Template talk:Infobox instrument

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)

Y Done —METS501 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Impressive response time. =) Powers ^T 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Italian names

See User_talk:Acsenray#Italian_names_of_musical_instruments and here. No disagreement that Italian names of orchestral instruments were important, and may still be, but do they need a prominent place in this infobox? __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my position is clear already, but just to get things started I'll just restate my reasoning that the Italian name deserves special prominence in the infobox because traditionally musical scores used only the Italian name to indicate which instrument the part was written for. It might not be the universal practice now, but it is still common enough to support the conclusion that -- for instruments that are used in orchestras, anyway -- the Italian name has special significance. Acsenray (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. you mean musical scores for European classical music only, right? That is a pretty narrow scope to include in the infobox, in my opinion. I'd wager most of our readers are not looking for that information in a summary format like the infobox. I'm against that change. --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also -- sure, the Italian name has special significance, but people are only find the infobox Italian useful if they first look up the English name, but if they already know the English name, they've already solved the problem. All this information can be gleaned from one quick table, if desired (Italian names of musical instruments or something like that); it's just clutter in the infobox otherwise. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone comes to an encyclopedia frantically searching for a single datum corresponding to another available one. Lots of us just browse, so "foreign" names are an enrichment of the article, and may decrease the likelihood of a future desperate search. __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose change: Italian was certainly important historically, but I don't think it warrants the special prominence. I agree with Laser Brain that this isn't what the typical reader is looking for. I also think that most readers wouldn't understand why it should be set apart. Even with a music degree myself, I assumed it was a good faith mistake. Will your average reader have any idea why Italian is given prominence? Probably not; they'll assume it's a mistake or bad formatting, or they'll just be confused. The infobox doesn't seem like the right place for a music history lesson. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

oppose additional clutter in infoboxes - if that means removing italian names, then lets dot it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including names in other languages, but I think they should all be put together. The change Acsenray implemented (which I oppose) puts Italian on a separate line, above the other languages. Keeping them all together makes it more compact. Right now there is a space in the infobox for names in other languages, which I think is fine. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Mildly oppose change: While music from the common practice period is still alive and well, at no time has there been an Italian monopoly on notation. I can affirm that string players might be well advised to learn the rudimentary terms, e.g. for bowing and expression, in at least English, French, German and Italian (in abc order there, just to be PC.) Of course, we now inhabit the XXIième siècle and there is much justified attention to world music. One remarkable book on the subject prominently showed an indigenous musician using a live beetle stuck to a twig as a Jew's harp, and you may safely bet that neither of them spoke Italian. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I have a large collection of orchestral scores, including scores by composers of various nationalities, and I haven't noticed any predisposition to favor Italian names. Moreover, in my experience it is not "likely that when you pick up a sheet of music, the name of the instrument will be in Italian". None of the five orchestration books on my shelf favor Italian names. TheScotch (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not opposed to including names in other languages, but I think they should all be put together. ":

I think if we were to do this it would be better to make a separate article listing orchestral instruments and their names in various languages and linking to it in the individual instrument articles. TheScotch (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I could agree to that. Looking at Horn (instrument), which has names in 4 languages currently, I can see that it does take up a fair amount of space at the top of the infobox. If more languages than the traditional western European ones were included, it would get really cumbersome. I think that information is valuable to have somewhere, but I would be fine with all the languages being pulled out to a separate article, linked from each instrument as applicable. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: While the names do show up in Italian on some scores, this is just clutter when placed in an infobox or right at the top of the article. - Special-T (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary to this point: So far, we have two proposals being discussed here. One is Acsenray's change to add a separate line for Italian language. That change appears to have near consensus opposed to the addition. The other proposed change is to remove all names in languages other than English, keeping only alternate English names (e.g., Horn/French Horn, Cello/Violoncello, Vibraphone/Vibes). Names in other languages would be moved to another article to keep the clutter down. Does that seem like an accurate summary to everyone? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Accurate regarding the first proposal, but not everyone has suggested collecting names in other languages in a separate article. There could be a place in each article for other names, maybe even in the infobox. __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that not everyone talked about the second proposal. I think we had two separate discussions going on without it being clear. Do we feel like we've reached a consensus on the first issue, even though the second needs further discussion? Just Plain Bill (and everyone), what do you think of the current names field, specifically as it exists in Horn (instrument) where several languages are listed at the top? If Italian was listed with the other languages, would that work? I feel pretty strongly about the first proposal, but for the second I could be convinced either way. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be content to see names in other languages above the box, but with less font-emphasis than the PAGENAME, and without Italian being distinguished the way it is just now.

If I just go and do that, can I get a little help tracking down and fixing any broken boxes that show up in articles? I may not catch them all in the first sweep.

For the second, a bit of clarification: Not all the ones who commented on it suggested using a separate article such as Polyglot list/table of musical instruments. You (WeisheitSuchen) mentioned "space in the infobox for names in other languages" favorably, for example. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just Plain Bill, please note that in my summary I simply said there was a second proposal--not that there was any consensus. It seemed like we'd reached the point where we could stop talking about the original proposal but continue discussing the second. I don't think you're trying to deny that the second proposal was made, so we should be in agreement here. Don't make a disagreement where there isn't one. My only purpose is to point out that this other proposal was brought up so we can talk about it more. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like we're in vehement agreement, and I've no desire to inflate that any further. For the record here now, I oppose removing non-English terms from the articles, if that is the second proposal you mention. Earlier, I read that as having more to do with collecting a list of names for many instruments in a separate single article, which may be where our views diverged here. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly see what you think of how the box works in Horn (instrument), Double bass and Cymbal. Each article took a bit of editing to include the Italian name with the other names. The "Other names" could just as easily go above the image, or anywhere else; I arbitrarily put them just above "Related instruments" because that made sense to me at the moment. I'll wait for comments before doing any more. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with this version of the infobox, and I'll be happy to help make changes and do cleanup. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just started some cleanup, but came to a screeching halt at Euphonium. More discussion in the following heading first, perhaps? Meanwhile,I'll continue picking away at the easier ones. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-English names

The previous heading is getting a bit bulky, and the primary issue there, special treatment for Italian names, seems resolved, so now for another bit: Should the "names" field (used for alternate names) in the infobox include or exclude non-English names?

• Include: In my view, it is useful to see the other names together, both English and others. Balance that against the edit summary in this diff, pointing out that the interwiki links already contain that information. Since that calls for an extra step to get at the actual name in the other language, I favor keeping selected non-English names in the box, more or less in the format now shown in Horn (instrument). __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Mild Support to Include: I think the new infobox layout is less cluttered-looking (names are in the middle of the box, with the font size the same as related instruments). It's certainly cleaner than listing it within the first paragraph, as is done in the German version of cymbal. (This example is provided only to show how it's done elsewhere in Wikipedia—I don't think it's a good idea or something we should imitate.) Italian, French, and German all come up often enough for musicians to be useful to keep within the infobox. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Request for further comments: In the Viola article, I used existing templates from the first sentence of the lead for the French and German names,

|names={{lang-fr|alto}}; {{lang-de|Bratsche}}

in contrast to the style of the others (e.g. Horn (instrument) ) I've been doing, which would use

|names=[[German language|de:]] ''Bratsche,'' [[French language|fr:]] alto 

instead. Does anyone see any advantage to, or have a preference for, doing it one way or the other? (The (lack of) initial cap on "alto" is a minor point here; I'm more interested in the template/wikilink choice here.) __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The template version puts the entire name of the language rather than the ISO abbreviation, right? It does take up a bit more space, but it might be clearer to the average user. Do most people recognize "de" as German off the top of their heads? My preference is to use the template for clarity. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much the way I see it. The wikilink style looks kind of cobbled-together; the abbreviation & colon makes it resemble an interwiki link, but not quite. Other fish to fry just now, and a work schedule for the long weekend, but will have time to shape them up uniformly starting Sep 3 or so, which will give other folks time to comment if they choose. Also looking for input about wiki-structure aspects of it, if any. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bullet lists in box

On clarinet and saxophone I noticed that if a field contains a list of bulleted points, the first item displays as a "*" rather than a bullet. I'm not savvy enough with infobox code to enforce a bullet in such a situation - if that's even possible. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally the articles themselves should be edited just to use line breaks or commas. These can be fixed on an individual basis by placing <span></span> tags around the bullets, making sure to start the list itself with a new line. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merged in new fields, some fixes...

Per my comment above, I've merged in the new fields "hornbostel_sachs", "hornbostel_sachs_descr", "inventors", and "developed", as well as "background" to vary the infoboxes up by 'common classification' (i.e. woodwind, keyboard, brass, etc.). I've also fixed headers on the latter half of the infobox to revert the general style back to what it used to look like, and added DIV boxes around each of the last few items to make bullets work properly again. This now depends on Template:Infobox Instrument/Classification for the header field between the image caption and the background data (this could be changed to just read "Background Data" instead of the common class, if you really wanted) and Template:Infobox Instrument/Color for the header colors. --Pipian (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: "General MIDI" field

May I suggest that a "General MIDI" field be added to this infobox? For instruments that are included in General MIDI, this would simply list their MIDI number. For example, Acoustic Grand Piano would be listed as 001 in normal listing, and 000 as the program change message. Likewise, the violin would be 041 in normal listing, and 040 as the program change message. A percussion instrument like the Agogô bell would be listed as MIDI notes 67 and 68, or G3 and G#3. What are people's thoughts on this? dogman15 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this "midi" field. Discuss changes here. dogman15 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the broken implementation, and the moved it up a bit. Basically, the parameters are case sensitive, and the {{infobox}} template requires unit field names (e.g., you can't have both header14 and data14 and/or label14). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm not very familiar with how infoboxes are constructed in their core code, but I like researching information to fill them out when I can. I thought a MIDI parameter would be appropriate for the instrument infobox. Again, thanks! dogman15 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Um...what's the reason for this? Sure GM is a standard implementation, but it seems as if it's not something important enough for the info box. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did it take me actually changing things for people to start talking about this? Does no one normally read this talk page? As it is, the "midi" field is very unintrusive, and it doesn't even work for saxophones, which have their own elite infobox. dogman15 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose for adding this new field to the infobox of every single musical instrument in wikipedia? It adds no new information about the instrument, is not a classification system in and of itself, and really has no place in the info box. It is of no use whatsoever to people reading an article about an instrument. The place for general midi codes is in the article on general midi. That is where people will go if they want information about them. It really has no place in the infobox. As for uninstrusive, firstly that is no justification for action and secondly for some instruments, such as guitars and pianos, where there are several codes, it is very intrusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinobass (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much my thoughts. It's just unhelpful all around, and anyone that cares would know exactly where to find a list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of general midi from the infobox

I have removed General Midi from the musical instrument infobox. The infobox should contain relevant information about the musical instrument, it should also be general (applicable to any musicial instrument). For example, instrument classications, and related instruments. The general midi code is a piece of information that is not related to any physical or familial aspect of an instrument, or informative outside the context of general midi synthesizers. It is not a classification scheme, or meaningful grouping, and there are many instruments for which there is no general midi code (and never will be). Some instruments have several midi codes for slightly different and restricted/fixed variations of that instrument - which is again not helpful in terms of information about a given instrument. It therefore has no place in the infobox about a musical instrument, I would argue it has no place in an article about any instrument other than the midi synthesiser. Dinobass (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

alt Attribute?

I've been trying to add an alt= attribute to the image in the infobox on the Djembe page without success. If anyone knows how to achieve that, I'd love to hear about it. I can't figure out the correct syntax. --MichiHenning (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi MichiHenning. I believe there are two options:

[[File:Lenke djembe from Mali.jpeg|300px|alt=alt image text goes here]]

or

Lenke djembe from Mali.jpeg{{!}}alt=alt image text goes here

In the first example you have to hardcode the image size to something in that range or the image will default to be huge. In the 2nd example the curly braces and exclamation point are a template to create a pipe (a vertical bar). Be sure to test it when you are done. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, thanks for your help and taking the time to let me know! I just made a minor change to the alt text. "Goblet-shaped" is more accurate than "hourglass-shaped", I believe. MichiHenning (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi MichiHenning. Sorry about that. I was going to leave the alt text you to fill in but I decided to try my hand at it. Yes I too had decided that hourglass was not spot on. Only took you four years to get your answer. Wow. I had Graham87 test the alt text with the JAWS screen reader and it works with the {{!}} pipe workaround. At least you left Graham87's hyphen intact. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Can there be more than one image?

I'm considering for the mbira article adding File:TrebleKalimba.jpg to the infobox, to show that there is significant variety in this instrument category. Is there a way to have more than one image? Esn (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add module= parameter

Please add a module= parameter to the infobox instrument template so listen templates and other modules can be cleanly added to the infobox such as here: balalaika (not cleanly added). Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sound sample

Is there a reason doesn't this template include a spot for a sound sample of the musical instrument? It seems more important than a picture. Hyacinth (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Center bottom fields?

All the bottom fields are aligned to the left, which doesn't look good imo. It would probably be better to make hlist class for these fields, so that they would be centered like in {{Infobox music genre}} template. What do you think? Solidest (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)