Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pipe organ

Archives

Windchests and key actions

As I've been studying over the last several months, I found it very difficult to locate information on two specific areas: windchest design and key action design. Windchest design information is particularly elusive; my search for a schematic of the cone-valve chest and an understandable explanation of how it works took me deep into the bowels of the foreign-language Internet. I think Wikipedia could be a great place to put this information in a standardized form (i.e., the cone-valve chest, the slider chest, and the pitman chest all explained in the same place, using the same terminology, with the same sort of diagrams). This would allow for easy comparison of designs and would make it easy for organ instructors to educate their students (my own professors asked me to forward them a link to the information on the cone-valve chest!).

So, with all this in mind, I have written up two draft articles that I have placed in the project sandbox: /Organ key actions and /Windchest designs. Please provide feedback! They're still missing some types of windchests and key actions with which I'm not familiar enough to describe. I think one necessary addition would be schematics, preferably drawn on a bias so you can see how all the parts interconnect in three dimensions. I myself couldn't do that, though I could probably throw together a head-on schematic of a windchest.

Anyway, please leave any and all thoughts below! —Cor anglais 16 18:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this become a taskforce of Musical Instruments?

This project sees relatively little activity. Should it become a taskforce of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments? Regards. --Klein zach 01:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this project can be brought back to life, but if it hasn't within a couple of months then I would support making a taskforce under WP Musical Instruments. Danmuz (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving

I will try to revive this project, but of course I can't do it alone. Please join me in the effort to bring WikiProject PipeOrgan back to life! Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created the assessment-system (setting up categories, templates, etc.). I haven't tried that before, but it seems to work - though there may be something missing still. Please help assessing Pipe organ related articles, thanks. Danmuz (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend (1) advertising (on the Music project etc.) and (2) working on articles instead of the bureaucratic stuff (assessments, talk page marking etc.) until you have at least half a dozen collaborators. Hope this helps. --Klein zach 00:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have already advertised the revival-attempt on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk and will, per your advice, advertise on the Music project as well. Regarding the tagging of articles, I find it helps getting an overview of the project as well as discovering new articles to include and improve, but of course you are right that improving articles themselves is what really matters. Danmuz (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do

User:W0lfie asked me what I had in mind with this "revival" attempt, so I'm going to post my ideas here. Feel free to add your own input and ideas.

The Pipe organ article itself is in pretty good condition thanks in large part to the work by members of this project. It's still not a FA, but it's a GA which is fine. However, there are still many other pipe organ related articles that could be significantly improved, and articles to be created. Just on top of my head:
I have started a mini-project to add and/or improve specifications to articles about specific pipe organs or articles about a venue containing a notable organ. See for example Category:Pipe_organs. Many articles are missing specifications, or they are not properly formatted.
Speaking of pipe organ articles, the category only lists 59. Certainly there are many more notable pipe organs that could have an article for themselves, or a larger mention on the church/venue-article.
Category:Organ stops is very small, not to speak of the List of pipe organ stops. The list needs to be significantly extended.
Articles such as Symphonic organ are nothing more than a stub, and there are many others like that.
Category:Compositions for organ - A lot of important organ works are missing. There are for example no articles about any of César Franck's organ works!
Finally, in order to get an overview of the project I have set up the assessment-system, which provides a nice overview of all pipe organ related articles. Since the template was deactivated it still doesn't list all articles that has been tagged.

Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that WikiProjects are collaborations — you need to work with other people. I'd advise you not to start any categorization that you can't finish — or indeed assessments. Don't build sandcastles in the air! Best regards. --Klein zach 13:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I listed the assessments last after suggestions for improvements/additions of articles. I agree 100% with you that the articles are the most important by far, but I disagree that we (I for now) should refrain from assessing/categorizing altogether - after all there are "only" about 800 pipe organ related articles currently tagged. I can't see what harm assessing them will do. Regarding it being a collaboration; indeed, that's the whole point, but someone's have to start (again) somewhere, and hopefully more people will join in. Anyhow, now I have listed some areas that could use some attention, and I hope others will chime in. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted any music editors? Have you contacted the past participants? Updating the participants list would be helpful. --Klein zach 13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to all participants of the project (except those that have not been active on Wikipedia for years) letting them know of the revival attempt. I haven't contacted others though. By the way, regarding assessments, I will stop assessing any more articles for now until more members have chimed in, and if there is a general consensus not to assess, needless to say I will respect that. I will, however, of course continue to add more relevant articles to the project when I come by them, by tagging their talk page, but I will refrain from assessing quality/importance. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I've made a new section for former and inactive members and moved some of the people no longer on WP to there. Another project worth contacting would be Classical music. --Klein zach 02:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've posted on the WP Classical Music talk page, and the "revival" is not mentioned on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-02/WikiProject report. Danmuz (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, can anyone attract organ enthusiasts into becoming WPians? Perhaps emails to local organ societies in anglophone countries? $Tony (talk)$ 11:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an idea! I used to subscribe to an old mailing list called pipeorg-l. That's an ell, not a one. Looks like it's still extant. Ha ha, my name is still up there, but I no longer receive mailings. From what I remember of the group, there are quite a few people who would probably respond to a call to arms.-W0lfie (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I used to subscribe to that list too, but am no longer active and thus cannot post. If any active members of that list reads this it would be great if you would post to the list about this project. Danmuz (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music notation

I want to suggest that some illustration of musical notation be included in the articles on classical music. For example, in the Analysis section of the article on Bach's "Fantasia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 537" there is a sentence that reads, "The fantasia of the piece is quite lush and very ornate, consisting of two unequal halves that both feature the same two basic musical ideas, an imitative dotted-rhythm tune, and a leaping eighth-note form, which is also in imitation, initiated by the pedals." It might be helpful if a few measures of musical notation were included as an illustration of this. Ger Tzedek (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Ger Tzedek (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ

Category:Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for dual upmerging to Category:Music of New Jersey and Category:Culture of Atlantic City, New Jersey. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565

Greetings, I am doing the Good Article review of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 and looking at it I have seen discussion on the merit or level of focus on Peter Williams on the page. I still see quite a few references in there and I was hoping to get some opinions from this project on whether or not that's excessive or would be considered more balanced? Please reply on the GA review page. Thank you. MPJ-US 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame de Paris listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Notre Dame de Paris to be moved to Notre-Dame de Paris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Chapel royal listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Chapel royal to be moved to Chapel Royal. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2017 proposal to make Organ (anatomy) the primary topic of Organ over Organ (music)

There is a proposal to make Organ (anatomy) the primary topic of Organ. This would change the current consensus that there should be no primary topic between Organ (anatomy) and Organ (music). Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Organ (anatomy). Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonal characteristics of Posaune vs Bombarde

My impression was that the Bombarde usually has less fundamental tone and more upper harmonics than the Posaune (as other French reed stops generally have more overtones than English/German reeds); however on both Bombarde (organ stop) and Ophicleide (organ stop), the page was edited (by Melos Antropon and 50.108.18.122) to say the reverse. Was wondering if anyone could give some clarification on this. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 20:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response copied from User talk:Sonicwave32 07:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sonic Wave:

I am a lifelong organist and organ scholar. The edit is correct as I wrote it (and thank you for keeping it in good faith). Bombarde is much fundamental, and some overtones. Posaune is some fundamental, and much overtones. Ophecleide is voiced to bring out the maximum fundamental and train of overtones both. Ophecleide is starting to make a comeback in organ building, but it was primarily a turn-of-the-century (1900) "Can You Top This?" device. It required an enormous organ and an enormous room to absorb it's tone in balance to the rest of the instrument. While what I have written applies to both 16' and 32' pitches of these stops, it is primarily about the 32' pitch stops. My apologoies if I posted this in the wrong place, and again - thanks for asking!

Melos Antropon (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Mesotonic" organ at Esquelbecq

Hi organ-lovers, A couple of months ago I added a bit to the article on Esquelbecq and its Talk page, concerning the organ in the church there. Could someone have a look, please, because although I thought it worthy of mention, I don't really know what I am talking about here. Thanks --Frans Fowler (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Cavarra

Hello. I have just created a stub about Robert N. Cavarra, whose obituary in the Denver Post describes him as "a leading participant in the revival of the classical organ tradition in North America."Zigzig20s (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Pipe organ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Pipe organ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pipe organ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Danby

Although Nicholas Danby has had this article on the Netherlands Wikipedia since 2010, there has been no article here on the English-language Wikipedia. I drafted one a few weeks ago but this has been declined on notability grounds. The article now sits in the draft area: Draft:Nicholas Danby.

Would anyone else care to chip in to get it over the finish line? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Swann — Good Article

Hello, I've done more work on this article and have just nominated it as a Good Article. JGHowes ^talk 15:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Fred Swann's bio was promoted to Good Article on December 29, 2020, and will be highlighted in the "Did You Know?" feature on the Main Page tonight, beginning at 7 pm Eastern Time (00:00 20 January UTC). JGHowes ^talk 14:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Frederick Candlyn listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for T. Frederick Candlyn to be moved to T. Frederick H. Candlyn. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Not done JGHowes ^talk 17:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially relevant WP:REFDESK question

Hi all. A question has been raised at the Entertainment Reference Desk which may come within the scope of this WikiProject. Any input you could give would be gratefully received. MIDI (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

(a while back!) MIDI (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians at English cathedrals

List of musicians at English cathedrals is a bit problematic. It’s badly under-sourced and is continually growing with organ scholars adding themselves etc.. Personally I think each cathedral article should include a list of organists instead as that would be easier to source and maintain (some already do) but it doesn’t look like this list is going anywhere so it needs some work. What do we think about removing all the organ scholars? Sources are often unavailable for them so when correctly sourced we’d only ever have a partial list of scholars, and they’re invariably not notable upon appointment. --Pontificalibus 14:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Heath listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Edward Heath to be moved to Ted Heath. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Fact-check

Hello everyone! I wrote an article about an organ builder named Charles Brenton Fisk and just wanted to make sure I got all the organ jargon correct. Please tell me if I explained or used organ terminologies wrong. Thanks, Carpimaps (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Wesley listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Samuel Wesley to be moved to Samuel Wesley (composer, born 1766). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Good article reassessment for Pipe organ

Pipe organ has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]