Talk:Slide trumpet

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Musical Instruments Low‑importance

	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.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Useful annotated bib.

This link may be useful for those wishing to expand on the article: http://herbergeronline.asu.edu/haefer/classes/564/564.papers/marchiandojslidetpt.html. TwilligToves (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving citations.

Dear fellow editors,
I am posting the present message out of courtesy to other editors interested in the subject article. I have applied a few improvements today and will do a bit more in a few days’ time, particularly in applying a consistent format to citations.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 19:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following your edits with approval. However, since there are only two citations and they appear to be formatted identically, I do not understand how you are going to be able to make them any more consistent than they already are. Perhaps you are referring to the "Further reading" items, which indeed are not consistent. By all means, go ahead.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jerome,

Thank you for your kind (and witty) words!

Yes, you’re quite right: I had the "Further reading" section in mind, so that these entries would be ready for future use as references. Having now consulted the article’s history, I can see you have nurtured it on and off since 2015, so I trust you didn’t mind I intervened today, after discovering its existence from this edit to List of musical instruments, which is on my watchlist; I often look at articles that are new to me, to see if there’s anything I can do to help. I am postponing further activity here, however, until my upgraded desktop is returned to me in a few days’ time, as I am currently editing from my iPad. In any case, thank you for making contact, and for all your many contributions to our encyclopedia!

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 21:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed these edits. I think the narrow reading of MOS:LAYOUT was unfortunate. Smithers is a cited source, not further reading, and the same could be said for Brownlow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see the Smithers citation now. Not a very usual citation format. The Brownlow is not cited directly, but I do see what you mean. One way or another, this needs to be cleaned up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the edit history, it appears that the eccentric formatting style for Smithers was the first to be established, with this edit. Strictly following the procedure given in WP:CITEVAR, the two footnotes should probably be converted to that format, in the absence of editorial consensus to change it to something else.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence, but I don't think the edits of a very infrequent contributor (2 edits) 10 years ago should be considered binding – whatever works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Does Harvard referencing seem like a good solution, then?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – whatever works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I’ve now completed the task I set out above, however “narrow” and “unfortunate”. At least the article now looks a little more encyclopedic. Done
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 15:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jerome & Michael,
Thank you both for fine-tuning the changes I applied yesterday to the article and its talk page template, respectively. I dare say the article looks in better shape now, not just for the consistency of its citation style but also for the quality of the information now available at the links I replaced. Please accept my apologies for the rather curt message I posted immediately above, but know that, in the end, I am pleased to have benefitted from your assistance; thank you once again.
With kind regards,
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 10:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]