Talk:Triangle (musical instrument)

Untitled

The joke I know about the triangle isn't so much about its simplicity...

A man got a job working behind the bar at a large concert hall. During a performance, the place was empty but for one man who was sat on a barstool drinking a pint. As he approached to offer him a refill, he noticed this man was tapping his finger on the edge of the bar, and counting under his breath. Later, he asks the senior barman about it, who says: "him? oh, he's the triangle player. he's counting the bars.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 December 2002 (UTC)

triangle in modern music

Should mention be made of the triangle at the beginning of the John Lennon song "Just Like Starting Over"? It is one of the more easily-recognizable uses of it, that I can think of. Mruss 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the instrument being played may be a tingsha. If verified, the song should be mentioned in that article instead. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A triangle is a percussion instrustment, whom got it's name from it's shape. It's the shape of a triangle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.89.174.148 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dinner bell

I think it would be prudent to add a section to this article discussing the use of a triangle (iron or otherwise) as a Dinner Bell and have "Dinner Bell" redirect to this page. Any thoughts? - Team4Technologies (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also believe the Dinner Bell is a very important part of the history of this instrument, as well as, being significant to US history. It may even merit its own article.Dirt290 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 02 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear (though unenthusiastic) consensus for the move. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Triangle (instrument) → Triangle (musical instrument) – the drafting instrument is also an instrument (a triangle or set square), so the current title should redirect to the disambiguation page triangle (disambiguation) , as the current title fails WP:PRECISE insufficient precision to identify the topic / ambiguous disambiguation -- – 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I get your point but it really feels like a solution in search of a problem. I think the number of people who could get confused by the current title would be vanishingly small. I'll let another admin make the call though. Jenks24 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 103.6.159.89 (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Exceedingly weak support. I agree with the point about distinguishing the drafting instrument, but it seems like a hatnote will do this already. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with the proposed move, so it should go ahead unless there's opposition. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Also exceedingly weak Support. It shouldn't matter that the article for the drawing instrument is at Set square, it's still a Triangle (instrument). That said where would Triangle (instrument) point to? The disambiguation page? Not sure if a hatnote would be a better option. Zarcadia (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support – the suggested name seems more natural as well as less ambiguous. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source about Janissary

It would be great if the sources of the Janissary is added.

“The triangle entered the European orchestra in the 18th century by way of the Janissary music of the Turkish

soldiers.” Peinkofer, Karl and Tannigel, Fritz. Handbook of Percussion Instruments. Mainz, Germany:Schott, 1969. Zzhan144 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Changing section titles

I was looking at Wiki pages for other musical instruments, and I think it might make this page more consistent with those if some of the section titles were changed. So I added a History section, put the "Ancient and Medieval period" under History, and added a Musical styles section.Jhunt34 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added information to beginning

The first couple sentences needs a citation. I added a sentence from Encyclopedia Britannica to include more information about the pitch produced by a triangle. Also included a link to the wiki article about overtones.Jhunt34 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sizes

Can we add some information about how modern orchestral triangles are measured and what the difference is between the different sizes in terms of their sound? Siddyboy3.0 (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's all too much

The mention of any one specific song in this article is WP:UNDUE, and the mention of use can be made in the song's own article. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are misguided in your reasoning. We are discussing a song written and performed by the Beatles, not just any old Tom, Dick or Harry. This reference should definitely be included due to its importance. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As I explained the inclusion of any one specific song is undue weight. We're not going to mention the Beatles on the article Earth for the same reason. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is important. If you disagree I recommend requesting a third-opinion. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, that is a remarkbly silly and worthless comparison with the article Earth. This is an article about one specific musical instrument, the triangle, rather than an article about an entire planet. Surely you can appreciate the difference? Solicit a third-opinion if you wish, but please don't post such obviously specious arguments as that one. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The point remains that we write in summary style, and so there's no need to include incidental information not needed to understand the topic at hand, in this case, the instrument. Regardless, WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion, so follow one of the procedures listed at WP:DR or walk away. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly not just incidental information (cf. Liszt, as just one example), and who exactly are you (74.73.224.126) anyway to dictate in such a childish way (including the ridiculous comparison of a small article about one musical instrument with a huge article regarding the entire planet Earth)? 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The comparison is for illustrative purposes, it's an extreme example although you yourself have emphasized the importance of The Beatles not just any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Currently there's a disagreement between us over whether your proposed addition gives undue WP:WEIGHT to one particular piece of trivia.

To answer your other question I'm just a contributor, so are you. All contributors have equal say in content disputes, regardless of how many flags you have on their account, or if you even have one. However all edits must be in compliance with our policies and guidelines. I've already linked you to WP:NPOV, which you don't appear to have read, but as I said earlier by policy WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. You can either follow one of the procedures listed at WP:DR, like WP:3O, or walk away. If you're still confused I recommend asking any questions you may have at the teahouse. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I emphasised the importance, but I didn't for a moment suggest (as you did) that they should be included in an enitrely different article that seems to be largely concerned with elements of geography and cosmology anyway. That is just a worthless kind of comparison, as you surely can accept.

To reply to your other point, I have not requested any recommendations from you, nor would I do so when you have expressed the former specious and ridiculous argument that you chose to raise. Put simply, in asking (essentially) who you think you are, you do not come across as being a particularly suitable guardian when you choose to respond in the manner that you have. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a guardian, Wikipedia articles do not have owners; it's not a thing here, we don't have mods either, there are sysops who are empowered to perform some special functions like blocking users who refuse to comply with policy, but everyone has equal say on matters of content, when there's disagreement, that's what WP:DR is for. I've laid out my position below which is more a layman's explanation of how WP:WEIGHT should be determined.

I apologize if I came off as abrupt, written communication is tricky; if it helps imagine my voice in as bored a tone as possible. Using somewhat extreme examples is a classic technique of philosophers and mathematicians, but I can avoid them if you prefer. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Extreme examples can certainly be used helpfully when appropriate. If inappropriate, they tend to simply backfire. Anyway, thank you for your apology, which I acknowledge and accept. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I realize you don't like to be mocked, but your argument was not well-formulated

Simplified your claim was that: the song is by the beatles and therefore ipso facto WP:DUE for inclusion

I countered by pointing out that following that line of thought leads us to absurd places. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you actually stated "one specific song", and of course a work by Liszt, for example, is already included. I was emphasising the importance, and there were no suggestions or implications that they should be included in any and all articles - other than in your own mind. This is an article about a musical instrument not about a whole planet. Your argument was ill-formed and simply worthless as you were addressing an different issue that I was not discussing. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said if we extrapolate your line of reasoning it leads to absurd places, and yes I know people don't like it when that's done to them, it got Galileo placed under house arrest for life didn't it. The work by Liszt is included because it was the first to use the triangle prominently, but even that might be borderline in some people's assessment or depending on the length of an article. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, why extrapolate? I was not seeking to do so. You did, and it served no useful purpose in this case.

It's quite a short article as it stands, and I find the Liszt reference very helpful. I would prefer several more references (including the one I posted) for additional background information that readers can follow up if they wish. Wouldn't this improve the scope of the article considerably? 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Extrapolation is used to show that a proposed line of reasoning is faulty, even if sometimes only in pathological cases, but it can also be used as a cheap debating tactic, it really depends on the kind of discussion you're engaging in.

I agree the article could use expansion. But we don't keep things just because they are WP:USEFUL.

Please read WP:WEIGHT, or just WP:PROPORTION if that's all you have time for, read it twice if you have to. Per policy, which I am trying to uphold, the prevalence of information in a Wikipedia article should reflect it's prevalence in sources that are about the topic (again about, not merely those that mention it). I can't find any sources that give significant weight to that song specifically, can you?

I know there are many other articles that are poorly weighted, but that's no excuse for getting this one wrong. Perhaps if the article were significantly longer there might barely be an argument for inclusion of a representative list, but even then we'd need to comb through sources carefully to ensure we are providing the examples that sources believe are important, not just the ones we think are important. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It didn't serve a useful purpose at all in this case.

Whatever the current rationale, which of course changes from time to time anyway, I certainly would prefer this article to be considerably longer with substantially more specific music references, including that song and several other musical pieces. As it stands, the article can come across as dry and out-of-touch to some extent. However, I appreciate that you (in you role as a kind of guardian) have rules to follow.

In the words of the winner of the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature: "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters." Again, I wish you well in your endeavours. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to expand the article feel free, occasionally people will revert your changes, but that's not a bad thing, you shouldn't feel insulted or reprimanded when someone does so; it's just how we do things around here. You need sources, and should try to adhere to the focuses of those sources in how you arrange an article or sections. Some of the histories may be a good place to start, and perhaps if 20th century histories consistently bring up The Beatles or some other group then they should be included, but my review (admittedly of just Google Books for now) has not thus far suggested that we should do so, but who knows.

You are also just as much a guardian as I am because you're a Wikipedian. Obviously none of us has every single WP:PAG memorized, but once you have the tao down editing according to their precepts comes quite naturally. I hope you will try to review at least the basics at some point, and adhere to them as best you can, helping others to do the same. Don't be afraid to make mistakes, I've been around on-and-off forever and I still make mistakes every so often. That's the nice thing about our collaborative model, we can correct each others mistakes.

That said I've some stuff to do IRL, if you want to attract my attention in the future, feel free to place a {{talkback}} on my talk page. I'm not too active these years though, so your best luck for a quick response will be at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Be well, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I may do so later. I would need to do some more research but the following songs may feature a triangle being played:

"It's All Too Much" by The Beatles

"The Pink Panther Theme" by Henry Mancini and his orchestra

Thank you for your response. I may visit the Teahouse. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I have been a bit opaque above by relying more on insider jargon and shorthand than I should have. In layman's terms, if you want to convince me of the appropriateness of inclusion, you need to demonstrate that sources that are about the Triangle (not just sources that are about other things where the Triangle is mentioned) tend to focus a similar proportion of their coverage on that one specific song as you are proposing that this article do, thank you. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not seeking to convince you specifically of anything. The point that I was making seems self-evident but, if you need to be convinced for inclusion, frankly that may be a thankless task based upon the level of reasoning (re. the Earth article, for example) shown thus far. So I wish you well, and I will leave you to your own musings. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

And you don't have to, by following WP:DR you only need convince others. Anyway I've laid out my conditions, please provide your sources and we'll go from there. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You say you are not a guardian, and I am using that term loosely of course, but then you specifically put what your conditions are. As I have noted, I am not seeking to convince you of anything. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Then don't, as I explained while convincing me is one option, convincing others is another; see WP:CON. If you want outside input then follow one of the procedures listed at WP:DR. It make take few days to resolve but that's the way things work around here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It is you who decided to take up the mantle on this subject; and I can imagine that others will now tend to side with you anyway (as you certainly seem to be expressing some kind of 'guardianship' over this article). So let's close for now: again, I wish you well, and I will leave you to your own musings, deliberations and conscientiousness. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I know this place can be a bit of bureaucratic maze, it came about from the best of intentions. You are welcome to drop by the teahouse at any time; I'm sure we actually agree on more things than we disagree, and you are welcome to drop by my talk page at any time. Be well, 74.73.224.126 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very kind. 2A00:23C8:7E0E:9301:A8DA:A6A8:FC61:C62C (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)