Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

help withYaoguEdit

Hi there, i'm loved to be included in this wikiproject. it is about a typical Chinese percussion musical instrument.

RfC : Notable usersEdit

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",[1] 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)

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

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)

Clarinet article reassessmentEdit

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)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

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 articleEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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)