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 complicate an already complicated matter. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How is editing a citation in one place in Wikidata more of a "pain in the ass" than having to juggle editing the same citation to the same resource in several different articles at once, and keeping them all consistent? Google Books links can be added to the Wikidata citation item using the Google Books ID property, and Cite Q will handle it, everywhere on Wikipedia the same Q item is used. In my experience of using Cite Q, the only significant as-yet-unresolved issue is the display of author names, which we can in the meantime override by adding parameters at the Wikipedia end, e.g. author1 = Herbert, Trevor or similar, to align with whatever citation style the article may already be using. That said, if Cite Q is used for all of the references, then the author names will all be displayed consistently as (e.g.) "Trevor Herbert". (Update: there, I just added the Google Books ID to Trevor Herbert's "The Trombone" book, Q111039091) — Jon (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Cite Q and broken interaction with sfn and harv templates

I've converted the use of Cite Q templates in this article to be inline. Please note Cite Q won't work correctly with short form refs, an issue I have raised at the Cite Q template talk page and has not been fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: as per the conversation with the devs on the Cite Q talk page, sfn works fine with Cite Q as long as the author/first/last and the date are supplied; I've added the dates to the bibliography and it works now. Cheers — Jon (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I saw Trapsist's ping, I hadn't come across that before. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Contrabass trombone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 08:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) It is reasonably well written. a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a. (reference section): b. (citations to reliable sources): c. (OR): d. (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a. (major aspects): b. (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/fail: (Criteria marked are unassessed)

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

The lead, being a single paragraph in length, seems on the short side. I would add more information about the construction of the instrument, for instance. True enough, I've had a go at re-working the lead. Wagner should be introduced, and his first name given. Done. The information in the lead section is not controversial, and so the citations can be omitted. Done. There no need to link aerophone twice in the infobox. Fixed. I would question the inclusion of Ben van Dijk, Bill Reichenbach, and Phil Teele in the infobox (seeing as the text doesn’t mention van Dijk, Teele is notable only as a session player, and the text emphasises that the use of the instrument in some genres is now “ubiquitous”). Ok - I've removed Ben van Dijk for now, even though he's a "major player" and should have his own article... not needed for this GA, and I won't have time to do it justice anyway. Are you ok with Phil Teele and Bill Reichenbach staying, since they were the big session names that kicked off the whole soundtrack phenomenon? Jon (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Fine by me. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) There are builders in the infobox that require to be cited, and/or should be included in the text of the article. I wondered about this; the infobox contains pretty much the exhaustive list of manufacturers that I know of that currently make contrabass trombones (in their regular catalogue, if they had one, rather than custom to-order builds). Not sure how to go about making it legit, without providing a bad list in the article, and aside from providing primary sources (mfr websites/catalogues). The primary Yeo, Guion and Herbert books are either not current enough, or don't adequately cover European makers. One solution might be to include the information in a separate Notes section (==Notes== {{reflist|group=note}}) using {{refn|1=xxx|group=note}}, where xxx is the cited information. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by "cited information" - do you mean an exhaustive list of links to each (current) manufacturers web page, and then a note next to each item? That would clutter the infobox; would one note with a lists similar to the existing manufacturer refs do? — Jon (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I meant to take the information out of the infobox and create a note in the Construction section that includes the information, and provides citations. Whatever you do, you cannot have (uncited) information in the infobox that is not present in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I've added the current manufacturer websites to the existing "F" and B♭" catch-all references, and dropped (historical) Gebr Alexander which isn't mentioned in the text. Jon (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

History

Link slide (Slide (wind instrument); pitched (Pitch (music)). Done (in the lead). They also need to be linked here, the first time they come up in the main body of the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Done. Renaissance period doesn’t link to where readers might expect it to go. In that case, not sure what to do about that; we mean the Renaissance period (music), not the Renaissance period (history). What do you suggest here? Perhaps 'The contrabass trombone first appeared in the music of the late Renaissance period...'? Amitchell125 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Reworded around it. Introduce Gottfried Weber. Done. (Halary) – the reason why this name appears should have a brief explanation. Done. In part because of the infobox, the images in this section are causing sandwiching (see MOS:SANDWICH). To avoid this issue, it looks like some of the illustrations need to be removed. I've moved three images to a multi-image template gallery, further down. I also see what's happening, the default skin now moves the __TOC__ to the left sidebar, which moves all the text up and crams all the images under the infobox (I'm using Timeless by default and keep forgetting to check!) Jon (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

First use in orchestral music

Bizet should be introduced, and his first name given. Ditto Halévy. Done. La Coutes du Roi de Thulé - consider amending to {{lang|fr|La Coutes du Roi de Thulé}}. Done. In the caption, link motif (Motif (music)); Wagner; Das Rheingold. Done. I would introduce Conn (or use the company’s full name). Done. Link opera; range (Range (music)). Linked range; I ended up linking opera in the head; do we treat the head separately? Yes. AM Done.

19th century Italy
Verdi should be introduced, and his first name given. Ditto Puccini. Done. bombardone should be written {{lang|it|bombardone}}; ditto any other foreign language terms in this section. Done. Link Milan. Done. Link Pelitti using {{Ill|Pelitti|it}}; valved (Brass instrument valve). Done.

Later innovations
Link patented; partial (presumably with Harmonic_series_(music)#Partial,_harmonic,_fundamental,_inharmonicity,_and_overtone). Done; there is a #Partial anchor.

Contemporary use
Add links to film and video game soundtracks (as in the lead). Done. late 20th century – sounds too vague imo, at the least an appropriate decade needs to be included. Done, changed to 1990s.

Construction

As the ‘Main article’ hatnote is a general article, and not specific to the contrabass trombone, I would leave it out. The reason that's there is to refer to more general construction of trombones, and is also why this section might seem technical; perhaps a note to this effect could be added? I would suggest using Template:Broader here. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Ok. today is redundant and can be removed. Fixed. The text in this section is very technical for non-specialist readers. Is there an illustration available to help to explain it? Good idea about illustrations; I did some for Axial flow valve. See above regarding hat note? Hatnote looks sorted now. AM I have not had time to come up with a good idea for a diagram, but I have had a go at simplifying/clarifying the text (and removing a trivial point that relied on Kifer's thesis), which I hope is sufficient. In context, I don't think this is any more complicated than comparable sections in bass trombone, soprano trombone, cimbasso or even the main trombone article (which by the way, are all up for GA soon if I have anything to do with it, and it'd be great if you'd be available! I've learned a lot during this process.) Please let me know if you still think this is too technical, and which bits in particular, and I can have another go at copy-editing. — Jon (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Link bell (Wind_instrument#Bell). Done.

Double slide instruments

It’s not normal practice to enlarge and centre images, unless there is a specific need (such as the image being a panoramic view). I centered this image and the Sprinz instrument image (above) because I thought, given their wide aspect ratio, they appeared too small as right-aligned thumbs, so I centered them and added the 'upright' parameter to adjust. I've adjusted this to upright=2 so it matches the Sprinz image. Understood. AM

Range
Wagner is a duplicated link. Fixed. All the text in this section is uncited. I've now trimmed this section and added references.

Repertoire

Strauss should be introduced, and his first name given. Ditto Schoenberg. Done. The first names of D'Indy, Berg, Webern, Varèse, Ligeti, and Boulez are all needed here. Fixed. Ring cycle; Wagner's Ring – consider replacing with 'Der Ring des Nibelungen' (in italics), as this name has already appeared in the text. Done. Edit: actually, I changed it so that on first mention, there's a "commonly known as the Ring cycle" and adjusted throughout. mammoth – is subjective and should be avoided. Removed... although, Gurre-Lieder has indeed one of the largest orchestras ever written for, with the possible exception of Havergal Brian's "Gothic" symphony (which also requires a contrabass!) Link symphonies; jazz. Done. why especially? Removed :) The ridiculous fortissimo sound produced by a studio full of bass and contrabass trombonists in Hans Zimmer's Inception soundtrack has become somewhat of a cliché in later film soundtracks... but I'd need to find a source for that. it can sometimes – ‘the contrabass trombone can sometimes’. Corrected. The last paragraph is uncited. Fixed, to some extent. Flynn regularly switches bass to contrabass, and isn't always credited correctly on sites like Discogs and Allmusic. Is it okay to cite the CD booklets themselves in this case? I have always found such booklets really useful! Amitchell125 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Performance
Link opera house. Done. produce good sound - ‘produce a good sound’? Fixed! What is a technical passage? Reworded around it.

References

Ref 2 (Kifer 2020, p. 33-5) should read ‘Kifer 2020, pp. 33-35'. Similar issues in this section also need to be corrected. Fixed this for all refs (so, we don't use the 145-6 page shorthand? I've been using it everywhere...) I've always been picked on this issue, but WP:CITEPAGE isn't clear on the point, so please don't amend your other articles on my account. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Ref 11 (Crewe) – YouTube clips are almost always not permitted in Wikipedia (see WP:ELNEVER). That content guideline only prohibits material that infringes copyright and/or matches a URL pattern in one of the block lists, stating "when linking to sites such as Scribd, WikiLeaks, or YouTube [...] due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright". This reference uses a YouTube clip uploaded by its author and generally meets WP:YT which states explicitly that there is no blanket ban, notwithstanding WP:RSPYT. I understand the concern though; I'll try and see if I can find something else. Understood. The information you cite would indeed be better coming from another source—the interview is a questionable source (WP:QS), as the person being interviewed does not say where his information comes from. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I've added two references, without removing the YouTube clip, because in context I think it adds valuable context. The August Helleburg entry in Douglas Yeo's dictionary supports that Conn built a few of them (for John Philip Sousa) and only around 1900; Yeo's website photo gallery contains a photograph of his own Conn with an explanatory note that only very few were made; but neither explicitly explain that "only three survive" (one in the Conn museum, one owned by Yeo, and one owned by Murray Crewe in Pittsburg that he bought from Roger Bobo. Crewe died in 2017, so who knows where that instrument is now.) There's an additional source from Roger Bobo's site, which I'm not sure whether to use; although these extra references aren't tertiary, Yeo and Bobo are/were authorities in the field of low brass: Bobo, Roger (2006). "Conn Contrabass Trombone in BBb". rogerbobo.com. Retrieved 1 April 2023. I'd be interested what you think (I can always remove the "only three survive" if it all gets too complicated) — Jon (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC) The Roger Bobo source appears to be self-published, what makes you think it is reliable? I wouldn't use it. The YouTube clip could be placed in an External links section, as it is a questionable source, but is worth keeping for the sake of context. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not using it; I know there's the same thing in the ITEA journal somewhere, but I don't have access. I've changed the wording anyhow and moved the YouTube clip to external links.—Jon (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

The links to Herbert (2019) and Yeo (2021) only go to commercial websites, and so are of little use. I would remove these links. Done. Consider adding ‘state=collapsed’ to the Brass Instruments template (not GA). Done anyway. Kifer is a teacher by profession, so what makes you think his thesis is a reliable source? (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for more information about being cautious with theses). I'm not sure how his current profession has anything to do with his completion of his doctorate thesis, and it is one of the only (publicly available) theses I can find that specifically deals with the contrabass trombone, which as you can imagine is a very small field. It is also probably too recent to be cited anywhere much (although fwiw I'm pretty sure it is listed in the Historic Brass Society Journal's 2020-2021 "Bibliography of writings about brass instruments"). Apologies for not being clearer, it's that Kifer has not published anything else. As far as I am aware, he is not quoted elsewhere in the literature. Where he is cited in this article, he cites personal correspondence or blogs (pp.30 33, 34), or doesn't cite at all (pp. 35, 66, 81). Amitchell125 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I've changed the Kifer thesis citations to only rely on his synthesis of the inteviews regarding film music on p.48, and the list of orchestral works in the appendix.—Jon (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

External links

Consider including a link such as this one in a new External links section (it includes an audio file of a solo piece for the instrument). VSL is the Vienna Symphonic Library, a synthesiser sample bank, and the audio clips are not from a real instrument or player. I get the idea though; what I would really like to do (with all my infinite spare time) is upload a sound sample to Commons and use that, but I haven't had time to record one yet.— Jon (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Understood, but the information seems useful, and you could always provide a warning that the sound is synthesised. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 4 April to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll be crossing out any issues that are addressed, and adding a small red cross (N) where they are yet to be sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Passing

Passing the article now, many thanks for your efforts on producing an informative and interesting read. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Amitchell125 thanks so much! This is my first article to be reviewed, and I've learned a lot in the process. — Jon (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)