Talk:Clarinet

Archives (Index)

2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Good Article reassement

Clarinet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist (t · c) buidhe 18:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at the clarinet page in order to gain a better insight as to what makes a Good Article for musical instruments but was sad to see that the page is currently in a fairly bad state. The first half of the article is decent even if there are a few MOS errors (referencing other sections and some awkward prose), but the second half (from "Usage and repertoire" down) is sorely in need of more reliable references and some major rewrites. The prose also has a habit of not explaining the more technical terms for the layman reader (e.g., meantone, ligature), just simply linking another article. Thoughts? Why? I Ask (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation style

@Why? I Ask: Regarding this edit: the article does not have an entirely consistent style with regards to either proposed addition, but there are more book refs that exclude both location and OCLC than include either. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask: please stop making changes to citation style until we can discuss the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that later on (the first few sources I looked at in the "Further Reading" did have location). However, I am going through now to impose a consistent style and verify the sources and add page numbers. This article needs a lot of work. However, removing the OCLC is something that I oppose. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? I Ask, again, please hold off on making massive changes until we can arrive at consensus as to which style to use, since it is clear we do not agree on what is most appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, is the OCLC and location the only thing you oppose? I'm fine with removing the location if you're so opposed to it, but I prefer the OCLC. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? I Ask, no, that's not all.

• Why remove related instruments?
• Why remove the bots tag?
• |pages= should not be used for single-page references
• If locations are to be included (though there doesn't seem to be a reason to do so), postal abbreviations should not be used
• Why remove refs to Lawson that are lacking page, rather than tagging?
• Why change section heading to Bibliography, and why de-alphabetize the section?
• Lawson is the editor, not the author, of the overall book cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The related instruments are something I plan to add back in a bit; some were clarinets and some aren't really related. I don't see a reason the citation bot should be blocked. I know, and if I miss it the page versus pages, then there is a bot for that; it's not the end of the world. There is nothing against using postal abbreviations. Because I'm getting ready to add citations to the parts removed. I believe "Bibliography" more correctly separates sources and sources cited, but that's my opinion. I know he's the editor, but editor names are generally what is cited. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing against using postal abbreviations. Yes there is. I don't see a reason the the citation bot should be blocked. I do - it adds unhelpful spam, among other problems. I know he's the editor, but editor names are generally what is cited. There are separate parameters for that - it shouldn't be using author parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anymore. What sort of spam? The difference between an author and editor parameter changes pretty much nothing, especially when they are the sole name attached to the book. If you truly think that change will be an improvement, go ahead. I have no beef with that. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Even with your edit it still doesn't support their use here, but since you've said above you're fine with removing location, the point is moot - let's focus on what we still disagree on. For example OCLC: it's a lot of clutter to save a few people one click. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, isn't there more pressing issues such as the fact that half of the citations fail verification or are improperly formatted to begin with (e.g., lack page numbers)? I feel like your worrying about something that really does not matter. I'm not going to remove the OCLC number without overriding consensus or without a reason better than "I don't like it" because doing so would waste time. And to be blunt, I was the first person to attempt cleaning up the citations. If you were the first, I would respect your preferences. Why not respect mine? Stop complaining, and add some darn sources yourself. You want this to be a good article, correct? Well it was delisted because the sources sucked. Work on improving sources and the page, and then have the petty arguments. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting my expansion of the "History" section

@User:Nikkimaria

I have taken several hours to revise and expand the "History" section. Because the history of the development of the clarinet does not stop in 1843. An encyclopaedia must do more here. Then I asked another author who knows a lot about clarinets to take a look at my draft, which you can see here User:Gisbert K/sandbox3. Afterwards I published the text with an additional size of almost 6000 byte, on 8 December, 16:31 h

On 10 December, 5:08 h, you, the User:Nikkimaria, undifferentiatedly completely undid my work, simply by clicking the "undo" button several times, without discussing it first. I see this as an act of unkind behaviour. Your terse justification for undoing my extensive works " (rv: largely unsourced or unreliably sourced)" does not apply .For the period after 1843 I have listed 2 significant and each extensive sources:

1: Thomas Reil and Dr. Enrico Weller, both recognised musicologists, with their 150-page book on the clarinet maker Oskar Oehler, which is in my possession, and of which an excerpt translation into English has been posted on the internet, which I have cited.

2. a dissertation by Dr. Stephanie Angloher, published in full on the net and frequently cited, a scientific work on the various clarinet systems amounting to 280 pages.

These two sources of a high standard are already sufficient, yet I have now added some minor sources as an afterthought. In this form I would like to re-post the text. . After all, the English article Clarinet should once again be given the title of "good article"! (The German article, of which I am the main author, even belongs to the "excellent" articles) This cannot be done without thorough revisions and extensions. Everyone who works on this should be welcome. And if an extension should indeed have deficiencies, everyone can contribute to an improvement, e.g. by adding to the sources instead of simply deleting the extension. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   18:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the series of changes you made on December 9. Your sources should be cited each time you make an extraordinary claim, for instance naming the "most famous" clarinet concerto, and whether the sound is "sonorous" or "sharper". (You can cite the same source multiple times with a named reference.) Your English composition suffers from stiff and stilted wording: "we now had two fingering systems", "one might say", "one could well speak of a variant", "As already mentioned" and "some suggest". If you would like to re-introduce your material it will need some work. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the bad grammar, unencyclopedic tone, etc. after that was added to the History section. If the material is worthwhile and the refs are solid, it might be worth some editor's time to look at that section after I cleaned it up (before it was removed). I have no opinion about the worthiness of the material or the validity of the refs. And I'm not attached to my copy edits there. Maybe some other knowledgeable editors can take see if anything is worth keeping. - Special-T (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello User:Special-T, If you are willing to make improvements to the wording, I would be grateful if you would do so in my sandbox3 ( User:Gisbert K/sandbox3 ). The current text there is already improved over the reset version and I will add some more sources there, before publishing again. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   21:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As per Binksternet, unfortunately the content that was added lacked needed sources, particularly for some of the opinions expressed. Nothing personal, just a matter of further work needed before potential incorporation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Gisbert - I'm very busy in real life, but feel free to copy it from that version of the article and incorporate anything useful. - Special-T (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou Special-T, I have it incorporated in my new draft. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   15:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria

I have rewritten the section taking into account the suggestions made here and added more sources. Before I incorporate the new draft to the article (planned for tomorrow evening), I will give you the opportunity to look at it and make any minor corrections or inform me if you think there are still major problems. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   17:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Still needs some pretty significant work. One-paragraph sections should be avoided, as should having a long string of cites at the end of a long paragraph - it makes it difficult to tell what is meant to support what. Some of the sources proposed are of unclear reliability, eg die-klarinetten. It also needs work on prose and formatting, but the structural and sourcing concerns need addressing before that can be considered. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@User:Nikkimaria Please have a look to this page: User_talk:Gisbert_K/sandbox3. Do you suggest any other changes? -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   09:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, there is content lacking any referencing - that needs to be addressed first off. Once that's done the formatting can be cleaned up  Done . Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What content exacltly? In 17 lines there are 13 References, that should be enough. If I read the article Clarinet, as it is now, much content is not referenced, e.g. the 1st para. Every sence need a source but no source is given -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   06:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead section is not required to include citations per WP:LEADCITE; this text is proposed for the body which has no such exception. For example, what citation is believed to support the claim "After the invention of the thumb rest clarinetists began to attach the mouthpiece so that the reed rested on the lower lip, because they could now hold and position the clarinet with the thumb rest. "? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   08:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"History" section now a torso

After Nikkimaria shortened the History section by 2300 bytes last night, it is now a torso. This is not the way to regain the title of "good article".

By the way: I am with a 37% share the main author of the German article "Klarinette", which is awarded as an "excellent article".

-  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   05:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The title of "good article" certainly cannot be regained with material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or unsupported by the sources provided. Additionally the section needs to be balanced against the rest of the article, rather than dwarfing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Sources: I disagree: For the reader, an article or a section that is informative and substantially complete but deficient in terms of sources is more valuable than an inadequate article or section that complies with WP guidelines in terms of sources.

Sources can be added, even by other authors who intend to improve the article. This is better than deleting an important piece of information because no source is given or one that does not comply with the guidelines, which of course are not free of arbitrariness.

Unquestionably, the History section was deficient until 4 January 2023. This would not have won the article a prize.

2. Balance: writing 20% on history is acceptable, especially when, as here, the rest of the article also has inadequacies that can only be remedied in additions, see below.

And: I think it is good for the rating, when 2 sections are better than the others, especially the first and the last one. Perhaps we should start with the History. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   15:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether you agree or disagree is immaterial: verifiability and reliable sourcing are not only key parts of the GA criteria but key principles of Wikipedia as a whole. Additionally the burden lies on those wanting to add material to provide appropriate sourcing for it before adding or restoring it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Expansion of the History Section on 5 and 6 January 2023

I have thoroughly revised my additions to this section, which I presented at the beginning of December, and have substantiated almost all statements with reabile sources. In this form I introduced them into the article Clarinet on 5 and 6 January. After minor corrections by User:Special-T, the History section was now informative, essentially complete and easy to read, and did not need any more changes.

Then, on both evenings or in the following nights, the user Nikkimaria appeared and took possession of my work by deleting most of the original text and - without any gain for the article - replacing it with her own formulations of the same content. In addition, she deleted some sentences containing important or at least useful information.

In detail:

Changes from 5.1.

Changes 1. and 2. There was no need for these changes to the text. The other wording of the same content is not an improvement. In addition, the deletion of the last two sentences irritates the reader, who knows from the previous text that there is still a 3rd register and who wonders at this point how it came about.

Change 3 Here, under the pretext of an inadequate source, an important piece of information has been deleted which the reader expects at this point. At the beginning it said : "At this time, contrary to modern practice, the reed was placed in contact with the upper lip." Here it was listed when and how and why this was changed. The allegedly inadequate source is a publication of the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, which is absolutely reputable, secondary literature with numerous references to original literature

Changes 4-6 Again, my text is rewritten without profit for the article, furthermore useful information is deleted.

Changes 7.1.2023

Again unnecessary rewording and arbitrary cuts of useful information for the reader.

By unnecessary rewording, the person concerned "steals" the creative effort of the author, because in the statistics the new sentences or paragraphs are not attributed to the author but to the person who deletes the author's texts and replaces them with other texts with the same content, an unfair practice.

Therefore, with some changes, I restore the state of the texts after the corrections by Special-T. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   15:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

And I have reverted you, because the changes have not addressed the fundamental problems of the proposed text. I also remind you that "whatever you might write can and will be mercilessly edited and re-edited and tweaked and poked and changed by others" - if you feel that rephrasing your text is in some way "stealing" or "taking possession" then Wikipedia is not a good place for you to put it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

My text is more informative for the reader. There are no "fundamental problems". That is why I am re-posting it, together with your additions, as far as they were not wrong, like the addition about the Reform Boehm system. In 2008 it was widespread in the professional sector in the Netherlands, in 2008 Yamaha also still made such clarinets, but not any more. I recommend you to read my article Reform Boehm system. It shows that you have no real knowledge of the clarinet and its development and that you just copy everything. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   21:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Gisbert, unfortunately there are indeed fundamental problems with your text, not least of which that you have not fulfilled your burden to support it with citations. We are meant to be summarizing and reporting on what reliable sources say on the topic, not what you believe to be informative. And we are also meant to be doing so civilly. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your talk that my text is not sufficiently based on good sources is a pretext, not to say a lie. My text, which you can see here User:Gisbert K/sandbox5, is based on 40 sources. In contrast, the article on the clarinet, which is 5 times as long, contains a total of only 120!

Now all of a sudden you're talking about being civilised, after you haven't behaved like that so far. What does that mean in concrete terms?

My suggestion: Only write about topics you know something about and leave other topics to those who know something about them. I'm on the move in several country WP in clarinet matters. There I meet authors who also play the clarinet and have good knowledge about the individual instruments, about the manufacturers, about the players and about the compositions, e.g. my French friend Clarioio, who in my estimation is the author with the most comprehensive knowledge in all clarinet matters in the worldwide WP. These authors do not argue with each other but cooperate. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have taken considerable effort to incorporate your content where possible, and will now take considerable more to detail the issues with your proposed text. In response you say I'm lying, have "stolen" your work, and ought not to edit this page at all. It's pretty clear which approach is civil and cooperative, and which is not. Will post the content analysis shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of the proposed addition

Taken from this version, with annotations added inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The clarinet arose at the beginning of the 18th century when the German instrument maker Johann Christoph Denner (or possibly his son Jacob Denner) equipped a chalumeau in the alto register with two keys, one of which enabled access to a higher register. This second register did not begin an octave above the first, as with other woodwind instruments, but started an octave and a perfect fifth higher than the first. A second key, at the top, extended the range of the first register to A₄ and, together with the register key, to B♭₄. Later, Denner lengthened the bell and provided it with a third key to extend the pitch range down to E₃.. The resulting range has remained the standard for clarinets. The lower register from E₃ to B♭₄ was called the chalumeau register and the second register from B₄ to C₆ the clarion register. ???

A third register, the altissimo, developed as unknown clarinetists used special fingerings to play notes up to G₆, and later up to D₇. 20. January

Sketch of the basset clarinet used by Anton Stadler since 1789

After Denner's innovations, other makers added keys to improve tuning and facilitate fingerings and the chalumeau fell into disuse. The clarinet of the Classical period, as used by Mozart, typically had five keys. Mozart suggested extending the clarinet downwards by four semitones to C₃, which resulted in the basset clarinet that was about 18 centimetres (7.1 in) longer, made first by Theodor Lotz. In 1789 Mozart composed the Quintet for Clarinet and String Quartet and founded a new genre with it: the clarinet quintet  Done In 1792 he composed the Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra in A major for this instrument, with passages ranging down to C₃. Clarinets were soon accepted into orchestras, and by the time of Beethoven (c. 1780–1820), the clarinet was a fixed member in the orchestra.

The functionality and therefore the potential number of keys with felt pads was limited because they did not seal tightly. German clarinetist and master clarinet maker Iwan Müller remedied this by countersinking the tone holes for the keys and covering the pads with soft leather. This made it possible to equip the instrument with considerably more keys. In 1812 Müller presented a clarinet with seven finger holes and thirteen keys, which he called "clarinet omnitonic" since it was capable of playing in all keys. It was no longer necessary to use differently tuned clarinets for a different keys. This clarinet become gradually the worldwide standard.

Müller is also considered the inventor of the metal ligature and the thumb rest. With the added stability of the thumb rest, clarinetists began to orient the mouthpiece with the reed resting on the lower lip.As can be seen from the above drawing, Stadler already used this type of embrochure.

Müller's inventions also revolutionised the design of other woodwind instruments. In the late 1830s, German flute maker Theobald Böhm invented a ring and axle key system, which he first employed on the transverse flute, but which was then adopted by other woodwind instrument makers. In this system, when a finger covers a tone hole it also pushes down a metal ring flush with the top of the hole. The ring sits on an axle on which other rings and pads are mounted, causing them to close.

This key system was first used on the clarinet between 1839 and 1843 by the French clarinetist Hyacinthe Klosé, in collaboration with instrument maker Louis Auguste Buffet. They made other changes to the clarinet, resulting in a new instrument with different fingerings and a different inner bore, which produced a different sound. One significant change was the addition of new keys for the two little fingers on the lower joint, providing redundant fingerings for certain notes. The inventors called this the Boehm clarinet, although Böhm was not involved in its development. The standard Boehm clarinet has 17 keys and 6 rings.

End of the 1840s, the Belgian Eugène Albert transferred the Boehm ring key system to the Müller clarinet, with some changes to keywork. The Albert clarinet, known as the "simple system", got 16 keys, 5 rings, and rollers on the keys intended for the little fingers. It's sound is similar to the Boehm clarinet.. The most important improvement of the Simple System is the "spectacle key" patented by Adolphe Sax, another improvment a "patent C sharp" key developed by Joseph Tyler which was also added to other clarinet models. Improved versions of Albert clarinets were built in Belgium and France for export to the UK and the US. From 1920 to 1940 Selmer Paris built an improved Albert clarinet, also called "Full-Albert" versus "Plain-Albert", with very good intonation and extended mechanics with 6 rings, 4 side trill keys, E-flat-lever and F-sharp/G-sharp-trill, which was played by many jazz clarinetists.

Around 1860, clarinettist Carl Baermann and instrument maker Georg Ottensteiner developed the patented Baermann/Ottensteiner clarinet, a clarinet with 16 keys, four rings and four rollers, but in the tradition of the historic sound. This instrument had new connecting levers, which made it possible to press many keys from several places. It was used from 1860 until about 1910.

The famous Brahms clarinetist Richard Mühlfeld used this clarinet, and the American clarinet soloist Charles Neidich has used a Baermann-Ottensteiner instrument for playing compositions by Brahms.

In 1905, the German clarinettist and clarinet maker Oskar Oehler presented a clarinet with 22 keys, four rollers, five rings and a blind cover for the right index finger, under which there is no tone hole, but through which two keys on the right side of the lower joint are operated. The new clarinet was called the Oehler clarinet or German clarinet, while the Böhm clarinet has since been called the French clarinet. Since the 1950s, most top German clarinets are still equipped with a cup mechanism to improve the intonation of low E and F and are sometimes called "Full-Oehler" clarinets, even though this mechanism was not developed by Oehler.

The French clarinet differs from the German not only in fingering but also in sound. The characteristic sound of the clarinet that had fascinated Mozart was lost. After conducting in France, Richard Strauss spoke of the nasal French clarinets. At the end of the 1940s, German clarinet maker Fritz Wurlitzer, father of Herbert Wurlitzer, built a clarinet which involved the use of Boehm-system keywork in combination with a German mouthpiece and bore and with a sound approximating the German ideal. The result was the Reform Boehm clarinet, which is still in production.

Changes in manufacturers' drilling techniques and changes in playing technique have changed the "nasal" sound of the Boehm clarinet. Its sound has been described as sharper, richer in overtones and more flexible than the German clarinet sound, which has been called pure, sonorous and warm.

Other modifications to the basic Boehm system, the Full Boehm, Mazzeo, McIntyre, and Benade NX System, did not become common.

Outside of Germany and Austria, clarinets with the Boehm system are used almost exclusively today. In Eastern Europe the Oehler system was widespread until the middle of the 20th century, but was largely replaced by the Boehm system. In the Netherlands, the Reform Boehm system was important for a long time but has gradually been replaced by the classic Boehm system. For reasons of sound and intonation, the use of Oehler clarinets has continued in German and Austrian orchestras, including the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic), while no German clarinets are used in French symphony orchestras.

The Albert clarinet has been in common use in Britain since the second half of the 19th century. These dominated jazz in its early days, is still used in folk music in the Balkans and Turkey.

Further information on systems: Boehm system (clarinet), Reform Boehm system, Eugène Albert, and Oehler system

References

It's clear there are significant issues around sourcing and verifiability that persist with this version, among other problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

To-do-list to improve the rest of the article

1. Section “Clarinet family”: Addition of the contra alto clarinet

2. New section “Tuning the clarinet”

3. New section “Sound effects”

4. Review: At the end, review the whole article and check whether the layout is optimal or whether the sequence of individual sections should be changed -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   15:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

5. The "Usage and repertoire" section needs work. In particular, the single most famous clarinet part in either classical or jazz (possibly both) is not mentioned: The opening of "Rhapsody In Blue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.33.17 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarinette omnitonique

we have a red link Clarinette omnitonique. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I googled and found this: https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/of-note/2014/ivory-clarinet - Special-T (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AG029 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bandoputt.

— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Clarinet family article – Any support to merge or unmerge?

The article in question has been tagged as an WP:REDUNDANTFORK for a bit. I'm wondering if that notice should be removed (and we keep the articles as is) or if we should decide to either merge it here or unmerge Clarinet#Clarinet family. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Of those options I think detagging would make most sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance section

I think that the recently added section on Maintenance is unencyclopedic, largely trivial, and falls under the category of "how-to" information. Its content can mostly be summarized by saying, "if not properly maintained, things might not work correctly", which is true of anything. Special-T (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Suggest its removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It was added as part of a school writing project, I deleted it, and my deletion was reverted by someone else from that school project. I tried cleaning it up, but I still think it doesn't merit keeping. So I'm deleting it again. - Special-T (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree - I think it was a useful addition comparable to the piano section of the same name - Piano#maintenance. The specific type of maintenance and process of maintenance was well-described, furthermore. Would like to request bringing it back and working to improve the issues noted by @Special-T. - Matthewvetter (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria since @Special-T and I were both involved in the edits. Would an RfC be more appropriate to get additional feedback? Thanks! - Matthewvetter (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to let other editors weigh in & decide. I've stated my opinion & I'm not interested in edit warring. - Special-T (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, you could open an RfC on the question. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on maintenance section

Should the clarinet article include a section on maintenance? Matthewvetter (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No. There are no similar sections in the flute, oboe, or saxophone articles, so one is not needed here. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No. As I stated above, the information in this section is either trivial ("lack of maintenance may lead to the instrument not working") or how-to. - Special-T (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, the edits were made as part of a school writing project and the only editor advocating for retaining it is the instructor of that school project, so WP:COI. - Special-T (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no evidence of COI, unless the alluded to “instructor” somehow invented the clarinet. — HTGS (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I initiated the Rfc to avoid COIs and to get outside perspective from others not immediately involved in the editorial dispute. Also, here is the content at issue (the quote above doesn't appear in [the version] I'm referring to:

Cork is used to connect the clarinet's joints, and cork grease is applied to the corks to allow them to fit into the corresponding socket. Excess pressure when assembling the instrument may damage the keys.[62]

Most clarinets are made of wood and need to be swabbed dry after playing to keep the wood from cracking or swelling. Swabs are typically made of cloth and are inserted through the bell end of the instrument to avoid becoming stuck.[63]

Before cleaning the mouthpiece, the reed and ligature must be removed. The mouthpiece must be cleaned carefully to avoid damage to the tip or the side rails. A mouthpiece cap can protect the mouthpiece when stored. Damage to the mouthpiece tip or side rails can cause the mouthpiece to not play properly, often because the reed cannot seal where a section is damaged.[63]

Thanks for your input. Matthewvetter (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, "inserted through the bell end...to avoid becoming stuck" is outright wrong. You pull it a) from the narrow top to the wide bottom to avoid becoming stuck b) from the small holes at the top to the large holes at the bottom so that any remaining spit is less likely to block the holes. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmph. I still think I'm right, but I'm hesitant to argue with the Army Band video I just watched... --130.111.39.47 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

And this video from Backun seems to agree with me. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Sure - as long as the content is reliably sourced and verifiable and not too lengthy. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per Isaidnoway, but I would add that the tone should be encyclopedic, not instructive. Descriptives of basic maintenance principles belong in an encyclopedia, but prescriptive how-tos do not. — HTGS (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes If detailed and reliable maintenance methods are added to the article, it will be of greater help to those who want to understand and learn the clarinet. And the article will be more comprehensive. So I think it should be added.Hhhh2 (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am counting 3 yes and 2 no - (though I'm not sure we should count the IP). Would it be appropriate to reinstate the content in question and if people have issues with language, they can edit to avoid howto? @Special-T, would you be open to that as an outcome of the RfC? Respectfully, - Matthewvetter (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I question the validity of some of the "yes"es, since they're not taking the WP:HOWTO issues into account. "help.. to those who want to.. learn the clarinet" is exactly the definition of how-to. And sourced/verifiable/not-lengthy is all fine, but, again, ignores the fact that it's how-to information. As far as WP:COI, I'm referring to the fact that you are the person who assigned this edit to someone. Your working to re-instate the content is a conflict of interest. - Special-T (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What about this? (possibly incorporated into the previous section):

Most clarinets are made of wood in four separate sections (not including the mouthpiece). Each tenon that fits into an adjacent socket is wrapped with cork, which requires cork grease to allow it to fit. Wooden clarinets can be damaged by moisture, so should be swabbed dry after playing. The mouthpiece should be handled carefully, since damage to the tip or side rails can cause it to not play properly.

Sure that would be a good start. -Matthewvetter (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The article already says most clarinets are made of wood and describes their sections; what's novel here isn't sufficient for a standalone section. The sentence on moisture can be added to #Materials and the sentence on cork can be added to #Components. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Nikkimaria. I was throwing out a concise re-write to see how it read, but it doesn't really cut it as encyclopedia information. - Special-T (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Special-T well we have 3 votes for keeping the maintenance section. so how would you like to proceed? Matthewvetter (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't actually need to arrive at a decision right now - this RfC's been open barely a week and the results are not so lopsided as to be snowing at this point. We can continue to work towards a mutually agreeable outcome, or we can wait for the RfC to run its course. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 3 to 2 is not SNOW territory by any means. And if you're not sure if IPs count in discussions, should you be teaching people how to contribute to WP? --130.111.39.47 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's where I think this stands after a couple of weeks. This RFC was started by Matthewvetter, who assigned the writing of that section to a student. He has ignored my re-iterated point that this constitutes a conflict of interest. He has also ignored my other policy points, mainly that almost all of that information is how-to - some of the "yes" voting ignores this point also. Almost all of the rest of the information is trivial - it boils down to "wood can be damaged by moisture" and "damaged items may not function correctly". I propose just putting a short description of tenon corks under the appropriate (existing) section. - Special-T (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's simply not fair or accurate to say that I have ignored your points about CoI. I responded above that: "I initiated the Rfc to avoid COIs and to get outside perspective from others not immediately involved in the editorial dispute." It wasn't clear to me that I had a CoI on the article topic. What is my interest, exactly? Nor did I ignore the "how to" policy comments. If you look at the edit history of the article section. Most of my work was in line with yours - trying to revise the content so that it avoided "How to" language. - Matthewvetter (talk)

I've stated this too many times already. Here it is once more and I'll walk away from this. Your conflict of interest is that you are the only editor trying to re-instate a justifiably reverted edit. That edit consisted entirely of a student writing assignment that you assigned. Second, I pointed out that some of the "yes" responses to the RFC were based on the idea that how-to info should be OK. Yet you responded with "we have three votes to keep." So, yes, your responses here have ignored these points, and these are the points that support the reversion of the content in question. I'm done here. - Special-T (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I am actually trying to reinstate the version you and I revised to remove "How-to" language [1147548958] - it's a far departure from what the student originally wrote. I'm not sure how working with or even advocating for a student would constitute CoI anyway. If it does, there's a lot of CoI out there! Regarding your second comment, all of the votes responding yes had access to the content in question which btw, was not what you represented in your previous vote/response. - Matthewvetter (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think at this point I will formally oppose adding the proposed maintenance section due to the how-to issues, and instead support adding the sentence on corks into the existing Components section. Essentially as an encyclopedia the purpose of this article is to help people learn about the clarinet, not learn the clarinet, and I feel a standalone maintenance section falls in the latter category rather than the former. (Plus causes maintenance issues of its own). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Uncited additions

I'm re-reverting a recent string of edits. The statements are uncited, and, in some cases, are inserted into a sentence with an existing ref, implying that the statement is supported by that ref. - Special-T (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not gonna keep reverting (although it's not edit warring to revert uncited content). I've explained in the edit summaries, and here on the talk page, what's wrong with those edits. None of that material has been cited. Also, the POV of "prominent" orchestral parts, better keywork on the Bb being a reason the C became less important, "impressive" downward extension of the range, "dark, mysterious, introspective nature" etc., is just that WP:POV. - Special-T (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cayenarama: Could you join the discussion here rather than restoring the disputed content, please? I agree that it is problematic to insert content around existing refs when that content is not supported by those refs - it creates a significant problem around verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Materials

Given the recent dark clouds here recently, I've made a modest copy edit in the materials section around plastics and composites, and when they came about; however I stopped short of explaining why one would make clarinets from plastics: cheaper construction and durability for student/band/outdoor use, and less maintenance due to such materials not requiring oiling or being subject to drying out and cracking, etc. This was mainly due to a lack of a handy source; I will have a go at adding this when I get home later; I know there's something in either the Cambridge Companion or the Yale book. This will also neatly cover off one of the points in the contested "maintenance" section above, without it being a how-to. Cheers — Jon (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of a new section in the article

@User:Nikkimaria Yesterday I added a new section to the article with the heading "Famous clarinetists of the 18th and 19th centuries". I believe that WP readers who would like to learn more about the clarinet should also have the opportunity to learn about the history of the clarinet and its most famous protagonists.

You deleted my addition to the article without giving any reason. WP-WAR: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page." You did neither the one nor the other. I ask that you reverse the deletion or post the reasons for it here so that the community can discuss it.

To everyone: the deleted section can be viewed here. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   13:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gisbert, as indicated in my edit summary, your proposed addition is UNDUE. This is not an appropriate venue for mini-biographies of a few of the many noted clarinetists - their articles that can be linked from the existing List of clarinetists. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The list of clarinettists includes more than 300! The vast majority of them will probably no longer be mentioned, say, 20 years after their death. The ones I have listed with a short biography have all been dead for more than 100 years, but are still famous in the clarinet world for their special achievements. And they will still be listed in current encyclopaedias 200 years from now. I therefore consider it necessary and appropriate to briefly introduce these personalities to readers of this article who are not familiar with the clarinet and would like to find out more. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   23:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's neither necessary nor appropriate to incorporate these biographies here - most of the full articles are already linked within this article anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)