Talk:Carillon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Carillon. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gallery

I am removing the "cleanup" tag at the head of the image gallery, which states "Galleries containing indiscriminate images of the article subject are discouraged". WP:IG (the policy page to which the tag links) states: "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." It seems to me that, apart from lacking a title (which I will add), the gallery adequately meets most of those criteria. GrindtXX (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carillon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

@Thrakkx: if we are to archive some of this page to a non-standard archive page, then can we please furnish a link to it from here so that people might find it later? And why is it a non-standard archive page in the first place? Can we please set up normal auto-archiving here? Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this was my first attempt at archiving. You may be aware that I've been working tirelessly on improving this article (with the end goal of achieving WP:GA, which recommends cleaning up the talk page). I don't understand why the main talk page isn't linking to the archived page—I followed the manual archiving tutorial to a T. And please by all means, let's switch to the standard method—I wasn't aware that there was one.Thrakkx (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thrakkx, okay, thanks for your work!!! I appreciate that stuff! Don't worry too much about getting it right, as long as you try, right? Ok, so I enabled auto archiving and I requested speedy deletion for the topical archive you created. I have WP:OneClickArchiver'd a few threads into the archive to prove it exists and is linked. Let's wait for a bot to come around and sweep the rest up. There should be about 4 threads left when bot's done with it. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: how do we get the WP:OneClickArchiver to archive the rest of the threads on this talk page? Besides this one, they're are all over 4 years old. Thrakkx (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review. Expect comments in the next few days or so. Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominator: Hi, I want to mention in advance that I think the article's table under "Distribution" will be the biggest obstacle in this nomination process. I want to give some context. There are two main groups that count carillons: the World Carillon Federation (WCF) and TowerBells.org. The WCF counts only those carillons which are played with a baton keyboard ("traditional carillons"). TowerBells counts traditional carillons, but they also have separate lists for non-traditional carillons, which do not have a baton keyboard, may be electronic, be played primarily by a computer, etc. In the news, when carillonneurs discuss the distribution of carillons in their region, in their country, or throughout the world, they cite the count of traditional carillons. I chose to have the count in the article's table reflect that. I also realize that the "carillon density" columns are probably not all that valuable to include, because the values are extremely small for even the U.S., the country with the second most number of carillons, and extremely high tiny islands with one carillon, like Curaçao. Would it be better to restructure the table to have three columns: 1) country, 2) count of traditional carillons according to WCF, and 3) count of traditional carillons according to TowerBells? Thrakkx (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting and more complete to include the non-traditional ones separately, in a format similar to the one you've proposed. Though I assume the numbers for the traditional carillons would come from both the WCF and towerbells.org—or do their numbers not match? For the density, it's up to you in the end, but if the sources you're citing include them, I'm inclined to think we should as well. Aza24 (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

So the WCF does not count non-traditional carillons at all, and neither source considers the density of carillons. I'm thinking a three column table: traditional carillons per WCF, traditional carillons per TowerBells, and non-traditional carillons per TowerBells. What do you think? Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a solid solution—the densities, if notable at all, would probably find more use in List of carillons anyways. Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Review

Lead

Are there any places that these bell towers are particularly common? Building type wise—I mean (churchs?) perhaps something about that could be briefly included after "Usually housed in a bell tower"

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume there are no suitable links for the primary parts of the instrument. e.g. pedal, baton clapper?

Comment: Correct, though there is Pedal keyboard, so I linked that to "pedal" Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

perhaps add that the player is a called a "carillonneur" or "carillonist" near "by those who play and study them"; the line seems to be asking for it, in my mind. If done, you could bold it as well, since it redirects here

Removed in the process of rewriting that sentence to fix the link to Chime (bell instrument). Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If non-traditional carillons are independent enough to be counted separately by towerbells.org (and not at all by the WCF), I wonder if the distinction can briefly be mentioned, maybe in the final paragraph of the lead. Perhaps Traveling carillons can be extremely briefly mentioned here as well, in order to—since they have their own section—fully sum up the article

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"and simple tunes are played throughout the day"?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why Chime (bell instrument) links where it does, is there a way to rephrase the sentence to make the reason clearer?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

is there an average weight available you could mention after the heaviest?

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

maybe mention the oldest after "constructed in the last century."?—though this might be too trivial, something to consider

Comment: I will look for a source that lists the oldest surviving, since TowerBells does not. For now, I have not added this. Thrakkx (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Etymology and terminology

Any ref for its alternate name being "Glockenspiel"—if you're going for FAC, they're pretty stringent about always have refs at the end of sentences (or paragraphs, at the least)

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Might be nice to give a time period, year range, or century for the War of Spanish Succession, so readers know when in time we're talking about without having to go to a new article.

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Characteristics

"on a level" seems a little vague, could an approximate metrical amount (i.e. "a foot" "half a meter") or something be given to clarify?

Fixed – "...are raised above the rest, about 10 centimetres (3.9 in)." Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"pedal board is arranged with radiation and concavity" could use links for these terms, I don't think I'm following the definition of "radiation" here

Fixed – "..., such as whether the outer pedals curve toward the center, ..." Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the line about the two main models, I assume that the "WCF Keyboard 2006" hasn't risen to the wide-spread use as either of these two? Perhaps this can be reiterated when bringing up the WCF Keyboard 2006, if true, of course

Fixed. That is true, but I don't have a source that explicitly says this. However, I was able to add a source which explains that the WCF recommends its world standard be consulted when constructing new keyboards. Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Any ref for "However, with some instruments, the heaviest bells may be outfitted with a mechanism enabling them to swing."?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"if not more"—for those unfamiliar with the dynamic range of a piano, this line will probably not make sense, what about "if not more versatile"?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Any ref for "With weight not standardized across the population, the same music will sound different on each carillon."?

Removed that sentence because it was awkward and unsourced. It's also self-evident that carillons with heavier bells will sound different compared to those with lighter bells. Thrakkx (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

History

Just checking, does ref 34 cover all of the origins section? If so, I would repeat it at the end of the first paragraph here as well, so that future readers/editors won't think there's a citation missing

Fixed. The correct reference was accidentally omitted. Thrakkx (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Any ref for "By 1600, the primitive carillon had become an established feature of the region." or "During the next 36 years, the Hemony brothers went on to produce 51 carillons. Carillon culture experienced a peak in 1750."?

Fixed. Accidentally deleted these citations a handful of edits back. Thrakkx (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Usage and repertoire

"Yet, much of the music from this era" is a little confusing; you've just spoke about a multitude of eras, so I'm not exactly sure which is being referred to

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"much of the music"—keyboard music, I presume?

You presumed correctly,

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Neither composed for it, but they did include carillonic effects in other works" not really sure what this means, who's to say they weren't imitating other types of bells? Is there a ref for this, or maybe a musical example that can be given?

Fixed So the musical example is there, but I hid it within the reference. For the reasons you mention, I haven't really been a fan of this tidbit ever since I added it, so I reworded everything in that paragraph after the Britannica source and moved it to its own paragraph. The point is to highlight that Joseph Haydn is a notable example of a non-carillon player from that period having composed some of the earliest-surviving original compositions for carillon. The current wording definitely distracted from that point. Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a picture from the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" in the Organization and education section? Just an idea

Good idea,

Added Thrakkx (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Distribution

It would help verifibility if the ref(s) for land area and Carillon density can be given directly in the top of the columns

Comment: Per the comments about this section above, I removed the columns on land area and carillon density as the WCF and TowerBells sources do not have this information. The table and accompanying prose was rewritten, so I think it would be best if you gave this section a second look. Thrakkx (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks great Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Traveling carillons

Looks good here

Comment: To match the Distribution section, I incorporated TowerBell's count of traveling carillons. I think it would be best if you gave the changes a quick review. Thrakkx (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I wonder is if there are more traditional than non-traditional, or vice versa. Perhaps this is worth including—or is about split? Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Added that there are three non-traditional traveling carillons according to TowerBells. Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources and other

Can we get a few words after or before "Carillon History" so we know the website/publisher of the external link?

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You have quite a few dup links, (those linked twice or more in the body–the lead is excluded from this); they're generally discouraged except for those where you have a specific reason to have one. You may want to use User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, to find these

Fixed with the exception of Matthias Vanden Gheyn, the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn", the University of Kansas, and St. Rombold's Cathedral. In the first two cases, the second link follows a bold statement which I think justifies it ("earliest-surviving compositions the famous eleven preludes of Vanden Gheyn," "most sought-after education program for the carillon in the world"). I also kept the second link to University of Kansas, because I feel it would look out of place between all the other links to universities. The same logic goes for St. Rombold's Cathedral in photo gallery. I imagine for the latter two cases, future editors will keep adding links there anyway. Let me know if these choices should be reconsidered. Thrakkx (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sound logic—thanks for cleaning up what is generally a tedious task

I'll take a closer look at the sources later
- See below

Hold

Putting this on hold for a week to address the above comments. If you need extra time, do let me know. Best - Aza24 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Aza24:, I have addressed all of your comments. Apologies for updating this page repeatedly—it helped me compartmentalize. Thrakkx (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

More source comments

Since I know you're preparing this for FAC, I may be a little picky here
BTW—these things are not required for GA status, so if you want to address my comment in the "Traveling carillons" and address these things at a later date, ping me I'll be more than happy to promote

@Aza24: I have addressed the remainder of your comments. Thanks for going the extra mile to include FAC-specific review comments! Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

OCLC for Swager here

Added Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The location inclusion for your books is inconsistent, either all should have one or none

Removed locations. Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ready for the most picky comment you've ever witnessed? There's a little bit of inconsistency with page ranges, e.g. 163–65 vs 290–291, where the second number is sometimes given in short, and sometimes not

Fixed outliers. Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Things like Guild of Carillonneurs in North America and Encyclopaedia Britannica should probably continue to be italicized in the sfn refs

Fixed Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

retrieval date missing for ref 86 Aza24 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Added Thrakkx (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Pass

Satisfied this undoubtably meets the GA criteria. The next step would be setting up a WP:PR or asking another person to give it a once over before FAC. Thanks for your attentiveness, and apologies on my occasionally slow responses; things have been a bit chaotic IRL! Aza24 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the heaviest carillon in the world weighs over 91 metric tons (100 short tons) and is located at the Riverside Church in New York City? Source: 1. Claim made by Riverside Church; 2. Singing Bronze by Rombouts, p. 310
- ALT1:... that during World War II, 150,000 carillon bells were stored in "bell cemeteries" (German: Glockenfriedhöfe) before being melted down to make shell casings and armaments? Source: Seizing of Europe's Bells by Thorne
- ALT2:... that only about 15 collections of carillon music written before 1900 are known to still exist? Source: 2. Singing Bronze by Rombouts, p. 129
- ALT3:... that the heaviest carillon in the world weighs over 91 metric tons by bells alone, over 226 metric tons in total, and is located at the Riverside Church in New York City? Source: 1. Claim made by Riverside Church; 2. Singing Bronze by Rombouts, p. 310; "The Riverside Church" (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. May 16, 2000, p. 7.
- ALT3a:... that the world's heaviest carillon, weighing over 91 metric tons by bells alone and over 226 metric tons in total, is at Riverside Church in New York City?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/USS Pima County (LST-1081)
Comment: This is my first DYK nomination to celebrate my first successful GAN. Happy to respond to any comments.

Improved to Good Article status by Thrakkx (talk). Self-nominated at 16:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC).

@Thrakkx: I'll review this. Congrats on your good article! It's funny since I also submitted Riverside Church as a DYK over a year ago, having improved it to GA. I thought I had actually nominated your ALT0 before, and it turns out I proposed something similar, but a different alt had run instead. Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for this! Hopefully we can get the heaviest carillon fact approved so we promote two GAs at once!

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - See below.
Interesting:
Other problems: - The hooks are equally interesting (I myself prefer ALT0) but there are some strange things with the sources.
- For ALT0, the Riverside Church article says the total weight of the ensemble is 500,000 pounds, which would be 250 short tons. See page 7 of "The Riverside Church" (PDF). New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. May 16, 2000. According to this article (citing the church's website), the bells weigh over 100 short tons or 200,000 pounds, a figure corroborated by The New York Times. This apparent discrepancy will have to be fixed before ALT0 is approved, but it is clear that the 500,000 pound figure refers to the equipment holding the bells along with the bells themselves, while the bells are about/over 200,000 pounds. I fixed this in the church article already, though.
  - Typically carillons are measured by the weight of the just its bells because the rest of the ensemble is frequently replaced and the data on their weights are not available. In the case of Riverside's carillon, they measured everything else to really hit home how much weight is sitting in the tower. I do like the fact about the total weight, though, so I included it in the article. What if we combine the two facts together? See ALT3.
    - @Thrakkx: I had just realized there was no conflict between the 226-metric-ton equipment and the 91-metric-ton bells. Sorry for creating the confusion, I only realized afterward that the weight of carillons doesn't include the equipment from which they are mounted. ALT3 looks interesting and falls within the length limit (170 characters), though I think we can smooth it out a bit. How about something like "... that the world's heaviest carillon, weighing over 91 metric tons by bells alone and over 226 metric tons in total, is at Riverside Church in New York City?" This comes out to 155 characters (159 if you include "the" before "Riverside"). Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
      - @Epicgenius: That sounds great to me; let's do it! Thrakkx (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- For ALT1, the 150,000 figure is not in the carillon article.
  - Fixed. Apologies!
- For ALT2, sourcing is fine, but it says 15 collections with music from the heyday of the carillon. I'll assume good faith that the "heyday" refers to before 1900.
  - That's right. Really the heyday was the mid-18th century, and it is believed that little to no music was written before Jef Denyn at the end of the 19th century.

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

Any of the alts (original, ALT1, ALT2, ALT3/a) are fine. Epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of galleries

The extensive deletion of galleries seem to have made disappear some useful information which was in accordance with WP:GALLERY or could have been improved instead. Therefore I intend to add these back to the article. Best, --ThT (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@ThT: I thought I would give my reasoning for this change, given that I did not in the edit summary. For the Mechanical Gallery specifically, this was two sets of two pictures which were related (two mechanical drums, two keyboards), but should simply have been placed next to the text about a carillon's construction. At the time, there was no such section. Now, there is, and it features images of mechanical drums and keyboards. I think it was the right move to delete this gallery per WP:GALLERY ("Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.").

For the "Gallery of Notable Carillons," the longwinded captions contained specific facts on individual carillons, such as the year they were built, their exact location, and the like. This information is better included as written prose under its entry on List of carillons. Per WP:GALLERY ("A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons."), I chose to move most these images to the relevant Commons category, and shrink the gallery down to the size it's at now.

You're welcome to add back information to this article if you like, but I would not bring back the galleries exactly as they were.Thrakkx (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)