It has been suggested that the material about the playing aspects (Sections 5–7) in Bass guitar be split out into another article titled Bass guitar techniques. Please see the discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Synthesizer#Module section

Is anyone available to help us get consensus regarding Popcornduff's removal of uncited sections from Synthesizer? ~Kvng (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hammerax up for deletion again

Serial WP:AFD. Question of WP:Notability and WP:Before. Sources need improvement. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed article deletion: List of classic synthesizers

Discussion here. Opinions welcome. Popcornduff (talk) Popcornduff (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

New article: List of synthesizers

Following the deletion discussion linked above, I've created a new article, List of synthesizers. It needs major expansion, so help is appreciated. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking for help with synth articles

Hi all. Over the last several months I've been trying to improve our coverage of major electronic musical instruments (mainly synths, samplers and drum machines). Before I got started, important articles like synthesizer, Moog synthesizer and Minimoog comprised reams of original research and clutter. It has involved an awful lot of WP:TNT.

I feel I've been making progress, but it's lonely work and there's still lots to do. Unlike on articles to do with albums, movies and games (where I spend most of my Wikipedia efforts), there doesn't seem to be so much activity around these articles. So I'm posting here to invite any interested parties who might be willing to help out.

Any kind of help is appreciated. I'm pretty good at the soft stuff - history, impact and so on - but what would be super useful would be someone who has more technical knowledge than I do and help flesh out the description of how these devices actually work (using proper sources, of course). This is the area I'm least able to contribute to.

If anyone is up to the challenge please don't be shy. Thanks.

I'm also posting this over at WP:EM. Popcornduff (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added a short note about the "Practical Electronics Sound Synthesiser" of 1973/4 vintage. The constructional articles give detailed information about the operating theory which I'm guessing will be very similar to commercial units of the period. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
It may be more difficult to get others to help you if you're belittling and blowing up previous editors' work. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, thanks for that, but everything I am "belittling and blowing up" is 100% uncited original research. See also WP:TNT. Popcornduff (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:OR per your own assessment. Even if your assessment is 100% correct, yours is still a stance that doesn't invite collaboration. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, I don't think you're being fair. On the synthesizer talk page, the consensus was against including uncited material, which should not be surprising as this is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I'm sorry you feel my opposition to uncited material is a stance that "doesn't invite collaboration", but I'm pretty sure that if you were to take this to other places for debate, the consensus would not be with you there either. If you still have a bone to pick, I'd be happy to continue the debate on one of our talk pages, or you could take it to another venue, but I don't think this sort of sniping is helpful right here. Popcornduff (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I think this is an appropriate venue for this discussion. I don't think I'm sniping at you. I don't have a serious problem with the work you're doing. I'm trying to point out that your rhetoric here and, in some cases, your means (WP:TNT) of improving articles is offputting to those, like myself, who have been working diligently for years to improve these articles. This should concern you because it doesn't look like you can get it all done yourself and there aren't new editors joining Wikipedia in droves these days and I hope the ones we do get don't share your sentiments about existing material. ~Kvng (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Kvng, all that's been asked of you (by me and other editors) is that any information you add is sourced. Might that put off editors who are making good-faith changes to articles? Perhaps, but it is a fundamental Wikipedia requirement. Popcornduff (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I remember looking at those a while back when I was working on musical instrument. The tough thing is the old "sources" about those instruments were hobbyist websites from the 90's. Many of them were very knowledgeable and their information propagated throughout the modern internet... but they'd all fall short of WP:RS these days. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Laser brain, yes, sourcing has been kind of a challenge. I've had to use more actual books (boooring!) than I do for most articles. However, in recent years, with the rise of the modern DAW and online synth culture etc, there are more sites like Red Bull Music Academy around, plus Sound on Sound has a good online archive.
Speaking of which, do you have any opinion on whether Reverb.com is a RS? I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Reverb.com, but no responses yet. Popcornduff (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: I'd say no, personally. I don't see any evidence of fact-checking or an editorial process.. they may just pay for articles written without much scrutiny. --Laser brain (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Laser brain, thanks for the assessment. I'll continue to avoid it for now. Popcornduff (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Popcornduff I've requested some articles from the library on synth topics. I'll let you know when they arrive and we can assess whether they contain anything useful. --Laser brain (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Laser brain, forgot to thank you for this. Let me know if they have anything cool! Popcornduff (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm on this project and do bits on it from time to time. I've taken Hammond organ, Mellotron and Rhodes piano to GA, GA reviewed Roland TR-808 with Popcornduff, and created a few synth articles like Roland RS-202. Other synth articles are on my back-burner; the chief problem is I don't have much in the way of sourcing beyond Mark Vail's Vintage Synthesizers for articles generally. I think Popcornduff is broadly right in some synth articles are in a sorry state having been randomly tweaked by fanboys without any direction - compare the Hammond article before I started work on it and what it's like today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Instrument fretboard diagrams

I see fretboard diagrams on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I was viewing the Mandolin one and the matter which I think is wrong is that people show the fretwire as being the frets.

When we talk about playing say the 2nd FRET or 5th FRET or whatever, the FRET is actually the area where you actually put your finger to get the note. The metal piece is FRET WIRE but it is not the fret.

Confusing for a beginner who may think they have to put their finger on the actual metal piece because their instruction books may say, for example, the 2nd fret.

So, to conclude, the FRET is not the metal FRET WIRE. The FRET is the area in between fret wires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.164.96 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

See fret. The fret is the wire or string. When you say "second fret" you are wanting the string to vibrate from the second fret to the bridge, and the usual way of doing this is to put a finger down behind the fret to push the string into contact with the fret. If beginners are confused then their teachers need to explain it a bit more clearly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Project name

Why is this project's name using "Musical Instruments" when the relevant article is called musical instrument? I can see no reason to use caps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This project is old. Certainly could use standardization.Jacqke (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Because the project is concerned with more than one article and more than one instrument? Because the project name is not reader-facing so doesn't need excess attention? ~Kvng (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand these rationales. A "musical instrument" is in lower case but "Musical Instruments" in upper case? And how are the talk pages of articles not reader-facing? At Talk:Roland TR-808, the reader sees "WikiProject Hip hop" (why that project?), "WikiProject Electronic music", and "WikiProject Musical Instruments". Readers can only conclude that either there's something special that they haven't considered or just don't get for that odd spelling, or assume thoughtlessness or sloppiness. As for, "is old": that's inviting comments on fossilization and the project's vitality, but I won't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Neither musical instrument nor musical instruments is a proper noun so they don't need to be capitalized. Wikiprojects, like talk pages, are used by editors, not so much by readers so I personally put less energy into these pages but I have no objection to you doing so. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Classic Keys: Keyboard Sounds That Launched Rock Music

I am posting here at the suggestion of Ritchie333. I am one of the two authors of Classic Keys. I'm happy to enter into discussions about the nature and content of the book and its relevance to various Wiki articles. David Robertson Docrobbie (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docrobbie (talk • contribs) 06:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a book your authored to many articles will raise heckles, especially adding it be creating a new section in those articles, "Bibliography". Judging from the the title, it doesn't seem like a general reference work on keyboard instruments, so it's unclear how it would be part of a general bibliography, or a "Further reading" section, on keyboard instruments. A more promising approach would be to inspect articles in the book's natural scope, rock music and its use of keyboard instruments, and find statements that lack a citation and provide one from the book. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Having had a look through the book's website and the list of celebrity and academic endorsements, plus David Robertson's own professional credentials, I think it should be considered a reliable source for any electromechanical keyboard listed in it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Michael and Ritchie333. Classic Keys was primarily written as a detailed resource for the vintage keys enthusiast community by two members of that community. It was written to fill huge gaps in the readily available knowledge base. It is a book about the instruments. So it has a depth of technical discussion tailored to that community that exceeds the needs or interests of the general public. For example, the featured instruments are pictured in high resolution from multiple directions - including internal details and details such as key shape and construction. To ensure that it has a broader appeal to those interested in the cultural stories associated with technology, the book has extensive contextual content about the companies, musicians, songs, history, and present day communities associated with these instruments. It also provides the overall historic development story of keyboard instruments to flesh out the many areas that vintage keys hobbyists are often unaware of - the precedents for features in the mid-20th Century instruments. The book is a positive celebration of the musical and technical communities that have built up around these instruments in the last forty years and has deliberately involved tens of key figures from those communities in its research. So it's also a social history of the extended influence of these instruments. David Robertson Docrobbie (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm satisfied this is a reliable source but am uncomfortable with the author adding it as a reference to existing material. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
If a book provides reliable sources to uncited material, it can be added, whether the author is an active Wikipedia editor or not. There are several very active Wikipedia editors who are authors and academics adding their papers and books, if needed. In some cases, they are the leading authorities in their field. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Kudos to them. Still makes me uncomfortable. If they show up in my watchlist, I give such additions extra scrutiny. ~Kvng (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

An instrument in the subway

I am sorry in case I am in the wrong place. Could anybody help me with categorizing this image? Is this a koto or a guzheng? Thanks in advance. Vcohen (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vcohen: I'm no expert on East Asian zithers, but it seems to resemble a guzheng more than a koto. Another possibility might be a gayageum. Theodore Kloba (☎) 15:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Ačiū! Vcohen (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Nėra už ką! Theodore Kloba (☎) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing template:infobox instruments

Having used a number of the pages for musical instruments in the past, I thought perhaps the Template:infobox instruments could use a taxonomy much like the scientific classification for organisms. First step, I guess, is to ask y'all if you think it could/should be done, then would be to figure out how to accomplish it.

I'd hope to use for a taxonomy using the Hornbostel-Sachs classification (specifically the MIMO listing, http://www.mimo-international.com/documents/hornbostel%20sachs.pdf), which is up to 13 digits, in the format XXX.XXX.XXX-XXXX

Like that of the organism classification, each level would be a link to the page for that level of instruments, e.g. Euphonium - 423.231.2 4 - Aerophones 2 - Wind Instruments 3 - Labrosones 2 - Chromatic Labrosones 3 - Labrosomes with Valves 1 - Valve Bugles 2 - Wide Bore

This would make it easier for researches to move around the taxonomy to find similar instruments they may not yet know the name of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atohanie (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Assessing musical instrument manufacturers

While assessing the backlog, I’ve become concerned about the rubric (Article Importance (Necessity) Grading Scheme for the Musical Instruments WikiProject) assessing musical instrument manufacturers as mid importance. I feel that those with long histories should be mid importance, while those just staring out, or those in a small niche such as guitar building for 1-2 decades, should be low importance. It seems startup companies that contract instruments to be made are a dime-a-dozen. Does anyone have opinions? Jacqke (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Cadenza Piano

Afternoon guys, can someone take a look at the article above, and also where the creator of that article has added information about the Cadenza Piano to verify what is said is correct.Official Site here for some info. From what I can tell, this is an electronic keyboard / synth in a piano shell. Obviously all sources list it as a Piano, but figure someone better informed than I can help on the talk page resolve that. I am also, unclear as to notability of the instrument manufacturer themselves. I assume you have your own notability guidelines specifically to this project that will be able to better evaluate. Cheers. Koncorde (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You do realise there's such a thing as an electric piano, right? Which doesn't necessarily mean synthesizer? And that every article lists it as a piano? A storm in a teacup. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I am aware, I gave you that link on the piano talk page. However I am also aware enough to have read the article and it states that an electric piano has strings. You have stated this one does not. So either you are right, and it isn't a piano but a misnomer, or you are wrong and it is a piano.
However this doesn't change the other questions regarding its notability or significance to be added to multiple articles and changing of long standing redirects. I am not professing to know the outcome, I am asking people who will know better. Koncorde (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Just for example, there is a reference at the end of the page on electric piano directing to Digital piano which may be what the Cadenza is (assuming it has mechanical weighting to the keys). Koncorde (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It's been placed in more than 30 cities, its' the first piano made specifically for the outdoors from concrete, and its stationing was celebrated by famous Israeli artists, pretty notable.
Are you also going to let the people here know you've been following me from article to article? This weird behavioural pattern? Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability. Koncorde (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest the same to you. I mean, you were asking questions that indicated you obviously didn't read the article. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Organizing instrument articles

Not sure if this is the best place to post, but here goes. We have clarinet and clarinet family, which both cover very similar topics; the last one is more of a "list of clarinet types". What is the distinction between these two articles?

The related question I have is more complicated. Currently, the article trumpet focuses on the valved Western trumpets, which makes sense, since that's the primary topic (I think). But the lead seems to ignore many other types of instruments commonly considered "trumpets", particularly non-Western ones. Obviously musical instruments are difficult to consistently classify, and this difficulty transfers to organizing articles, but I thought a structure like this would make more sense:

In summary, I'd like valved Western trumpets to go into Trumpet and subarticles which say "valved trumpet", while all instruments considered trumpets go in Trumpet family. I'm hoping to improve trumpet-related articles for a while, since they generally seem to lack inline citations; hopefully this new organization is sensible! Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus. What you want to do makes perfect sense. I see a similar issue with Lute, which covers only the European instrument; my solution was History of lute-family instruments which is becoming awkward because of the number of instruments. That article is becoming unwieldy and might need to follow your idea to become Lute family and the history of the lute family. I look forward to your trumpet-article reworking. Jacqke (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jacqke: Thanks! Yeah, the vagueness of instrument definitions is a general problem. Britannica seems to do basically what I suggest, explaining that trumpet can refer to a lot of things particularly in ethnomusicology, but talks mainly about the B♭ trumpet and mentions the other sizes, including piccolo and bass. Grove Music Online, which has a much more in-depth article, starts off with a portion about "trumpet" in the broadest context, and then spends most of the article discussing "The Western Trumpet", including the natural and slide trumpets. I don't know which approach makes more sense, because for example, we can't talk about chromatics unless we exclude the natural trumpet (or qualify that section with, "On valved trumpets"). Anyway, I linked this discussion on the Trumpet talk page, so hopefully some more people can weigh in! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Audio file placement

Hello, I just looked at page violin and was surprised to find the first audio file half-way down the long article at 6.2.4 Vibrato. WP is not a paper encyclopedia but obviously can produce sounds as well. And since the sole purpose of musical instruments is to make sounds, shouldn't audio/video files of recordings be standard right at the very top of any musical instrument article? I believe we're missing a trick here when such articles start with text and an infobox. --Dutchy45 (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right. It would be nice if a file could be included as part of the infobox. In mandolin, there are two sounds clips near the top. For anyone interested in working on this project, standardizing placement of sounds clips could be a good contribution.Jacqke (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to rebalance the focus of the article Lyre

Your opinions welcome at Talk:Lyre#I_disagree_with_focusing_the_article_on_Greek_lyre_and_describing_the_rest_as_"others". TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please help me with my article

Hello there, I'm currently working on expanding the article Gourd mouth organ as a part of my university unit. Can you please help me improve my article by giving any feedback, advice or assessment? Thank you very much! Ryssian (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

More opinions needed at Delay effect

More opinions would be appreciated about unsourced material at Delay effect. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Campaign: Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021

There is an organized campaign or contest at the moment to add Wikimedia Commons images to articles lacking photos. If anyone wants to target musical instrument articles needing images, the list is at Category:Wikipedia requested images of musical instruments. Best wishes, Jacqke (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Types of trombone

This article Types of trombone has grown into a big mess. It does not fit the format of the rest of the pages within the scope of this project. Please see its talk page for suggestions on what needs to be done. Who can help with this please? Tayste (edits) 17:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Came here to say this! My main question would be, is there a banner we can put up on Trombone and Types of trombone to say something like "this article is in the process of being split up/moved etc." so that we don't end up with editors undoing changes while it's all in progress? Cheers, and +1 Jon (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC : Notable users

What should the name for a section listing musicians on an instrument article be called? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've generally used "Notable users" as a heading across multiple good articles, including Hammond organ, Mellotron, Rhodes piano, Rocky Mount Instruments, Taiko, Vox Continental and Wurlitzer electronic piano. This has been recently challenged as violating the neutral point of view policy, eg: "rm POV "notable"", "remove POV, and it's painfully obvious that whoever named this section title wasn't even trying to be subtle about their personal opinions". So I'm asking the community what alternatives can be considered, and what we can decide as a consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • While simply having "Users" is my preference when that contains no editorializing whatsoever, I also am open to "Prominent users" as a way to specify what type of people are discussed. Just please keep the descriptions neutral. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a way to make it clear that sections like these are only for the most important, influential, etc., players of a particular instrument. I don't see this is as POV pushing, but rather that WP is supposed to provide encyclopedic content, which seems to be lost on many drive-by editors (cover songs, "in popular culture", etc.) "Notable" is often used on WP in a particular way and a "notable user" may be seen as applying to the musician, rather than how well-known or appreciated their contributions on the instrument are. For example, the Gibson Les Paul Custom article used to include "Notable Les Paul Custom players",[10] but many may have only used one for a brief time and are not seen by RS as being particularly important or influential. "Prominent" or "significant" may be better choices (or "noteworthy", "noted", "acclaimed" – check your favorite thesaurus). WP:NOTED PLAYER was an attempt to do something similar for sports, which may provide some ideas. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarinet article reassessment

Clarinet has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC "Lists of Repertoire" and "Use in Popular Music"

My question is: should musical instrument pages even have these sections?

Making note of important repertoire for specific instruments is definitely within the scope of an encyclopedia, but many pages just have flat-out lists. For example, take a look at many of the percussion pages (Timpani, Marimba, Vibraphone, Glockenspiel, etc.) or many woodwind pages (Oboe, English horn, etc.). They all have large lists of supposed important literature unsupported by any citations. If certain works are so integral to the instrument, then they would be integrated into the prose. For example, Paganini's etudes for violin are worthy of a mention on its page.

Popular music sections will never be anything more than a hodgepodge of editors' favorite bands that used the instrument once, even if written into prose. For example, take a look at Western concert flute#Pop, jazz, and rock and Bassoon#Popular music. Similar to my point above, only usages of great importance should be mentioned in the body of the article. For example, saying that the use of cello in orchestral rock was popularized by the Electric Light Orchestra in the "History" section would be fine, but not that Kanye West might use bassoon in an upcoming song.

Basically, this two-pronged argument asks: Can we straight up deprecate "Lists of repertoire" and "Use in popular music" sections? (Stand-alone list articles like Flute repertoire or List of compositions for cello and piano will not be addressed for the time being.) Why? I Ask (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC "Lists of Repertoire" and "Use in Popular Music" Why? I Ask (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

New music instrument article

Hello, I'm a newcomer and colleagues told me I should ask for help in this group. I'm developing article about Fusetar and would like to have support of someone experienced in writing about string instruments, so I can get guidance how to improve my article. Thank you loads for any ideas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatrinKultur (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've got support from @David notMD and wanted to ask music instruments specialists about additional help how better specify notability. I mentioned a technology that is used by notable players and such a technology was used for the first time in the instrument where traditionally is forbidden to make changes. So, it was done for the fist time kind of unique property of the construction that is notable but linking to the people using technology in their instrument is not properly used. Please, could you help me to improve this specification? Thank you loads in advance. KatrinKultur (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
KatrinKultur, you're writing here about Draft:FuseTar. It's unclear whether the draft is about FuseTars (also called Lucifers), FuseTars (exemplified by one that's called Lucifer), a unique FuseTar (also called Lucifer), a proposed instrument called a FuseTar of which one called Lucifer is the sole prototype (or sole successful/satisfactory prototype), or something else. We don't write "Saxophone", "DaxoPhone", etc (instead, "saxophone" and "daxophone"); is there a reason why this can't be written simply as "fusetar"? ¶ Sample: This hybrid instrument was invented in 2012 and is the first attempt to modernise[1] traditional Persian instrument Setar with the fixed (traditionally made from thin threads of animal intestines or silk[2]), with a true temperament[3] fretting system. This appears to have a link explaining or commenting on each of: (i) modernization, (ii) setars, (iii) true temperament. If I'm right, then none of these references is necessary (or even helpful). What is necessary is a reference to a reliable, independent source that will verify that the fusetar is the first attempt to modernize the setar with a true temperament fretting system. (Incidentally, this claim strikes me as inherently unverifiable. Is "attempt" perhaps shorthand for "successful attempt", "notable attempt", "favorably received attempt", or similar? But of course a claim for any of these would also need citation of a reliable, independent source.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Great points @Hoary will make changes today and get back to you with additional questions. Thank you! KatrinKultur (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Hoary. As I do not know what is grammatically correct in this case, I changed per analogy to other instruments and now it is written as Fusetar but unfortunately I cannot correct the title of the article. Regarding the 'prototype' I'm not sure as it is a fully functional instrument that performs at live shows. It is a sole fully functional instrument that has not been replicated since 2012, no other instruments were named Fusetar. those two names belong to only one existing physical piece. do not know why but it is not mass produced as harp guitar, perhaps of the unique symbiosis between modern and very old traditional instrument. Could you please help me to understand whether I've reflected it well in the intro part? Thank you in advance . KatrinKultur (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
KatrinKultur, here's my understanding, or misunderstanding: The owner/player of this (unique) instrument (Shahab Tolouie) thinks of it as a "fusetar". If I wanted one like it, and could afford to have it made, and could persuade somebody competent to make it -- high barriers! -- and this instrument was eventually completed for me and I took delivery of it, I could call it a "fusetar". The maker and owner/player of the first fusetar might be surprised to hear of the existence of the second. If my second one were rather poorly designed/constructed, they might worry that this could reflect badly on fusetars and might hope that I called it something else; but provided that it's a good instrument and I'm a decent player, they'd be untroubled by my use of the word "fusetar" for it. By contrast, "Lucifer" is the name Shahab Tolouie has chosen for his own fusetar. If I called mine "Lucifer", this would be impertinent or even deceptive. Before calling mine "Lucifer", I really ought to ask for Shahab Tolouie's permission; and even then it would be better if I called it "Lucifer II", or "Lucifer's Nephew" or "Luciferette" or whatever. Does this sound right? If so, "fusetar" is best thought of as a (newly coined) word, and not capitalized; and "Lucifer" (capitalized) as Shahab Tolouie's name for his own. You're very welcome to disagree; but even if you agree on the non-capitalizing of "fusetar", the title of the article will be "Fusetar" (capitalized), just as viols (not capitalized) are described in the article titled "Viol" (capitalized). -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary I tried to search how it works in the world of music instruments as there are no clear rules set for the legal part and came to conclusion that logically it should be as you described. Or as it works with this instrument described here. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikasso-Gitarre Regarding capitalizing the word I fully agree with you. Just wanted to ask who I should contact to have "Lucifer" added to the title if it is necessary? KatrinKultur (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
KatrinKultur, we're told that: The whole instrument is decorated by elements from three most significant historical periods of Persian Empire. Achaemenid: the Lion-griffin – believed to protect from evil. Parthian & Sassanid: Derafsh Kaviani – symbol of independence and freedom. Lion and Sun – associated with Persian royalty. And Faravahar – symbol of Zoroastrianism. [...] This seems to be about the mere decoration of a single instrument, played by Shahab Tolouie, who (however unjustly) doesn't have an article here. It's not at all obvious to me that this material is of encyclopedic significance. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hoary thank you for your feedback. I will change statement about decoration to be more specific but I'd keep Design part as it is quite significant there. Regarding the artist, I need to learn on one article then maybe will try to work on another one (not sure for now). Regarding the significance, I thought to find some native speakers who could do research in their local language and support content with more information, unfortunately my linguistic abilities are quite limited. To the point of 'encyclopedic' I just do per analogy to existing articles about similar stories on wikipedia: Folgerphone, Amplified cactus, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikasso-Gitarre, if they exist in that state, so I need also start from something and then invite more people to develop it further. KatrinKultur (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Continuous pitch instruments has been nominated for discussion

Category:Continuous pitch instruments has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Endwise (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Streichmelodion featured on DYK

Streichmelodion, a new article written in November, was featured today. Thought I should put it here, thank you everyone for the support!

Frzzl (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hohner

I'm working on improving the Hohner page which currently reads like a harmonica catalogue. My particular interest is in Hohner guitars so I'm starting there but I will try to improve the company history section and add/improve sections on other instruments they have made. Any feedback gratefully received. Heston.blumenthal (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alto recorder#Requested move 19 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alto recorder#Requested move 19 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Reassess A-flat clarinet

Hi -- wondering if you could reassess (if that's still happening) the A-flat clarinet article. As far as I can tell it's basically a complete article. There's little literature out there about it, and I believe all that is out there has been integrated in the article. (the current article is about 3x the size of the article on it in the Cambridge Companion to the Clarinet). Thanks. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reassessed it to C class, based on ORES 3.39 (C). By the way, are they generally known as "A♭ clarinets" or do we call them "piccolo" or "sopranino" clarinets? I wonder if the article needs a move, if so? — Jon (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
There are multiple types of clarinet considered "piccolo" or "sopranino" (it's a large family); there's only one A-flat clarinet. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

They are generally called A-flat clarinets. The family they belong to are generally called “octave clarinets”. A few recent software programs call them “piccolo clarinets” but this is not backed up in the literature. This is all discussed in the article and talk page including reasons for the naming and not move. Maybe in 30 years if the terminology in Finale or MuseScore catches on itd be appropriate, but not now. I’m curious why “C class” what’s a reliable source that ever discusses the instrument that’s missing from the article? I’m wondering what the criteria for assessment is? -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't properly assessed it, only that it's clearly not Start class any more, and I have found so far that ORES scores are fairly reliable up to about mid-B class. I'm no expert at assessing articles, but I think after looking at Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria we'd need section headings (History, Construction, Repertoire, etc.); more (consistent) inline citations; "Some writers call it the piccolo" - who, and who says so, for example; deduplicate identical refs 3 and 4; we could describe the instrument's range and any other details in standard orchestration texts, e.g. Adler, Piston, others (historical? Widor, Berlioz?); Grove mentions the keyless "hot fountain pen" from the 1920s in the Jazz clarinet article, which might be worth a sentence; Eric Heopeich's book might have material too; given it's mostly an Italian military band instrument, we might have more luck looking in Italian language sources too.—Jon (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, @Mscuthbert:: could we trouble you for another photo of your A♭ clarinet, against a plain white background, with diffuse light and ideally positioned 15-30 cm or so in-front of a big sheet of white card - see Category:Musical instruments on white background on Commons for other examples, for use in the infobox, and Wikidata?—Jon (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh gosh, apologies... and ironically, they're in the Piccolo clarinets category! Jon (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gambang (instrument)#Requested move 21 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gambang (instrument)#Requested move 21 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Fuzheado | Talk 03:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Instrument 1

Hello all. I was wondering if any members of this WikiProject has an Artiphon Instrument 1 in their possession, and could upload an image of it to Commons. I need it for a draft I'm writing. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Caribbean stringed instruments

I have been researching the origins, usage, crafting and evolution of stringed instruments of the Caribbean for twenty-five years and have amassed a significant archive of photos, recordings, diagrams, interviews and bibliography on the subject, working along with several other companions. Our work has been widely recognized by academia and is even quoted right here on Wikipedia. Together, we call ourselves the Puerto Rican Cuatro Project. We have summarized many of our findings on the several families of the Puerto Rican instrumentarium--a subject that has historically lacked academic scrutiny--in a book called Cuerdas de mi Tierra (Strings of my Land). I would love to share our findings, but am discouraged and somewhat stymied by the complexities of the Wikipedia process. If someone more familiar with the process would like to contact me and shepard me through the process I think our contribution could be of great value. cumpiano (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Soprillo / piccolo saxophone

For anyone interested, there is a discussion — Talk:Sopranissimo saxophone#Name — about renaming the sopranissimo saxophone article back to soprillo (the tiny B♭ piccolo saxophone an octave above the soprano, invented in 1999 by Benedikt Eppelsheim and not conceived by Adolphe Sax in his 1846 patent). Someone on the English Wikipedia in 2009 moved it from "soprillo" to "sopranissimo saxophone" which is not supported by any WP:RS that I can find; sources call it a soprillo, or occasionally a piccolo saxophone. Other language Wikipediæ use "soprillo" for the article. I'm itching to just be WP:BOLD and JFDI :) — Jon (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Philippine musical instruments#Requested move 22 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Philippine musical instruments#Requested move 22 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Instruments/Archive_1&oldid=1214701174"