Musical Instruments Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Fixed it. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added it. You can use it with the field image_capt. --Pipian (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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