Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Musical Instruments articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Some useful information for our cause

One might find these pages interesting or insightful.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Template:String_instruments

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Balafon: assessment and contributions

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Mrindangam

    • 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)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Roland CM-300 and Roland CM-64

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

[edit] Proposed deletion: Z3TA+

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Crystal (software synthesizer)

Crystal (software synthesizer) (via WP:PROD on 2007-11-02) Deleted

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Article for deletion: Italian Violinmakers

Italian Violinmakers at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Violinmakers (2007-12-20 –)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)