Talk:Contrabass trombone

(Split discussion)

Images

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

History and construction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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