Talk:Chakhe

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Jakhe → Chakhe – Current practice is to follow the RTGS when there isn't an established spelling widely used in English. This seems to be the case. Paul_012 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Question - where does wp say Royal Thai General System of Transcription is current practice? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Thailand-related articles seems to be inactive. Is there mention of RTGS on Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand? (btw The Garland handbook of Southeast Asian music Terry E. Miller, Sean Williams - 2008 has "... thon, khlui phiang aw, saw u; front: jakhe. Photo Fine Arts Department, Bangkok, 1960.") In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's somewhat a de facto consensus, based on interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "Established systematic transliterations (e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and IAST) are preferred. Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Thailand-related articles/Draft is more recent, and more closely reflects current practice, although it failed to gain consensus for adoption. If it is demonstrated that Jakhe is established in the majority of reliable sources I'll be happy to accept that. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, then weak support - weak because I'd rather be supporting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Thailand-related articles/Draft than a single article move. Chakhe seems to have the edge on Jakhe, just. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Same instrument?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge, as no one disagreed with the proposal. RJFF (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Do Krapeu/Takhe and Chakhe actually differ in terms of construction or playing technique or are they basically different names for the same instrument? In the latter case, both articles should be merged. --RJFF (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Google Image Search, there appears to be some (but not much) difference in the stylistic details of construction. The redundancy issue holds for most Cambodian/Thai musical instruments, which share the same roots. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are many stylistic variants of violins or pianos, still we consider them all to be the same "species" (violin, or piano, respectively) and treat them in the same article. I think it is more helpful for readers to follow this example. I think the two articles just arise from not having an English term for this instrument, but a Thai and a Khmer one, which are of course both equally valid. But the articles are redundant, because – to my superficial knowledge – both construction and playing technique are basically the same. It would be more beneficial to explain the minor differences (if there are any) in one article, just like we explain the different variants of violins in the article violin. --RJFF (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree that these redundant articles should be merged. (Probably all articles in Category:Cambodian musical instruments and Category:Thai musical instruments overlap with each other.) However, choosing the proper title can be tricky, and editors' nationalistic sentiments can complicate things. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Paul 012: I know too little about traditional Thai instruments and pretty much nothing about Cambodian ones, so I am not competent to decide if they are similar (analogous, equivalent) instruments or the same instrument (perhaps with negligible regional differences). In literature either Thai or Cambodian instruments are presented, but I have not yet found a book that would draw a comparison about the two. Only Peter Fletcher (2001). World Musics in Context. Oxford University Press. pp. 298–302. simply equals ranat ek=roneat ek, ranat thum=roneat thung, khong wong lek=kong tauch, khong wong yai=kong thom, klong that=skor thom, thon=skor thaun, so duang=tro so tauch, so u=tro ou, jakay=krapeu, khlui=khloy, pi=sralai etc. But this might be an over-simplification on Fletcher's part, who is not a specialist in traditional Southeast Asian music and has only dedicated 4,5 pages of his book to Thai and Cambodian instruments and ensembles which he presents as almost the same (with few exceptional differences). I don't know how much of an expert you are in the field of traditional musical instruments (if you say you are, I would trust your judgment) and I don't know who else to ask. Do you know a user or have a friend (maybe outside WP) who could help? --RJFF (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm nowhere nearly an expert on the subject. I tried googling a bit, but the regional musical history is a nationalistic minefield and I doubt the question can be answered without identifying reliable foreign sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Terry E. Miller; Jarernchai Chonpairot. "A History of Siamese Music Reconstructed from Western Sources, 1505-1932". Crossroads. 8 (2): 76., both instruments are indeed identical. --RJFF (talk) 12:41, 8 May 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.