Talk:Tenor recorder

Citations

Citations should go after punctuation, see MOS:REFPUNCT. {{harv}} references need to be enclosed in a <ref> ... </ref> pair in order to generate the appropriate footnotes. {{sfn}} is in many ways more convenient but if other editors disagree then I'm happy to use the <ref>{{harv...}}</ref> form. The only other way would be inline citations which I know some editors prefer but personally I find they clutter up the text. Frankly in a stub with only two refs it is not really worth an argument.

Question: Should we use (a) {{sfn}}, (b) <ref>{{harv...}}</ref> or (c) use inline citations?

(a) My !vote is for sfn, IMHO they are neater and tidier. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Harvard (i.e., parenthetical) citations go before punctuation, not after, with the exception of block quotations. Harvard citations must not be enclosed in footnote-markup, unless footnote referencing is being used which, personally, I find clutter up the text. Both forms (as well as several others varieties) are called "inline citations" if they occur at specified points in the text. The intricacies are explained at Wikipedia:Inline citation.

Answer: Consensus is not achieved by voting. If you have some compelling reason for changing from one valid Wikipedia format to another, let's hear it. If as you say a stub with only two refs is not worth the argument, then there is no advantage to changing the style, is there?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

::FYI see Template:Harvard_citation#Shortened_footnote:_.7B.7Bsfn.7D.7D_or_.7B.7Bharvnb.7D.7D. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Sorry Jerome, I hadn't realised you were a Master Editor. I'll leave you to do it the way you want. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Harmonic Recorders

"Harmonic recorders (3) surpass their historic predecessors in their innovative design. Their slightly conical bore combined with the lengthening of the instrument by the addition of keys open up entirely new sound possibilies and extend their range well into the third octave. Our Modern Alto and the Helder recorders were the first models to put this design into practice." seems to justify "More recently the tenor recorder has become the subject of experimentation into modern "harmonic" recorders". Mind this is a bit too "advertising speak" to be a really good source. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It does have a strong whiff of spam about it, but my reason for requesting a source is that the spamlink does not say anything about the overtones of these instruments, only that they "open up entirely new sound possibilities and extend their range", and it does not tie the experimental design specifically to the tenor size. Mind you, this is the first I have heard of these instruments, and I am intrigued to discover more about them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I forgot to mention that the "comfort tenor" model does not seem to be one of these "harmonic recorders", but is listed by Mollenhauer as one of their innovative designs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't shoot or shout at the messenger, you asked for a citation and I spent time trying to find one for you. The only "original research" was finding the right section of the compny'swebsite (and in passing updating a broken link at Conrad Mollenhauer GmbH) and formatting it. Take the matter up with Amilio Cavali, he wrote the statement. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not complaining because you fulfilled my request, and I hope I am not shouting. The source does verify those recent developments at Mollenhauer GmbH, but I do find it odd that the tenor is being singled out for this treatment, when the website seems to emphasize the soprano and alto instruments (unless we consider the "comfort tenor", which does not appear to be one of those "harmonic" instruments at all). Perhaps Amilio Cavali can supply a source verifying that the overtones on these instruments are "more accurate" than on more traditional models. As I said, this is all new to me, and I am eager to learn more, especially if other makers are working along similar lines.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, comments understood. It's just that an edit summary consisting only of " WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE" can look a little shouty. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. The standard redirect is in full caps, but the link will work even if it uses lowercase. I have not noticed anyone else avoiding full caps in these cases, but perhaps I can become a pioneer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)