Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments/Templates/Infobox instrument
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. |
| Template | 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. |
Contents |
[edit] Image size
The template forces the image size to 200px. This is fine in most cases, but take a look at Clarinet. The image is less than 200px wide, but the template forces it to the larger size, resulting in a very tall, pixelated image. Is there anything we can do? Can we parameterize the width? Powers T 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Playing range
Just wondering why the range field is required, not optional. Seems awfully common-practice-orchestra-centric to assume that feature to be clearly defined or even existent. --Theodore Kloba 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed it. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image Description
Can anyone add an image description field that would describe the particular image currently being used in the template? --Boguslav (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and added it. You can use it with the field image_capt. --Pipian (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Some more possible fields/improvements
I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to make the color depend on the common classification of the instrument (Keyboard, Woodwind, Percussion, String, Brass). While this may raise classification issues with non-Western instruments, I think a color scheme in this vein would be more useful to audiences than one according to the Hornbostel-Sachs system.
Also, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to add a few more fields, such as:
- Adding a 'creator/creation year/developed during' field: This may not be clear for many instruments, but for a few of the more recently devised and 'experimental' instruments, this might be invaluable. "Creation year/developed during" may still be able to illustrate a timeframe in which the first recognizable predecessors were created, such as 'mid-17th century' for the oboe, and 'ancient' for the aulos.
- Adding a simple audio sample field: This way, a simple sample (either musical or just a scale, I'm not sure which) can be easily found for most instruments without hunting in the article. Other samples could be embedded in the article itself as needed. I personally favor these samples being a combination of a scale, possibly an illustration of the lowest and highest notes reachable, and a short tune played solely with the instrument to illustrate some of its capabilities (e.g. the ability to hit chords for non aerophones, the rhythmic nature of many membranophones, etc.).
- Modifying the classification field to specifically take a generic classification (useful if we choose to differentiate infoboxes by common classification type) and a Hornbostel-Sachs classification field (both numeric and descriptive)
Pipian (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've put up a few samples of how I picture the infobox being revamped to in my sandbox. Note the suggested colors for each instrument type (as noted under each instrument's name). LightGrey (#d3d3d3) could be used for an 'other' designation, for instances of instruments that do not easily fit in the 'common classification' categories, such as kazoos, hydraulophones, and plasmaphones... --Pipian (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I personally think that Related Instruments and More Articles should be removed or at least revised. More Articles can, in theory, be dropped, in my opinion, because there are standard ways of doing this, with the 'See Also' sections of pages. Related instruments should, I believe be refined down to only link predecessors, descendents, and possibly influences on/by the instrument's design. These qualities should be marked, and that way, readers can understand why a harp is considered to be related to the piano. If they want to find instruments of a similar design developed independently, they should have a method of navigation via Hornbostel-Sachs number, but this should not be in the infobox (at best, it should be a link to the category from the Hornbostel-Sachs number itself), I think, but rather a byproduct of correct categorization of instruments. --Pipian (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- As you'll no doubt discover, it's difficult to get responses on this topic. I like your ideas, though. I think the infobox gets a little too dense with the audio field - I would recommend leaving that out. Other than that, it looks very good. One of the problems with changing an infobox is that you have to deal with any potential problems from making the changes in articles that already use the box. --Laser brain (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It's one of the reasons why I more or less am planning on having to retain the 'Related Instruments' and 'More Articles' sections despite their potential inappropriateness, mostly as a legacy issue. Likewise, I could add an alternate names field under background information... --Pipian (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Name and names
Why aren't the name and names fields within the border of the infobox? Wouldn't it make sense that these would actually be in the border of the infobox and not just floating above? TIM KLOSKE|TALK 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
