Talk:Pipe organ/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Organ crawl for Christmas

My wife just set up an organ crawl for me for Christmas [1]. (How creative and thoughtful!) Are there any photos I should get while I'm there? Inner workings, facade, windchest, etc.? Would anything like that be useful for the article? If not for this article, what about for the others in the overall pipe organ project? --W0lfie (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool! If you have a digital camera (and therefore have virtually unlimited "film"), go nuts! I'd certainly appreciate a better picture of a wind system... maybe swell shutters too? A reservoir? Single- or multiple-fold wedge bellows? Action parts? Maybe if you could get the cover of the windchest off and see the action under the pipes? I'm just brainstorming... I love this sort of thing :-) At any rate, anything you could think of I'm sure would be helpful. —Cor anglais 16 05:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I do have a digital camera, and I put pictures up on the Commons whenever I think of it. It's not a mechanical action instrument, but it does have a swell division. I'm sure I'll be able to get pictures of the wind system, too. I wish I had had a camera on my trip to Hamburg back in college. I got to go inside of the organ at St. Michaeliskirche. It was breathtaking. [2] --W0lfie (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw some interesting things. The swell shades were horizontal, which I'm not used to. They were controlled pneumatically, which I hadn't seen before either. I got some pictures of bellows and wind piping. The unenclosed divisions were a little hard to get to, so I only got the Swell and Choir which meant the action was not visible from where I was. There were a couple of offset chests for borrowed stops, so I could see them a little more clearly. I'll see if any of the shots of the E-P action came out. The organist invited me back just about any time. Very nice guy. Anyway, I'll try to get this stuff uploaded soon. --W0lfie (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image layout

I have just spent about seventeen edits messing with the image layout in the article: replacing less helpful images with clearer ones, enlarging some, moving them from side to side and from paragraph to paragraph. How does it look? Are there any ideas to make the layout better? (I didn't touch any images below "Renaissance and Baroque periods.") —Cor anglais 16 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the organ

I was trying to copyedit the history section, and it occurred to me that maybe a lot of this information could be summarized here and expanded further in another article, perhaps History of the pipe organ? Does this make sense? —Cor anglais 16 03:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea leaving just a summary here... Sorry I haven't been around much lately, things have been getting a bit much! Let me know when you've finished your excellent copy edit, then I'll take a look.

Btw, the Britannica article got moved here. –MDCollins (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the Britannica article; I've just put it in! —Cor anglais 16 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For your information, MDCollins (and everyone else!), I have finished my copyedit, and this is notification as you requested. I am still stumped with the organ literature section; I don't even know where to start! —Cor anglais 16 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Organ repertoire section

The Organ repertoire section has not been copyedited at all in a long time, and it is definitely overdue. I just tried and basically blinked at it for several minutes. Where do we start? —Cor anglais 16 03:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have since significantly revamped this section, but I think it still needs some work. Especially needs citations. —Cor anglais 16 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have finished citing the section, mostly using Grove and the Cambridge Companion. —Cor anglais 16 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I have just finished undertaking a complete copyedit of the article, and I think it's about time for another peer review. Would anyone else like to take a stab at a copyedit before we proceed with a peer review? Ideally, we can move pretty quickly to another FAC review. It would be great to get this all done in time to get the article to featured status in time to feature it on the front page on the International Day of the Organ on October 19!—Cor anglais 16 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Everyone! I'll give it a copy edit tomorrow. Haven't really looked at it for ages, so will be looking afresh. If I haven't done it, give me a nudge!! –MDCollins (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got as far as Console/Keyboards. Will carry on in the morning. It would be useful to find a non-organ loving person to give it a copyedit from a novice/pedantry perspective. –MDCollins (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a request at LoCE for a copyedit. We'll see how quickly they get to it; hopefully it's not too long of a wait! —Cor anglais 16 05:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I just checked the backlog of LoCE requests, and they're almost a year behind. I'm nominating for a peer review now; that process is more on track. —Cor anglais 16 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the peer review. —Cor anglais 16

Footnotes and references

I just noticed that the Riaño reference in the References section is only footnoted once. Should we include in the References section only those references that are footnoted multiple times? Is there a convention for this? —Cor anglais 16 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation, etc.

I changed a couple appearances of "double quotes" to 'single quotes', thinking it has been sort of the convention of WikiProject Pipe Organ to use British punctuation. But now I keep going through the article and seeing examples of double quotes. We may not need to address this quite yet, but just so we don't forget and get embarrassed, are we using British English or American English? I don't much care either way as long as we're consistent. Does this also bleed into the citation formatting? —Cor anglais 16 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have gone through the article and changed examples of British English to American English, primarily because I figure the double quotes in the reference formatting are American, and I don't know of a British English convention on reference formatting in Wikipedia. If this is an issue, please by all means change it back! I'm happy to go with British English article- or project-wide, I'm just not as well-versed in it. —Cor anglais 16 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub-article

Re. the comment at the recent peer review on the organ in society and culture: the author of the comment recommends that the Construction section of this article be summarized here and moved to something like Pipe organ construction (which he feels would be FAC-worthy), thereby freeing up space in this article for information on the organ's role in society and culture. How do people feel about this? I for one simply do not know enough about the organ's role in society and culture throughout history to write a decent article on it, but I feel like that is a really great idea. Thoughts? —Cor anglais 16 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On balance I think it's a good idea - the current article is perhaps too focused on how the organ works rather than how it is/has been used. Having said that, finding good citeable sources on the latter is likely to be a lot harder, and I can see there is a danger of ending up with a full Pipe organ construction article while leaving Pipe organ itself as little more than a stub. So maybe we should now work on assembling the new material BEFORE making the split. Barnabypage (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Windchest schematic

I translated and slightly altered the two windchest schematics from the French Wikipedia article on the organ for inclusion here per the peer review, but I can't seem to make them fit in the layout. It would be best if these two images were combined into an animated image, but there was severe dithering when I tried it as an animated GIF. What can we do with these? —Cor anglais 16 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

I have gone through all the concerns (well, a great deal of them, anyway) of the most recent peer review, including verifying all the references and standardizing their format. I think we're about ready for another FA nomination. Are there any outstanding concerns on anything? My only outstanding concern is the References section: it is clogged with a lot of the Cambridge Companion. However, I can't find a Wikipedia convention (or another featured article) that has an example like this: an article in which multiple essays are repeatedly cited from an edited collection of essays by separate authors. It would de-complexify (if that's a word) the References section's appearance if we could compress all those references down to one. What, then, would we do with the shortened footnotes citing the separate essays? That's my only concern… I am very excited about our FA prospects this time around! —Cor anglais 16 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The console subsection mentions registration aids before we are told what registration is. Does that matter? It is defined in the combination action subsection, so it's probably OK. I gotta get back to work, but I'll have more feedback soon. :-) -W0lfie (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is ready for a second FA nomination. Does anyone have any final concerns? If not, I will plan to nominate for FA status in early August. —Cor anglais 16 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Replies to the above (after FA nomination)...I don't think a lot of references to the CC is a bad thing - it is probably the most complete reference (and reliable source) we have, and trying to condense the specific links won't work. Neither will replacing them with one of a poorer quality. In fact, as has been mentioned at the FAC, a handful of the sources aren't particularly reliable. In general printed sources are better, as they will have checked to a higher degree of accuracy/competancy. A RS that sprung to mind, which I haven't got a copy of to hand is John Stainer's "Complete Organ Method" which has a complicated description of the insides. It might be an alternative to the CC if anyone has one handy. Parts of it are available as a google ebook, but not enough.

The console section now links to the relavent articles/sections in the introduction.

Don't get disheartened by the comments about lack of references - I know there seems like thousands already. It's really hard to be picky, and it comes across as obsessive but it has to be done, and it will end up being a very secure article I'm sure. I'm placing citation tags where I think somebody will request one (!), all we need to do is hunt some references down (they may be in the CC)... Keep up the work guys, I'll try and help at the FAC as often as I can.–MDCollins (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello editor(s)! I've been watching the FAC for this article. Let me have a rant and then I'll make an offer.

As is often the case, I find a good part of the FAC commentary absurd. Can someone tell me how citing "long pipes make lower pitches" is not an embarrassment to Wikipedia? This isn't how citation works, anywhere, and citation of such basic elements of a topic serves no benefit to the reader. Citation of everything obscures the important citations, and suggests that wikipedia is a sentence-paraphrasing service. If the reader doesn't trust an article's fundamental premises about its topic, he doesn't look up "Jones 1983, p. 45", he just reads other material on the subject. On wikipedia, we've said that one should cite figures and items likely to be challenged. But arbitrary citation demands are getting worse, and people keep giving in. I say fight back: you don't have to do everything asked of your article in a FAC simply because it could be done—the citation requests in most cases are not supported by the verification policy. You can say that...
Anyway, I do like to copyedit occasionally; if you're looking for any help in this capacity, please let me know and I'll see what I can contribute. This article ought to be promoted and I'd like to help, if possible, get it through the FAC silliness. Whiskeydog (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you fully: citations should be reserved for challengable facts. Checking out WP:VERIFY and Wikipedia:When to cite makes this clear. I'm willing to compromise on this sometimes and cite things that may not need it if a decent reference can be found (this is virtually impossible for a rocker tab, to take our case for example). I've tried to point this out at the review. At any rate, thank you very much for your support, and any help you could provide in copyediting would be much appreciated! —Cor anglais 16 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your reply. I'm sad to see that the FAC has closed, so why don't I leave my offer open on the premise that since more writing and rearranging are likely to be done, there's no use calling out copy-editors yet. Feel free to contact me later if you like. (Rhetorically now, one of my points of contention with the workings of WP is the "super-specific FAC phenomenon": the more general an article topic, the less likely it will ever be called a Featured Article. And I'm not talking straight-line curves here, more like exponential ones. Apparently even pipe organ is now a general enough topic—compared to, say, Hamlet chicken processing plant fire or Super Smash Bros. Melee—to find itself a noteworthy application under this law. At this level of the curve, you attract more FAC reviewers, some helpful, some foolish, and the burden of the nominator, should she want to see it through, goes way up! The dialogs go like this, as you've no doubt seen: "Source this obvious point." / "The most scholarly works don't write the obvious, but here you go." / "Your source is 'joesorgans.com', which isn't WP:RELIABLE--I oppose! You still haven't proven that pipe organs emit sound using keys, pipes, and stops! The wikipedia policies tattooed into my brain preclude any normal critique of this article, by which standard it seems pretty good, but until you feed my demons, I must snivel, 'This is a sub-standard article.' "

Now, I'll admit to exaggerating a little... :) Whiskeydog (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I totally missed the second round. Sorry. I have been so busy at work, I haven't seen the pipe organ page in over a month. Sorry I wasn't more help. Are the comments from the FAC still available to review? Is it worth taking another crack at it? Should we follow Whikeydog's advice and try to get a more ~~obscure~~ specific page nominated instead? We could always make an article about Subgrossuntersatzregalbass or Fuchsschwanz. ;-) -W0lfie (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The FAC comments are available here or above in the article history box at the top of the talk page. Lots of good suggestions in there, but I agree with Whiskeydog that we need to think about the sourcing of obvious points and how to handle that—there are some suggestions regarding that in the second FA review, too. And why doesn't my computer render italics on Wikipedia????? (That last question is rhetorical and unrelated to the topic at hand, yet still obnoxious to me.) —Cor anglais 16 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Expression Pedal

I noticed that in the expression subsection there is a photo of a console that has a Rollschweller, but it doesn't mention that in the caption or in the main text. Perhaps we should use a different photo to reduce confusion. The same could be said about the main expression pedal article. Also, should the mention of a crescendo pedal be located in the expression subsection or the combination action subsection. I can see arguments either way. -W0lfie (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sentences

I removed the following sentences because I found them problematic:

From the introduction: "In the twentieth century, the pipe organ, or electronic equivalent, became an instrument used in non-classical music.^{[citation needed]}"

This refers mainly to the electric organ and seems out of place in the introduction to the article about the pipe organ.

From Stops: "Rather than creating the impression of parallel octaves, the higher-pitched stops reinforce the partials of the unison- and lower-pitched stops, adding clarity and brillance to the timbre.^{[citation needed]}"

This is not true in the lower parts of the keyboard or when using gap registrations.

Also from Stops: An organ that includes extended ranks may be called an extension organ.^{[citation needed]}

I must confess that I am not a native English speaker, but isn't an extension organ an instrument where extensions are not only present but form the basis of the entire instrument (=unit organ)? The sentence needs clarification anyhow.

From Casing: "It [the case] may be either freestanding or integrated with the building that houses the organ.^{[citation needed]}"

This sentence doesn't really contain any useful information even if the statement is true.

Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Blockwerk, and differences between medieval and Renaissance organs

I am finding the current page (as well as the commonly available organ history literature) lacking in describing what I think are big differences between medieval and Renaissance organs. It would be good to discuss this with people who know more than I do about the subject matter, but I'll start out and hopefully someone else will join in.

In the medieval period, people loved the open fifth. In the Renaissance period, people loved the third. Most of the literature fails to recognize what a great difference this was. With the medieval blockwerk you could not avoid the strong emphasis on fifths.

Medieval blockwerks, and even many small portative organs, emphasized the open fifth. They played a chord actually. You played one note, but what you heard was the fifth above it being louder than the fundamental pitch. Winold van der Putten's speculative reconstruction of the "Theophilus organ" demonstrates this. That particular instrument is not a full organ sound, it's more like the tone that probably inspired Cavaille-Coll to build a harmonic flute hundreds of years later. But I can imagine a full organ sound played in open fifths, having heard Jankees Braaksma's recording on this organ. People emphasize that blockwerks didn't have individual ranks, and that stops were essentially a technological improvement on its own. By extension most writings I've come across imply that a Renaissance blockwerk is the same as a medieval blockwerk.

After centuries of hearing the open fifth, it took a major upheaval for people to feel it was morally OK to play thirds. I think you probably couldn't even play thirds on an old blockwerk -- you'd get the fifth above the third, in which case you'd get an interval of a seventh or a flatted seventh sounding in there which would sound weird. And, it's no wonder you'd play in one voice with one hand and another in the left, or maybe just a drone. In this way, the physical arrangement of keyboards on a large medieval organ makes a lot of sense.

In the Renaissance period, people loved thirds. In 1/4 comma meantone, the third would weave its way in and out of mathematical purity. A Renaissance blockwerk was now the modern plenum not based on an open fifth -- but based on the fundamental, using upperwork to create timbre rather than to create a chord. To hear thirds must have tickled the ears, but in a different way than it tickles the ears to listen to 1/4 comma meantone now going backward in time. Our ears are conditioned to hearing all kinds of intervals. It must have been bold to hear thirds at all. The third (the tierce rank) found its way into upperwork in French organs, providing a new timbre. All of this was a big change.

It is probably worth noting some of this on the main page, and that there aren't any medieval blockwerks in existence. One cannot just draw the plenum stops of a Renaissance organ and say that was it minus the stopknobs.

Unfortunately I think it might be hard to find references to support this kind of argument. Maybe someone familiar enough with the organ history literature can find some references?

Disagreements, agreements and comments welcome.

Pedalclav01 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Pedalclav01

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no merge. Other issues not related to merging, which were brought up during the discussion, have either been fixed already or are ongoing. There was clear consensus, however, that the two articles should not be merged into one. – jaksmata 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a little startling that there is no linking to the parallel article organ (music) and that it and its redirects never came up during the FA review! Sparafucil (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But not so startling when you read that all the useful information on an organ is contained at pipe organ and not organ (music) anyway. Organ (music) to Pipe organ, yes, but what benefit is a link in the reverse?

I agree that something needs to be done, I'm not sure a complete merge to pipe organ is the way forward, probably the non-classical stuff can find a home elsewhere. Although I see it has an infobox now. Whether that is something that needs discussing again for this page, I don't know - I was against it before, because it was too hard to put any useful information in it, even if it goes against the other instruments and consensus. There is a draft floating around somewhere too.

Anyway, I would support a merge/clean-up operation.oppose a merge, but support a clean-up. (see also WT:PO#Organist)–MDCollins (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,
I'm beginning to see the logic of the title pipe organ; what's confusing is that this is also used by the piporg-l mailing list to include non-pipe substitutes while cluing in people looking for kidneys. Organ (music) discusses the nonpipe reed organ and theharmonium which has lent an important repertoire to 'the real thing', nor does it make sense to completely ignore electronic practice machines either as Pipe organ now does. At least now the merge banner is up people can be aware that there are more than the one article... Sparafucil (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Merging all of Organ (music) into this article would not be a good idea, because not all of the other article is talking about pipe organs. In fact, less than 5% of that article talks about pipe organs (by my rough guesstimate). If you want to clean up both articles, maybe consolidating the music sections into Organ repertoire, that would be fine, but this article's title is "Pipe organ" - that title excludes reed organs, modern electronic organs, hydraulophones, etc. Information on those other instruments does not belong here. I have added a {{otheruses4}} to this article so that there is a link to the other one. Merge banners are not meant to increase awareness of other articles. – jaksmata 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. While there is valuable information in Organ (music), such as the discussions on the harmonium and the theater organ and the beginnings of a discussion on the organ's cultural significance (both of which need to be in Pipe organ to one extent or another), to merge the entire contents of the former into the latter would bloat the latter enormously. That which is valuable information (such as what I cited above, as well as some other things as identified in the recent FAC) should be put into Pipe organ, and the rest isn't necessary. In my ideal world, Pipe organ would be redirected to Organ (music), and much of what is in that article would be moved to Jazz organ or something else, but this simply isn't practical from a consensus standpoint. —Cor anglais 16 11:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified my position above. I do not think a merge of organ (music) to pipe organ is correct or necessary. I do think that organ (music) should employ WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and that a lot of the specific information can be removed. For example all of the 64 foot (sonic foot) 8Hz fundamental frequency stuff, which is highly unnecessary for a summary article such as this. I don't like the playing range in the infobox either, which only has the notes sounded by 3 pedal notes at 64'. Perhaps the opening sentence of pipe organ can read: "The pipe organ is a [[organ (music)|musical instrument]]...

Do any of you have any input into which article organist biographies link too? Some link to organist others to pipe organ and others to organ (music). It is my view that they should like to the specific instrument (pipe organ/jazz organ/Hammond organ etc). I don't think any (such as JS Bach) should link to organ (music). I can see why we link to organist (it contains other information about Master of Music etc)- some topics do this, others use the form [[pipe organ|organist]], for example [[cricket]]er. Pianist is a valid article, and a good example, Violinist is a disambig page, Trumpeter redirects to Trumpet (so [[Trumpet]]er is the preferred usage there. Cellist works the same. Perhaps this is a topic for a higher-level of WikiProject, but do you have any views?

I believe that consistency should be applied, which ever route is taken. (I have also mentioned this at WT:PO#Organist).–MDCollins (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent. My initial leaning is towards pointing these articles to pipe organ (or Hammond organ or theatre organ or whatever), but organist may eventually be worth pointing to, with some work (I've already improved the lead and removed the {{intro-tooshort}}) tag). As you mention, pianist is quite good and isn't long or involved at all. I'm not so certain about linking pipe organ to organ (music) so prominently… it just doesn't feel right to me, at least not as the definition of the term. —Cor anglais 16 02:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy for them to use [[organist]] if we can improve it a bit, providing that is used for all biogs - I might run an AWB to try and sort it the links. Which type of organist should be evident from the rest of the article. Although, unlike the piano, there are several types of organ so we would need to be careful.–MDCollins (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose There are section hatnotes in the Organ (music) article, which serves well as an overview of the entire organ genre. Not all organs are pipe organs, after all, and Pipe organ is already quite long as it is. JGHowes ^talk - 01:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've tryed to make the Organ (music) lead more of a summary, and stuck a line in the Pipe organ lead to make it apparent that it is a subarticle: organ (music) is not really an other use, but I suppose a see main article might raise hackles. Keeping in mind that we're trying to skirt any appearance of POV, how should hybrids be dealt with? I would guess harps and 19c free reed stops dont get much of a second thought in classical organs, but should electronic augmentions be part of pipe organ? Sparafucil (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

pipe organ is the main article. We can incorporate a link to organ (music) in the lead, and it can also be a see also. I don't think we need to mention bodily parts here, I think it is fairly obvious. No-one will find this looking for kidneys or the like. If it was organ maybe. I'll remove the merge proposals - as it is clear a merge is the wrong way forward. Some clean-up of organ (music) to use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in the pipe organ section, yes. I'm not convinced by the changes to the lead (which was pretty tight) so I'm going to revert them for now. It needs to be clear what the article is, and not what it is not. Also, be careful about specifying things in too much detail. At the first FAC, we had things like 'up to six or seven manuals' and other things that we couldn't reference satisfactorily. By saying 'up to 5', someone will come along and say what about Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ with 7. The extremely large manual organs are very rare. We need to make sure this article mainly applies to the most commonly found instruments, (although we can make it clear that larger organs exists).–MDCollins (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hybrid organs are mentioned briefly in the "modern development" section. Percussive stops are included at the end of the "stop" section. It is important that these are mentioned, but the balance of the article needs to be on the pipes - it's long enough. Links to reed instruments and harmoniums, as well as wurlitzers etc may find a home somewhere, although should be linked from organ (music) in any case.–MDCollins (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A lead that dosnt mention organ (music) invites contributions that belong there and not in a more narrowly defined sub-article, which is what pipe organ is, isnt it? I'm replacing the merge tag for now, as the discussion doent seem closed yet. Is there anyway to include Organ (music) in the lead that is acceptable to you?Sparafucil (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, yes. I'm trying to think - my best idea so far is inside the musical instrument link ([[organ (music)|musical instrument]]. What about A pipe organ is a [[musical instrument|musical]] [[organ (music)|organ]]... It would be nice to do away the repetition of the word 'organ', but without hiding it, as in my first proposal, it is a tricky one.

I'm starting to understand your points (esp. re brevity) too as I dip into the articles' history. The above would be a improvement over an Easter egg (media) approach (I thought there was a WP:Easter Eggs page somewhere) , but I would prefer something even more prominent. Maybe other uses is the way to go- as it now stands? I wouldnt mind seeing Pipe organ become the main article, but that gets us back to where this merge proposal started out... Sparafucil (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean pipe organ is the main article about pipe organs. Organ (music) is the main article for the various types of organ. So the (short, summary) pipe organ section in organ (music) has the main article template link, and a very brief paragraph or two, similar to the "pipe organ" article lead. In that way, the articles don't need merging, as organ (music) becomes a glorified form of disambig page.–MDCollins (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per jaksmata. Pipe organ is a different instrument worthy of having its own page in an encyclopedia. Caglarkoca (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

#Renaissance and Baroque periods

Hi Mdcollins1984,
I appreciate your detailed edit sumaries, but wish that, rather than reverting wholesale, you might consider whether a wikilink to French organ mass might be useful to some of our readers. My point in adding catholic was that, in France as in Italy and Spain, organs were geared to playing of alternatim verses while protestant organs took up accompaniment of congregational singing as their primary role. You'rw quite right that the reference dosnt make sense yet. It was not I who added Thistlethwaite and the full reference for the Parisian usage awaits a trip to the library; but the paragraph as it now stands is incorrect: only some movements of the mass were perscribed, and only the parish churches of the archdiocese of Paris were affected (hence the separate Couperin masses). Cheers, Sparafucil (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay, I've only now spotted the thread. Maybe I was being a bit hasty with the revert (I'm can't remember the edit in question but will check up on it). I'll have a look at it again and try to sort something out. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I think my rationale was probably in 'FAC' mode, meaning that I was hoping that every addition/edit would bring us closer to the desired FAC, rather than needing copyediting, or better referencing. N.B. I'm not saying that your edit hasn't done that, I haven't looked it up again yet. I agree the link to French organ mass will be useful - just beware of going into too much detail in what is a rather short summary of 400 years of music. If you wish to, feel free to add things back in or tidy what is there, and as I said, I will look into my edit as well.

All the best,

–MDCollins (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

sample video libre

There needs to be some sample videos libre showing an organist playing at the console. – Kaihsu (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

yes i aslo think that that.----—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.126.116 (talk • contribs)

celestes and ranks

The lead of a Wikipedia article is, I understand, supposed to give a general introduction to a subject. The emphasis in the lead should be on simplicity; the lead's audience is the beginner. Particular complexities of particular cases for the non-beginner should be later in the article.

In the lead, with a view towards providing a simple illustration, I recently adjusted the following statement:

a single stop may control more than one rank of pipes (as in "celeste" and "mixture" stops)

to:

a single stop may control more than one rank of pipes (as in "mixture" stops)

But another editor wishes to retain the 'celeste' example. And actually, I agree that the celeste example should probably be retained, but not here in the lead.

We would all agree that a 'mixture', by definition, concerns two or more ranks, and is thus a good, clear, simple and unambiguous illustration of the point being made, for its simple context in the lead. By contrast, a 'celeste' is very often a single rank (agreed, it may sometimes be more than one rank). It would seem to me, then, to be a less good illustration, in this context of the lead. It would be fine, I think, to make it a case study later on, but seems to me to be an unnecessary ambiguity for a beginner-oriented lead.

So in this context of the lead, I suggest that we concentrate on clarity and simplicity, and have that sentence use the clear, unambiguous example of mixtures, and not (at this point) the celeste.

My vote: lead: mixtures (only); celeste discussion deferred until later in the article.

Thoughts?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree - the subject is quite complex to the novice as it is. In fact, I've been bold and removed this entire passage from the lead para: A single rank of pipes may have several stops controlling it, allowing the rank to be played at multiple pitches or on multiple manuals. Conversely, a single stop may control more than one rank of pipes (as in "celeste" and "mixture" stops).

My reasoning: these are comparatively unusual examples, covered adequately in the Stops section anyway, and it is much easier for a newcomer to the subject to first grasp the fundamental concept of "one stop=one rank" before getting into the arcana. Barnabypage (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Feline, perhaps I shouldn't have reinstated it. [I think I mis-interpreted your edit summary, and thought you were trying to imply that celestes are always one-rank.] You're right, it is too complex and ambiguous for the lead, and perhaps "a single stop may control more than one rank of pipes (for example, Mixtures)" would do. That said, Barnaby has removed it, and the lead doesn't look like it loses anything, so perhaps it can all be left to the stop section.—MDCollins (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Acknowledgement appreciated, and no apology necessary. Best wishes. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cutting down the introduction

The article gets better and better, but still I feel that the introductory section leaps into complexity too quickly. I'd suggest re-ordering it thus:

Paragraph 1: The pipe organ is a keyboard musical instrument... (i.e., as it stands)

Paragraph 2: Pipe organs are used for the performance of...

Paragraph 3: The origins of the pipe organ can be traced back to...

And then move the valuable information on small organs, wind supply, and combinations to appropriate places further down in the article. They are essentially technical points and we must remember not to put off the reader who knows nothing at all about the subject and simply wants a quick overview - in particular, combinations are given far too much emphasis in the intro at the moment.

All thoughts welcome! Barnabypage (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, shorten it. Further, even your proposed third paragraph ("The origins...") is probably unnecessary; there is already a section about history. The article is about a present-day item, so its history doesn't need to be in the lead. Sound OK? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also in favor of shortening it. Some things to think about:

Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" … "short, independent summary" … "the lead should tease the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear in the article" "invite a reading of the full article" (emphasis added). This would seem to support shortening the lead.
WP:LEAD also recommends that the length of the lead for an article of 30,000 characters or more (larger than 32k) be "three or four paragraphs." So we're about there.
Somewhere, though I can't find it, I remember reading that the lead should function as a summary of the article's structure (hence, the reason the origins are mentioned in the lead; it's part of the History section). This would seem to support not shortening the lead, but I think we can fulfill this recommendation in a decent, short lead. —Cor anglais 16 11:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it either - the closest I have got to is:

"If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable".

—MDCollins (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So, with our three paragraphs, we can summarise three major points:

What a pipe organ is - including a, necessarily very sketchy, outline of how it works.
What a pipe organ is used for.
Its history.

Sound about right? Barnabypage (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not recommend cutting the Lead too much. To be promoted to FA, probably a mild copyedit is all that is needed. A one-sentence paragraph is a no-no for a FA, for example. As MDcollins notes, the Lead should give the reader a fairly comprehensive overview of the subject. In looking over this article's failed FAC, the only real issue keeping it from getting the star was citing sources, not the Lead. Too much shortening of the Lead may be counter-productive at FAC. JGHowes ^talk 17:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point - though the detailed stuff about combinations has all been added to the lead since the FAC, as far as I can see... Barnabypage (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest modeling the first paragraphs on Organ (music) and then including at least a passing reference to Bach and Messiaen. Sparafucil (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pipe organ/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

~~I see there was a discussion on the talk page about adjusting the lead a few months ago, but it is still sitting at six paragraphs. For an article of this length it should be three to four.~~
~~Address all of the citation needed tags found throughout the article.~~
For the external links, the online radio stations and databases don't need their own full headings. The external links should be trimmed to include only the most notable links that readers can go to after visiting this article. Consider using some for sourcing the article's content if they are reliable.

This article covers the topic well and has an excellent source of free images. I will review the article's prose once the above issues are addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the lead now. Specifically, I'm comparing it with the lead as it was at the last FAC review, attempting to merge the best of both. We'll see how it turns out. —Cor anglais 16 21:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The first issue was addressed. I am leaving the article on hold for another week for the citation and the external link issues to be dealt with. Please address these points so that the article is not delisted. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at the external links... I'll try to work on the {{cn}} tags this week. —Cor anglais 16 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finished working on the {{cn}} tags and other assorted random minor improvements. Hope the result is acceptable for the GA sweeps. —Cor anglais 16 21:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. Altogether the article is well-written and has a great source of free images. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Tenuous facts

With the notable exception of Johann Sebastian Bach, few composers who have contributed extensively to the organ repertoire are well-known except for their organ music. Similarly, few composers well-known in other genres have written much music for the organ.

This passage was flagged for citation; it's something that really can't be cited and it's not exactly true anyway. Thoughts?—Cor anglais 16 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really understand it anyway - ditch it.—MDCollins (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that there are lots of composers who are highly prominent in the organ repertoire but little-known outside it - for example Louis Vierne, Cesar Franck, Herbert Howells, maybe even Dietrich Buxtehude. But having said that: (a) I can't quickly find a cite either, and (b) I'm not sure whether or not this is exceptional; it may, for all I know, be equally true of the violin or the bassoon. Barnabypage (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surely every instrument will have so called 'specialist' composers, and then there will be other composers who write for everything.—MDCollins (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have noted this above, but I deleted it already. Appreciate the consensus. —Cor anglais 16 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Use in Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine_music article says "A characteristic example are the accounts of pneumatic organs, whose construction was most advanced in the eastern empire prior to their development in the west after the Renaissance." - this suggests a link that would be nice to mention in this article. Esn (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Zimbelstern?

In the Stops subsection, the article mentions a warbling effect reminiscent of birdsong called Zimbelstern or Nightingale, with Zimbelstern being Wikilinked to the Zimbelstern article, which describes a star or wheel to which bells are attached. I don't see what tinkling bells have to do with birdsong. Wouldn't Nachtigall or Vogelgesang be more appropriate stop descriptions? MegaPedant (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact they have nothing to do with each other. The sentence was written unclearly; but I have addressed it. —Cor anglais 16 10:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)