Talk:Action (piano)

	Music portal This article 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image found on Commons

Horizontal string action

This page seems to be lifted in large part from the Project Gutenberg page cited at the end. Although it's a good page, this should be rectified as this is plagiarism. Perhaps I could rewrite the article; I'll draw up an outline in my free time. Radical25 22:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. I don't think that is the case here. The words are indeed ripped and mostly unedited, from a PG text. However the source text is out of copyright and so no legal problem arises; and no specific claims are being made, except that this is an article about piano actions. But by all means edit it to your heart's content. --Tagishsimon (talk)

offer my photographs

I would like to offer my photographs for use on this page (licensed under creative commons copy-left): http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebox/sets/72157600145341254/ --Jeremy Seitz

Thanks. The photos are lovely, but I'm not convinced they're appropriate for this article. The problem I see is that in none of the photos is there enough context to understand what's going on, and how things fit together. In most of the images there's a mix of in & out of focus, which is fine for many purposes but probably not fine for illustrating a mostly technical article. Other people, of course, may disagree with me. Finally, wikipedia is always looking for images - don;t let me views put you off. I'd be delighted if wikipedia could benefit from some of your images ... please keep looking for opportunities to illustrate an article with your work. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Thanks for the reply. Your suggestion is noted, and I will attempt to create some new photographs that show the action in clear detail, perhaps a good overall view of the parts involved would be more useful. --Jeremy Seitz

Id like to see the diagramms replaced with photography, perhaps with similar labelling as the JCree upright action illustration currently here, which is pretty bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitoite (talk • contribs) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic piano actions

The German article de:Klaviermechanik appears to have good illustrations and descriptions of historic and modern piano actions. I'd like to add them to this article, but I don't speak German very well. I could probably clean up a machine translation ... but would that violate the "No machine translation" policy? Where else would I start? Kkroon (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a reasonable approach to me. You;d end up with something which was not a machine translation, but your rewrite. Go for it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escapement section/article?

I came here requesting more information on the escapement mechanism of piano actions. I'm listening to a recording on clavichord right now, and I find it interesting that the clavichord has no escapement, whereas the piano and even the tangent piano have escapements. The tangent piano article erroneously links to Escapement. The escapement of pianos and that of clocks and watches are alike only in that both are called "escapements." I'm wondering if typewriters also have a mechanism that is called an escapement by analogy with a piano escapement.

Simonsa (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of invention of piano

The article was giving 1709, on the basis of Hipkins. Hipkins was a great piano scholar, but he wrote more than a century ago, before crucial documents were found. I've put in what I believe is now the consensus date, 1700, and cited a leading modern authority, Stewart Pollens.

Just saying: it is a potential source of trouble that Hipkins is cited here so many times -- it's likely there are other cases where later scholarship led to improved accuracy. I'll try to look these citations over, but others who know the topic better than me might try doing the same. Opus33 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]