Talk:Campanology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is confucing being directed here from bell ringing. I'm thinking a disambiguation page might be better. John 16:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This already is a disambig page... Or do you think bell ringing should be a disambig page? What else would it disambiguate than what is all ready on this page? Iain 18:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) OK, I should check my facts before posting! Bell ringing redirects to Change ringing, which mentions campanology. Im going to change bell ringing to be a redirect to campanology, and hope this will be less confusing... Iain 18:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Recent Edits

There seem to be many edits on this article at the moment, but with no great aim. Just wondering if anyone has any idea what direction this page should be heading in? John 14:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this page should definitely tend to be more of a disambiguation page. The various types of bellringing use different types bells, different methods and have little to no cultural connections with each other. We really should put Russian Ringing in a seperate article but it's very small at the moment. What other types of bell ringing are there? --Andrew Hyde 14:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Written by an Englishman who never went abroad? ("5 or 6 bells")

Campanology is definitely not a hobby - If painting might have been a hobby for Van Gogh, Rubens had a whole industrial atelier. And it is not bell-ringing. It is the proper word especially for the higher level of composing for and playing on a specific instrument that has been studied and minutely improved for highest musical quality. The (Dutch) word 'beiaard' (or any old spelling since 'beyaert') has become known in several languages, for the meanwhile more-than-just-one-continental musical instrument that sounds bells in such way it draws both tourists and locals to the concerts. Some professional campanologists had or have world fame. The instrument is played sitting on a bench by hitting the top keyboard with the underside of the fists and the bottom keyboard with the feet, since the lower notes in particular require more physical strength than an organ, the latter not attaining the tonal range of the better carillons. A fine carillon may have well over 40 bells... the article rather safely assumes it can be played even with rudimentary harmony. Perhaps one should look into articles like St. Rumbolds Cathedral and its most famous campanologist Jef Denyn - some other cathedrals have famous recitals as well. Finally, it is not correct to mention only church bells: there is at least one (of course smaller) carillon mounted on wheels, that has been played while being pulled along the streets in important city parades; modern carillons have been built as stand-alone instruments, see their article's pictures of such in the USA and in Australia and article Netherlands Carillon (try spotting the person to the left on the ground in blue coat, just for scale). -- SomeHuman 2006-06-08 03:48 (UTC)

If the mountain does not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain. Basic adaption of article 'Campanology', done. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-19 19:32 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic edits 2006-06-21 and repairs & improvements 2006-06-26

moved here from SomeHuman's talk page (title: Campanology)
Hey, sorry to have missed the huge removal of info on this page. Hope that I can help make it better and I'm glad you recovered the missing details. Hope we can work together soon. Budgiekiller 19:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The omissions by a third party had forced me to revert to my former version and (besides some further work) I tried to get all your edits back in. Hope I didn't miss one. I would like to get the external links where these belong: there is a single link for each type of bell instrument, and a series of links for British bells and bell-ringing (which seems to have been the original article's subject but the article name is much more general). The whole page gives merely a summary of the different types of bell instruments – a proper 'Campanology' page should also have something on (casting) and tuning of bells, and on compositions (for each kind of instrument if to be found – the bell-ringing cycle, which can hardly be called a composition, is all we've got so far). Sinced the page should not be a thorough article (there are already several types of bell instruments that have a proper one – there might already exist one about the fabrication/tuning of bells as well) but just a general overview of the different aspects, I had put the links within each clear-cut chapter. The only other reasonable solution would be creating under 'External links' an identical subtitle with its link(s). But that gives problems: linking requires unique names. You didn't offend me by moving the links but it feels wrong to put them together, here drowning the few within the many and contrasting with the sharp distinction between chapters. You did as one should for a more continuous article of which a link often leads to more than one aspect handled on different places in the article. If you find a way to fluently put each link in some sentence in the proper chapter, be my guest. I didn't encounter this kind of link problem in any other article so far, perhaps we spot some elegant solution elsewhere. -- SomeHuman 2006-06-26 23:10 (UTC)

[edit] Bellringing, bell ringing or change ringing

(Whatever you like to call the English variant) Either it includes or excludes call changes. In change ringing we consider the term inclusive, in this reference we have excluded it due to the contradictory definition. I would suggest that the reference here should be as little as possible and refer almost exclusively to the change ringing page for English bellringing.

--62.58.152.52 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other, missing, types of ringing

Veronese ringing (cf David Bagley's article, http://www.ringing.demon.co.uk/veronese/veronese.htm)? Handbell tune ringing? Are these or are they not campanology?

--62.58.152.52 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Handbell ringing clearly matches one of the aspects of campanology sounding bells in a musical manner, and the casting and tuning of the handheld bells (e.g. American ones of British ones) fits other aspects. It should get a section in Campanology, but keep it correct, referenced and short (it is not quite as notable as carillons, orthodox bell ringing, or change ringing - the latter article mentions handbell ringing as change ringing; if that's the only manner,it should get a shor line in the 'Bell ringing' subsection. In case handbells would also be played as melodical music, it should be a separate section with a link to a main article on the topic (one that would still need to be created, I think); just a bit longer than the short paragraph on the gamelan, a mainly local phenomenon at which merely a part of the instruments fit the definition of 'campanology'.
I'm not familiar with the Italian style, and one reference may not be enough; it does seem to deserve a place in a new section 'Veronese bells' (or 'Italian bells'?) underneath section 'British bells'. — SomeHuman 10 Mar 2007 04:04 (UTC)
I'm working on improving the handbell article. I've just added a link in the "other types of ringing" section, but I think SomeHuman is right: this deserves it's own section. I'll work on summarizing in a manner similar to what's already here. Godofbiscuits (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] major clean-up and paring-down

Hi. Here's my explanation for why I recently cleaned-up and pared-down the article so dramatically.

The article needs to be clear and orderly so as not to confuse or discourage its readers. Over the years, tons of accumulation has obscured its flow totally, with digression and technical terms coming between the reader and a clear sense of things. The page was a disaster.

To deal with this, I deleted a lot; but I think everything I deleted was either

  1. redundant prolix wordiness;
  2. something specific about one of the kinds of campanology which belonged more appropriately in the relevant article rather than on this general page; or
  3. a minor detail or bit of trivia which doesn't belong in the wikipedia at all.

(Note on #2: some of this 'best located elsewhere' stuff was already to be found on the appropriate page, but other bits weren't; and so, for example, I've just added the references to Duckworth and Stedman, previously missing from change ringing, to that page.)

I wouldn't call the shortness of my version a 'stub' — the page doesn't need to be long to fulfill its purpose, which is directing readers to the specific kind of campanology they're interested in (and telling them just enough about each kind so they understand where they want to go). (There is room for growth, true — on the more mechanical side of campanology, the page could stand to have more about the casting and tuning of bells.)

So I'm reverting now back to 'my' revision. Given the extreme messiness and clutter of the long version, please don't revert back to it. If I was overzealous in my paring, I'm sorry; but I think the best thing to do would be to start with my version and put those bits back in as carefully and deftly as possible, so as not to start the mad snowballing again. (And besides, I worked really hard and dilligently at my revision; I'd like to think it wasn't in vain!) Thanks, Doops | talk 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hate to see you start working on the article Mathematics. You would leave two lines on arithmetic, two on algebra, two on trigonometry, and call it an article. I don't. Campanology is a topic by itself and needs to offer a sufficiently complete view of the different aspects, where those can be compared. Sending people towards separate lengthy in-depth articles and leave it up to them to go forth and back between those, does not help te average reader at all.
Your text is not even appropriate. Where you compare change ringing bells to those of a carillon, you state of the former: include rings of only a few bells; but they are very heavy ones - as if those are much heavier than those of a carillon. A carillon's bourdon can easily weigh 5 to 20 tonnes! Try to find such a change ringing bell. And there are more serious flaws, like about chimes: it's not a disambiguation page for chimes, it should only mention the type that falls under campanology -your text suggests that tubular bells belong to campanology; even though one can build an electronically amplified 'carillon' from tubular bells, this does not fit the definition of campanology. But never mind: it's to be an article, not a list. It should still be expanded with sections on casting and tuning (and once more linking to articles that go far beyond the interest of the average reader who wants to know what campanology is about). So stop your unilateral 'cleanup' which happens to be an incorrect cleanout. Your edit comment 'thats what the talk page is for'... you did not mention your comment on the talk page before your third destruction of the article, so you should not have asked why it had been 'ignored'. Note that (as mentioned in the section here above, answering another contributor) the article gives weight to the several sections according to their notability within campanology, especially since I reverted to a shorter section for British bells (after putting the detailed description into its main article). — SomeHuman 10 Mar 2007 03:18-04:14 (UTC)
Hi, SomeHuman. I wish you wouldn't take such a belligerent tone; I'm just trying to improve the article.
Personally, I disagree with your analogy with mathematics; the different branches of mathematics interrelate very closely with one another in a way that's not true of the different sorts of campanology described here. I really don't think my version was too short at all. The only stuff the campanology page needs to discuss in depth is the general campanology stuff which is missing at present — information on tuning, for example.
But ok, I don't get to run the world; fair enough. If it's really important to you that each type of bell ringing get a fairly lengthy paragraph to itself, then I guess it's not worth fighting you on that. Still, though, my main problem with the page before wasn't length; it was messiness and lack of clarity. Where the average reader is concerned, the page isn't a nice overview but rather a confusing jumble.
I guess my mistake was in making my revisions in one huge sweep; this probably seemed offensive and violent to you; I apologize for that. It wasn't my intention at all. So here's what I'll try to do now: I'll try to rewrite the various sections with smaller, gentler revisions.
There may still be some cuts, by the way; and in considering whether I'm right in making them, please please please bear in mind: The Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The fact of the matter is that sometimes superfluous detail actually cuts down on how much a reader can learn from a page.
Apologies again for ruffling your feathers. I look forward to cooperation, Doops | talk 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, OK... I already got rid of a far too detailed paragraph on British bells, and I suggest you put your teeth in its subsection 'Bell ringing', which should be described (campanology is about music too, so the fact what change ringing is, not producing a melody, should stay clear). The necessary comparison between carillons and chimes (number of bells, origin, chimes often a purely automated instrument - though it is not uncommon to use a carillon that way, a carillon can always be man-played) should do not leave much to cleanup though, neither does the Orthodox section. I really think you should not make even small changes in those sections, but of course improvements are always nice. — SomeHuman 10 Mar 2007 04:36 (UTC)
I'm not going to let this carry much further. Your intro revision makes it lengthy, assumedly pre-emptying the article, vaguely phrased, and incorrect, it even includes tubular bells. Do you know anything about the topic? The intro was fine and its first sentence could hardly be improved, it was a definition. — SomeHuman 10 Mar 2007 05:15 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Please, please, please work WITH me, SomeHuman. This isn't a competition; the wikipedia works by COLLABORATION. I write something; you revise it; I revise your revision; and so forth. The goal is to find a wording that we both like.

You say my intro is too lengthy, vaguely prased, and incorrect. I suggest we skip discussing 'lengthy' for now; it's a matter of taste. But 'vague' and 'incorrect' are important things to fix; so please let's work together to make what I wrote less vague and incorrect! Doops | talk 05:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've also tried to rewrite the change ringing section. I'm gonna call it a night there for now; I look forward to your help in improving those two bits (the intro and change ringing). Doops | talk 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Ringing

I'm not sure i understand the first sentence in the section about the Russian Orthodox belling: What exactly is the difference between tolling and pealing? I suspect the former is intended to mean striking the bell with a clapper and the latter with an external hammer? but the OED isn't clear on it, and i don't know enough. The main Wikticle on Russian bell ringing has links for both the words, but they both return here to Campanology, where there isn't a distinction. Maybe as Doops & SomeHuman work on improving the article, you could add in a distinction? Cheers, Lindsay 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The page previously gave definitions; but they were written in an unencyclopedic style, randomly stuck in in an illogical place; and, what's worst, were bad definitions. But the Russian Orthodox portion of the article did rely on them, and I should have remembered that before deleting them. I haven't cleaned up the Russian section yet, but I'll make that one change to fix your problem. Cheers, Doops | talk 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC) PS-- in case you're curious personally, LindsayH, in their most common English usages 'tolling' refers to the repeated sounding of a single bell at a steady pace; 'pealing' to the sound of a collection of bells sounding one-after-another fairly quickly. Doops | talk 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically Russian Ringing is not ringing at all, it is really just chiming, when a rope is pulled very slightly - can be a few centimetres and a clapper hits the bell and the bell will go ding, dong, ping or pong? English ringing is where a bell rotates round in a full circle, called full circle ringing and the rope can move a whole lot more than just a few centimetres, English Bell ringing can be a whole lot more dangerous than this 'Russian Ringing' if the person ringing the bell is not taught properly. In worser cases the rope can go roun a neck, strangle, hang and kill someone. But don't let that put you off of this old english tradition that is an ultimate team activity and very fun, the best bit of the practice night is when you leave the tower and all go and have a drink down at the pub!!!! :-)

[edit] Editor needed!

This page badly needs editing (as opposed to "needs editing badly").

Someone who knows about the subject and can write decent English have a go at it -- please?!

84.9.75.24 (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)