Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company/Archives/2016

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Comment

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Will someone who knows more about Zildjian please re-edit the main article? I mean, things like the split between K. Zildjian and A. Zildjian would seem to contradict the quasi-mystical stuff about only telling the oldest son. Also, the timeline seems off. C'mon. This needs to be reworked, as it's hardly Encyclopedic standard.

The article is not all that below standard but I would like the remark about Zildjian being the largest drumstick company to be cited, I'm not sure, but I thought it was vic firth

The cymbal line descriptions read like they were written by a company P.R. man (maybe they were!) Meaningless, metaphoric phrases like "Crisp, clear, and musical." Yuck! Would somebody knowledgeable please edit this into more neutral and accurate language, or else remove this company brochure!

Also, a section explaining the various cymbal types (ride, crash, hi-hat) would be useful.

The company was in Quincy Massachusetts, not Quincy Illinois. My Dad visited there in the 1930s and met the company owner. Brent Poirier, Las Cruces NM.

There's already a section on Wikipedia that explains all the cymbal types. Mastodon91 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

7 years later, here I am also confused by the report that the company is approximately 400 years old but also that it was founded in the U.S. in the 1920s to compete with K. Zildjian. Can someone provide more details to clarify this 300-year discrepancy? D. F. Schmidt (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I am disappointed that the 'discontinued products' section doesn't seem to mention any 400-year-old cymbals. Am I to believe I can still get one of these designs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.79.136 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Istanbul vs Constantinople

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

The consensus is to use both names, Constantinople and Istanbul, for this company's city of origin name. The consensus is also to phrase it with "Constantinople" first like "The company was founded in Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) ..." because "we use the name of the place as it was at the time" and the "company website uses Constantinople".
Cunard (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is an ongoing edit war for this company's city of origin name. Istanbul is the current name of the city and it was also called Istanbul during the Ottoman era, Constantinople is the ancient name of the city but the company website, I think, uses ~~this name~~ Constantinople. Is there any MoS for this kind of usage? Which name should the article state? Darwinian Ape^talk 06:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC) amending rfc to add style Darwinian Ape^talk 07:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: To the edit warring parties, please stop and wait for consensus.

Comment A possible solution is to put 'Istanbul (known at the time as Constantinople)', or reverse that 'Constantinople, (present day Istanbul)'. Since this is an article about a US cymbal company, and the prime purpose of the text to inform where on the globe it originated (rather than to explore the history of the city or its names), I think it would be unhelpful to put JUST Constantinople, though that WAS the more common name in 17thC. Both names are actually old, The city's name İstanbul is a shortened version … of the Medieval Greek phrase "εἰς τὴν Πόλιν" [eis tin ˈpolin], meaning "into the city", which had long been in vernacular use by the local population. 'Constantinople' was dropped by modern Turkey since it translates as 'city of Constantine'. I don't know if this is policy, but it seems a sensible way to remain historically accurate, while remaining informative to those who don't know the older name. Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Names other than "Istanbul" were very commonly used in European languages before 1928 (see Names of Istanbul), so Constantinople should be allowable in many pre-1928 contexts if that's what's in the source... AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think (from what is at the head of this RfC), the company website says 'Istanbul', but at the time (17thC), the more common and more official name was 'Constantinople'. Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Both names should be used. This is a trivial issue, actually a non-issue when non-controversial nameplaces are involved. We use the name of the place as it was at the time and then add, in parenthesis, the name of the place as it is now. In this case: "The company was founded in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) by Armenian Avedis Zildjian...etc". Historical sources from the period in reference denote the city as it was then known. And historical sources cannot be altered in a Wikipedia article. That would not be informative. Worse, it would be history written on the basis of nationalist or, worse, irredentist, notions. -The Gnome (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Company website uses Constantinople. User:Pincrete. This isn't so much of an edit war as an IP vandal who forced the page protected, then went right back to it. Ape is just trying to support the vandals I have to deal with, as usual. --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused, I interpreted the intro to the RfC as 'Company website uses Istanbul' (it says 'this name'), regardless, the solution seems to be 'Name at the historic time, (present day name)'. This is more trivial that many such matters, but it would be anomalous to refer to a modern name that wasn't the general name at the time and unhelpful to use the historic name alone, that many have never heard of, or know where it is.Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the link. --Oatitonimly (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying, but the name used by the source, is slightly academic, affecting only where the ref sits. A million references could be found that the present name of the same city is Istanbul. We don't change an historical name (Leningrad, Burma, Palestine etc.), but nor do we deny the reader the info as to what the place is now called, especially as this is a US music company, rather than an article touching directly on any sensitivities about what the city should be called. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oatitonimly:, Perhaps Ape is just trying to prevent this page being unnecessarily protected? It's not very helpful to label the edits of IP's as vandalism and neither is casting aspersions. They are not vandalizing the page just because you disagree with them. This was a slow but steady edit war for a long time, a lame edit war over a trivial issue, but an edit war nonetheless. Darwinian Ape^talk 17:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

After going over the history of the edits, I have to say that Oatitonimly is correct, above. This is yet another case of an IP miscreant causing asymmetrically large damage and wasting our time. Let's resolve this quickly, please. -The Gnome (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope you do not suggest that I am "supporting the vandals" as Oatitonimly did above. I think a little time wasted may save more trouble later even if it's a trivial matter like this one. I would be happy to resolve this as quickly as possible, I wouldn't have requested an rfc if I'd thought this page could generate enough voice to create a meaningful consensus. I was curious wether there is a mos for using ancient names of the cities. Your suggestion above makes perfect sense. Also, it takes two to edit war and the page history shows that the editors here are as stubborn as the IPs albeit wiki-savvy. Darwinian Ape^talk 00:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It was not my intention to suggest that you are "supporting the vandals". My agreement with Oatitonimly refers to anonymous IPs causing, yet again, asymmetrically large damage to Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Both Our article on Constantinople points us to Istanbul article for the Ottoman era, but considering the company uses the ancient name, I think it would be better to have both names as suggested by Pincrete's first comment. I think the second format is better (Constantinople, (present day Istanbul)) Darwinian Ape^talk 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Both. It's information, it's heritage, it's one word, come on. But personally I would really prefer some format other than one name followed by a parenthesis containing a list of all known alternate names in all of their various transliterations. This is very hard to read, I find; and then by the time you get to the end of the list of names and titles, you've forgotten that you're in the middle of a sentence and need to go back and find out what the first part said. And I am a native English speaker with no reading impairments. I don't have another format to suggest at the moment though, that's the thing. I have given this quite a bit of thought and I don't have a better idea. There is no analog to Main and See also. A collapsed table might be the best idea in the syntax that is left, or possibly you could make a nameOforigin2 or something field for whatever template you are using for an infobox (Business?) Oh yeah, and I was summoned by the bot. Anyway, that's all I've got, hth...Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avedis Zildjian Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bold edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the entire "list of notable users" section for a couple of reasons. Zero sources is the big one, but also, it is a long list and kind of superfluous. Arguably, you could start a new article and link back here, but since they are the largest builder and most drummers use Zildjian, you could technically list 70% of all drummers, so the list is meaningless anyway, and if complete, would dwarf the rest of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)