Talk:Contrabass trombone

(Split discussion)

Images

Hopefully in the next week or two I will be adding some good new images of contrabass trombones in both F and B♭ to commons for use here. — Jon (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

History and construction

I think the history and construction sections are a bit muddled; the discussion of the invention of the double slide should go in history, and construction should be about the features of the modern F and B♭ instruments (bell, bore, valves, slide, etc.) I had the see-also link to the cimbasso article applying only to the discussion of the cimbasso in Italy, which now doesn't have a section title. Jon (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh gosh, apologies for terseness, I've been going around in circles with this article and I think I need to take a break from editing and go do some practice instead :-) Jon (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on a few notes. You can briefly mention the invention of the double slide and how it replaced the handle in the History section, but keep the bulk of the information concerning the later innovations and improvements in the Construction section. This would be in line with how most other articles (such as Tuba or Vibraphone) deal with it. Major innovations are briefly listed in the History; the finer bulk of the details are listed in Construction. Secondly, I'm worried that the older revisions over-sectionalized the page a bit, making it a bit confusing. And from my understanding, the cimbasso served as basically the first modern contrabass trombone (albeit valved) under the recommendations of Verdi. I think trying to overseperate the development may be a bit too much, although I may try and break it up just slightly more when the sections expand. Either way, a section heading like " 'Trombone Contrabbasso Verdi' " is a bit too confusing and may be harder to link to than something like "Cimbasso". Generally, you want sections to have a broad name. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, can you please comment on the the use of Cite Q, I have been using them a lot without issue and I'm pretty sure these problems have been or are being dealt with. (update: apologies, I thought it was in this discussion; please refer to edit comment in the article history, here) —Jon (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: The edit summary to which you refer gives Wikipedia:Citing sources#Wikidata as a justification for removing {{Cite Q}}. That guideline rightly cautions against citing Wikidata as a source. It says nothing about - much less against - using metadata from Wikidata, about valid sources, in citations, which is what you were doing with Cite Q. (The only exception to that is that is reference to not using Cite Q for Vancouver-style citations, which does not apply in this article.) You are free to use Cite Q as a citation method, providing - as with any citation - the cited source is a good one and the metadata emitted by the citation template is correct. Cite Q is already used in well over forty-seven thousand articles.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem with using Cite:Q is that there several technical errors that come with it, as well as it just being a pain in the ass to edit if needed. You saw how in one of the citations, there was a redlink to a deleted page which, as far as I know, is impossible to remove without going the extra mile to edit the Wikidata entry. It's always much better to use the traditional way; where you can link to Google Books pages or PDFs, rather than a link to the book purchase page or nothing at all. There is never a reason to use Cite:Q over any other template. As Pigsonthewings stated earlier, you can use it if the Wikidata is correct, but it sometimes isn't and leads to you having to go an extra step editing that information. It also means you don't have to put the page number beside the footnote, and you can use Template:sfn which tightens up the prose and referencing for the reader. And while not required by any Wikipedia policy, it creates consistency between the musical instrument articles. Check out how FAs like Carillon and Taiko do it. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The guideline you cited, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Wikidata, makes no reference to the claims you make here. You assert there are "several technical errors" without enumerating them, much less saying how they impact the citations in this article. The red link to which you refer would have been a caching issue, and resolved once the page was purged (as can be seen by viewing the old version of the page, with Cite Q, now). Cite Q can and often does link to "Google Books pages or PDFs", but it is perfectly proper - and arguably preferable - to link instead to a publisher's own page about a book, especially when no PDF is (legally) available (in the case of Yeo's book, your edit removed the link to the publisher, without replacing it with any other such link; even if removing such links were desirable, that can be done within Cite Q). If a Wikidata item is not correct it can be and should be fixed. Cite Q can include page numbers; your "have to put the page number beside the footnote" makes no sense. While Cite Q can be used with {{sfn}}, this article does not use sfn, and so, per WP:CITEVAR, that point is moot. Your final point amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please tell me how to use "sfn" for Cite:Q and how to link a Google Books page? I would love to know. And your argument of preferring to link the publisher's page falls into the same category of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. I know you, as the creator of the template, promote its use. However the fact that an editor needs to edit the Wikidata entry (as someone had to do for the illustrator) serves to overly complicate an already complicated matter. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How is editing a citation in one place in Wikidata more of a "pain in the ass" than having to juggle editing the same citation to the same resource in several different articles at once, and keeping them all consistent? Google Books links can be added to the Wikidata citation item using the Google Books ID property, and Cite Q will handle it, everywhere on Wikipedia the same Q item is used. In my experience of using Cite Q, the only significant as-yet-unresolved issue is the display of author names, which we can in the meantime override by adding parameters at the Wikipedia end, e.g. author1 = Herbert, Trevor or similar, to align with whatever citation style the article may already be using. That said, if Cite Q is used for all of the references, then the author names will all be displayed consistently as (e.g.) "Trevor Herbert". (Update: there, I just added the Google Books ID to Trevor Herbert's "The Trombone" book, Q111039091) — Jon (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Cite Q and broken interaction with sfn and harv templates

I've converted the use of Cite Q templates in this article to be inline. Please note Cite Q won't work correctly with short form refs, an issue I have raised at the Cite Q template talk page and has not been fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: as per the conversation with the devs on the Cite Q talk page, sfn works fine with Cite Q as long as the author/first/last and the date are supplied; I've added the dates to the bibliography and it works now. Cheers — Jon (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I saw Trapsist's ping, I hadn't come across that before. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Contrabass trombone in F with valves in D and B♭

• ... that the contrabass trombone (pictured) has experienced a revival since the late 1980s in film and video game soundtracks? Source: Kifer, Shelby Alan (May 2020). The Contrabass Trombone: Into the Twenty-First Century (DMA thesis). University of Iowa. p. 48. doi:10.17077/etd.005304. Retrieved 21 April 2022.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Never done a DYK before, not sure what to put in the "Source" field.

Improved to Good Article status by Jonathanischoice (talk). Self-nominated at 10:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Contrabass trombone; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - n (1) the hook is not cited in the article, i.e., It has also enjoyed a revival particularly in film and video game soundtracks, due to the influence of Los Angeles session players Phil Teele, Bill Reichenbach, Bob Sanders and others.. (2) You provided a thesis as your reference can you indicate the page
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - The hook is not included in the article, namely the 1990s mention. The article state it is the late 1980s, amend in the article or the hook with references

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - n, I suggest rotating the image by 90 degress so it will appear nicely on the main page. You can just upload a rotated version to commons and replace the current one

QPQ: Done.

Overall: see above FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• I can’t say that I’m a fan of rotating the image. It’s fine the way it is; can’t spot the problem. Schwede66 21:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: have a look through the archive and make decision for yourself about the image, here for example Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. It is a suggestion after all FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really know what y'all are talking about, to be honest; I haven't had time to get my head around the requirements so I might just stick to editing rather than DYK noms for now :) — Jon (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe more importantly, you should say here what you said in your edit summary, given that it's a direct response to a concern voiced above that you've now addressed: update citation to be the same as that in the article. The hook has also been updated, so there's now alignment between hook and article. Schwede66 23:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma: is this okay now for you to re-review? — Jon (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

looks good. @Jonathanischoice: Thanks for improving the article to GA and the DYK nomination. Please don’t be discouraged, we all need to start somewhere. I’m too still feeling my way around here and seasoned editor like @Schwede66: will always try to help. Anyway, stay safe FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words, FuzzyMagma. Could you please explicitly state whether or not you are happy with the image as is? It'll help the promoter make a choice. Schwede66 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

looks good including the picture, as per discussion. if the promoter agrees with my suggestion, I have already uploaded a rotate version here

Contrabass trombone in F with valves in D and B♭

FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need to rotate the image either, especially as it will be too long vertically and need the upright parameter, but if you're going to fail it otherwise then go ahead. — Jon (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: it passed, I should let y'all know that in general, it's best to leave initial reviews as-is, so that promoters know what went down at a glance when trying to close up a nom. Many thanks! FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Jonathanischoice and FuzzyMagma: I think the original concern was lost in the discussion about the image. As things stand, the hook says 1980s, the article says 1990s, and the source doesn't mention either date. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

hmmm, @Jonathanischoice: you amended the hook but the ref. is more of WP:OR. I assumed good faith which started to wither.

The thesis does not mention your hook neither the infromaion in the article as this wording of It has also enjoyed a revival particularly in film and video game soundtracks is very ambiguous, i.e., "it also" can maen "the 1980s" which is not true or in general or currently which is true (see page 48) . Can you please propose alternative hooks (please do not amend the original hook):

ALT1: * ... that the contrabass trombone (pictured) has experienced a recent revival in film and video game soundtracks? (although when I want to check what "recently" or "currently" entails in ref. 68 in a thesis that uses Harvard style in Bibliography section which is just odd!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyMagma (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You know what? Feel free to make up your own hook; I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I thought the "hook" was supposed to be a sentence out of the article? If you want a sentence from one of the sources, then that's a different requirement, but either way it's not well documented. What exactly is the source for, when we are pointing the reader at articles full of sources anyway? I'd actually prefer not to be involved at this point, this is just weird. — Jon (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're feeling under attack; we're just trying to work with you to create a hook that meets the DYK criteria. If errors are spotted at a later stage, there's a good chance that the hook will be pulled before it's had its run on the Main Page, and then your work won't get the exposure it deserves. It's better all round to make sure the hook is airtight before it goes live.

What we're looking at here is rule 3 at WP:DYKCRIT, which says that each fact in the hook should be supported in the article by an inline citation. The source you provided supports the part about "experienced a revival in film and video game soundtracks", but doesn't support "since the late 1980s". As I mentioned above, the article in fact says "since the late 1990s"; one of these is presumably a typo, but we (FuzzyMagma and I) are unable to correct this because we don't know which source you got the information from. I'm sure you'll understand that it's not reasonable to place the burden of finding sources on the DYK reviewer; you know better than we do where you found this information. All you need to do right now is to add another footnote to the relevant sentence in the article, so that every part of the hook fact is fully supported. Otherwise, you can propose another hook, or work with FuzzyMagma on ALT1. Or you can of course withdraw the nomination, but it would be a shame to do so when the problem is so easily resolvable. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I striked through a sentence that won't help in anyway. Sorry @Jonathanischoice: if you felt I am accusing you of anything, but I cannot find the source of your hook FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It works without the word "recent" anyway, since full orchestra video game soundtracks are a fairly recent phenomenon. I don't get the ALT1 business, do I amend it or make a new one? I don't know. — Jon (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

make a new one and reference it and called it ALT2, and so on FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the contrabass trombone (pictured) has experienced a revival in film and video game soundtracks? Source: Kifer, Shelby Alan (May 2020). The Contrabass Trombone: Into the Twenty-First Century (DMA thesis). University of Iowa. p. 48. doi:10.17077/etd.005304. Retrieved 21 April 2022.

works for me. Referenced and can be inferred from the article FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A todo of sorts

@Esolomon: (following from Facebook discussion) the sources I've dug up so far all seem to start with Dehmel's 1921 F with two valves, with no mention of previous single-valve Fs; Yeo mentions Kruspe B♭/F bass trombones with E♭ stellventil. There is also (note to self) little information here about Thein, and none about Ben van Dijk, who surely deserve a mention for having done much to develop the instrument since the 1970s. I also missed out Kunitz's 1959 valve/lever patent. Heinrich Thein's two-part article in the 1978 Brass Bulletin might be a good start, and there's an article about Ben in the ITA Journal. I'd also like (someone?!) to record the Spear motif and drop it on Commons when I get time! — Jon (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Jon (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And once that's done, can I suggest two further tasks? Arrange for a Wikipedia:Peer review. And then, ask for Wikipedia:Featured article review. Schwede66 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Jonathan, have you noticed that an IP has removed the infobox image? Is their rationale correct? Schwede66 01:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

As a bass trombonist myself, I've reinstated the image. :-) Tayste (edits) 01:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and... yeah weird :) — Jon (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)