Talk:Vuvuzela/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit request from 99.89.21.225, 28 June 2010

The last sentence of the 'Audio filtration' section, which reads, "Such fitration techniques have even been adopted..." contains a spelling error. The word 'fitration' should be spelled 'filtration'. 99.89.21.225 (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Inventor"

According to an AP story June 18, the "inventor" of the vuvuzela was Neil Van Schalkwyk, a South African. Here's a link:

[1]

Here's another, to a June 21 story:

[2]

Whoever invented it should be taken out and vuvuzelaed to death. Sca (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So Neil Van Schalkwyk says he invented it? A man named Freddie "Saddam" Maake claimed he invented the vuvuzela and Van Schalkwyk stole the idea from him. This is messy. I think it's worth putting this in the article.  Davtra  ^(talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This ties in with the kudu horn dispute (above). If it was a traditional instrument, then Maake's claim to royalties would be weakened. Which is what makes one suspicious about the mythology about kudu horns without strong citations. Park3r (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Please change INVENTOR to INNOVATOR in reference to Masincedane Sport and add (co-owned by Neil van Schalkwyk). At a recent press conference in Cape Town, South Africa, Neil van Schalkwyk was asked specifically whether he regards himself as the 'inventor' and he denied it, adding it has been around for centuries. However, he used the term 'innovator' and went on to describe how the business started, and now released a new version of the vuvuzela with less decibels. Alternatively, he could be seen correctly as the 'commercial inventor of the plastic vuvuzela'.

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.

Here is the actual interview with Neil van Schalkwyk in Cape Town during the World Cup 2010 - he addresses the 'inventor' tag in the first 3 minutes of the talk to international media: http://www.mantlethought.org/content/vuvuzela-press-conference —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaMeerkat (talk • contribs) 12:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 07:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzelas not made for enclosed spaces

I think vuvuzelas are misunderstood here. The vuvuzela originated as a ‘trumpet’ made from the horn of a kudu (large African antelope with big, spiral horns) and used in tribal dance and bush communication. I was taught to play one when I was a kid.

Similarly, today's South African vuvuzela has no mouthpiece; the sound is produced in the same way as a trumpet - the vibration from tightly pursed lips.

The vuvuzelas making their ear-piercing racket at football match venues in Dubai are small, higher-pitched party trumpets - you just blow.

Another thing: in South Africa, vuvuzelas are used at large, open football stadiums, not in confined indoor spaces as is happening in Dubai - there's a big difference, and there is no comparison whatsoever.

Anonymous Dubai --Bazooooka (talk)

There was a section in the article stating that a number of shopping centres in South Africa have banned vuvuzelas, along with citations. These sentences have been removed from the article. One of the shopping centres in Johannesburg (Sandton City) has large signs at all entrances to both the parking lots and the centre asking visitors to refrain from blowing vuvuzelas, along with a sign with a line through a picture of a vuvuzela. A picture of these could add value to the article. Park3r (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a picture might be good. This may be a silly question, but does this mean management once allowed the vuvuzelas to be blown inside shopping centres? Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They were caught unaware. For example, two days before the World Cup kick-off, (9 June) there was a party on the streets of Sandton. People were blowing vuvuzelas everywhere, and went into Sandton City shopping centre, many still blowing the them. The practice also spread to residential neigbourhoods. The use of vuvuzelas outside of stadiums was quite prevalent everywhere till South Africa got defeated by Uruguay, and it is still common near staudiums when other teams play. There was a cited sentence in the article about complaints from players being awoken in their hotel rooms by vuvuzelas early in the tournament. This was removed from the article. Park3r (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide some solid references for this, then perhaps the article should be moved to indicate that it is actually a simpler plastic horn based on the "original": the entire article seems to be based on this plastic version. If the "proper" vuvuzela is notable, it can take the Vuvuzela position with a hatnote indicating the plastic version used at football matches, and the plastic version can have a section indicating where it got the name etc. This is assuming that reliable references can be produced to indicate that the tribal version differs significantly though. If it doesn't differ significantly, the tribal vuvuzela should still have greater focus in the article than it does currently, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Muting the sound of Vuvuzelas

MEO, a Portuguese ISP has added this option to its boxes to mute the sound of vuvuzelas without affecting the other noises of the stadium and the commentary (http://trueslant.com/marceloballve/2010/06/17/portuguese-cable-provider-offers-vuvuzela-muting-service-for-world-cup-games/ | http://www.meo.pt/Extras/Noticias/Pages/MundialsemVuvuzelas.aspx) however i can't add this to the article because of the protection. who can do this for me? --Ruij999 (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see that this will only fit under the Audio filtration or Criticism section. Perhaps just a short sentence and reference to the English website.  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, when you're up for it feel free to do it :) --Ruij999 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Martinevans123 beat me to it and added it in. In response to Martinevans123's edit summary, perhaps we can make it not sound like an advertisement.  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, be my guest! although the ref itself looks a bit like advertising? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are other references such as http://thenextweb.com/eu/2010/06/16/vuvuzela-filtering-for-world-cup-television-coverage/ --Ruij999 (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Ruij999, thanks for sharing the links  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I reverted Martinevans123 before seeing this discussion; I think it could be better-phrased for neutrality and relevance however, maybe something like "these filtration techniques have even been adopted by some cable TV providers, such as MEO and ..." (if you can't find another example, is a single small company really relevant to the section?) Regards, GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I agree with GiftigerWunsch about the way it should be written. Is it relevant to the section? I think the technology (the way the company did it) should be included. I believe this only needs to be mentioned very briefly.  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have re-added, along the lines suggested. In a way, if this really was the only company to offer this, I think it would be more notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Filtering the vuvuzela out of broadcasts doesn't make a company notable; there's no article for the company, and it seems like a pretty small, non-notable company, so I see no reason to mention the company at all except maybe in passing, as an example to illustrate the point that even some cable companies have started filtering this out, as I mentioned. But if this is the only one, then I don't think it's a fair point to say that cable companies have started filtering this out of their broadcasts. It's not exactly a large, well-known cable company. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a handy before and after sound file of digital vuvuzela sound removal? That would be a nice addition to the Audio filtration section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.227 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mouthpiece

vuvuzela mouthpiece

trumpet mouthpiece

There is a misunderstanding here: "Similarly, today's South African vuvuzela has no mouthpiece; the sound is produced in the same way as a trumpet - the vibration from tightly pursed lips." The vuvuzela - the plastic one or the animal horn - does indeed have a mouthpiece. It is not separate, it is moulded or carved into or out of the plastic, horn, bone or whatever. A mouthpiece is just a receiver to make your lips comfortable so you can buzz them. But nearly all lip-vibrated aerophones - that is, brass-family instruments even if not made of brass - do have some kind of mouthpiece because without one you can't really play it. You would have to be incredibly lucky for your tube, branch, hollowed-out dried snake, human thighbone, conch or whateverthehell to have a comfortable place to blow just by accident, so you are usually going to have to make one. A brass mouthpiece is just a place to buzz your lips: the question of whether it is integral to the instrument or not does not define its mouthpieceness. Trumpets have mouthpieces and vuvuzelas do too. Here is one of each from Commons. They are both "brass" instruments in the sense of how the sound is generated. They both have mouthpieces. They are operationally the same thing. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear

Can someone kindly add that on the series 15 premier of Top Gear, the Stig was listening to vuvuzelas as he did a lap around the track? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazokuhouou (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This information was already introduced at one point and removed; I believe the reason given was that it didn't add anything to the article; personally I think the whole popular culture section should just be removed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the actual purpose of this "In popular culture" section? I fail to understand it. If it's not doing the article any good, I support for its deletion.  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove the "references in popular culture" section

I didn't want to just go ahead and do this without consensus as it's clearly controversial, so let's hear opinions on what should be done with this section. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove as nom: WP:Trivia sections states that miscellaneous collections of information should be avoided, and I don't honestly see how it adds to readers' understanding of the vuvuzela to know that Youtube added a button which played the sound, and Adult swim added it to their programming; seems irrelevant to the article to me, and the section is a bullet-point list rather than an integrated, flowing piece of text, which should be avoided per WP:MOS. Additionally, given its apparent notoreity among football fans worldwide, it is likely that dozens of pieces of "trivia" of this nature could be added, and where would we draw the line for inclusion? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove I don't see the reason why this section should be kept. I looked at this article In Popular Culture(section). It is proposed for deletion because it is "Non-notable nonsense". I agree with GiftigerWunsch.  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  Your comment there is a bit out of context; that's an article written about "in popular culture" sections of other articles; it's likely meant as a joke about the miscellenia which is found in these sections. Its deletion isn't relevant here. In any case we both agree and no one else has voiced their opinion, so I removed the section a few days ago. If others can come up with good reasons why it should be re-established, the consensus discussion is still here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. I did sound out of context. I should be more careful and check for the expression next time. Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the vuvuzela

While the general style and shape of the vuvuzela may have been around for some time, the South African origins are found in the early years of the the anti-apartheid struggle. It was common practice for the horns of diesel-electric locomotives to be stripped off in order to increase the possibility of an accident at level crossings. (it is standard practice for a loco driver to sound his horn when approaching a crossing, to provide a warning). Subsequently these vandalised horns appeared at football matches as a taunt to the then authorities. 86.62.251.81 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Jim

Are there any reliable citations for that claim? Park3r (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds ridiculous on the face of it. I would be very surprised if it were true. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it sounds entirely plausible; those people get up to all sorts of unusual activities to cause mischief. (Huey45 (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The part I'm finding difficult to understand is why vandalising a car's horn will cause an accident at a level crossing; the train is hardly going to stop if you blow your horn at it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 05:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the poster was saying the train horns were stripped off, which could indeed lower safety at crossings. However, this is more or less meaningless without a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. It certainly needs a source, though. Perhaps most importantly, it needs a source in which these horns were referred to as vuvuzelas. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)