Talk:Piano

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Holly.hartley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

How to handle global "additional citations needed" tag and referencing for Piano?

There's currently an "additional citations needed" tag covering the entire article. Meanwhile, there are numerous inline citations, a Bibliography section, and a Notes section indicating several additional reference sources. Some sections are better sourced than others, and there are a few inline citation needed tags.

The problem with sourcing this article in particular is the amount of technical and historical detail it contains. Depending on how rigorous the approach, some sections would be overrun by inline citations added to practically every sentence. Also, likely there would be a fair number of instances of citing the same source multiple times.

There is guidance in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Some possible solutions that can be used in combination:

• Updating the Bibliography with notes per book indicating which areas of the article it covers.
• Marking sections with little or no sourcing with "citations needed" tag.
• Indicating all individual items that need citing with incline "citation needed" tags.

(My particular concern is with the global "citations needed" tag, which we can hopefully remove. Tags that cover entire articles may diminish the apparent value of the article, and in this case, it seems pretty clear that, overall, the article is verifiable via inline citations and bibliography.)

Ideas? Suggestions? --Tsavage (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find umbrella "citations needed" tags on long article like this completely useless. Tagging specific statements needing citations is more helpful—even essential in this case. This is according to what your are citing from the "citing sources" guideline.

In addition, I am totally confused here by that section marked "Notes". There are already "notes" as inline citations (let us call these "notes₁"), and the content of this second section looks like "Further reading" to me (let us call these "notes₂"). They are bibliography style entries, not annotations of particular statements in the article. On the other hand, I have not checked the "Bibliography" items to discover whether they are sources actually cited in the notes₁, or indeed whether any of the items in notes₂ are cited in notes₁. I think you can see why this confuses me.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive input! :) I investigated further, and I believe progress has been made.

This is the where the References section was originally established, and it explains what is now under Notes, i.e. that they are general references for the article.

I created the Bibliography subhead to accommodate referring to different pages of the same book in different citations (and I left one book duplicated in Notes because it wasn't clear what Notes was). I guess that heading was unnecessary and redundant under References.

Given that Notes is now general reference, it seems that Further reading may be just that (can ask original editor User:Opus33).

I've adjusted the article accordingly as follows:

• removed Bibliography subhead (unnecessary in References section)
• renamed Notes section to General (General references) and restored the original note "Most of the information in this article can be found in the following published works:" (per [1])
• I restored Encyclopedia Britannica to the General list as it was there originally. (Does "most of the info..." still apply if it is deleted?)

Comments? --Tsavage (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Removed the umbrella "additional citations needed" tag from Jul 2013, per the above. The article has been significantly reorganized, citations and inline citations added, and the General references section clarfied. Considering the large number of individual details that could be individually cited, which would make the article difficult to read and many of the citations kind of redundant, the use of general references in addition to inline citations seems like a good idea. (Additional inline citation needed tags are probably still required.) --Tsavage (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

General references:: Encyclopedia Britannica removed

Removed Encyclopedia Britannica from the References > General section as a less than reliable source, and let stand the statement: "Most of the information in this article can be found in the following published works:" Considering that the four remaining works are described by the original editor as, respectively:

• "a standard reference on the history of the piano"
• "an authoritative work covering the ancestry of the piano, its invention by Cristofori, and the early stages of its subsequent evolution"
• "contains a wealth of information"
• "gives the basics of how pianos work, and a thorough evaluative survey of current pianos and their manufacturers"

it seems reasonable to assume that most of the information in the article can still be found in these remaining books listed under General references. --Tsavage (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica has often been a reliable source. Misty MH (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016: Pronunciation

Pronunciation is probably more clearly transcribed as /piˈænoʊ/; in accordance with the English Wiktionary entry. Netuser00 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Terra★ 00:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am doing a research paper on this article and as I read through the article I've noticed that you don't add who invented each kind of piano, why there are so many different kinds and what they were used for, and i would've liked to see a separate section that lists several famous piano players and popular songs played with the piano. My question for you is what were each type of piano used for and by who? I'm curious to see the differences between each kind of piano and what kind of person would choose the type they played. Holly.hartley (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piano. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011233347/http://www.ptg.org/resources-historyOfPianos-viennese.php to http://www.ptg.org/resources-historyOfPianos-viennese.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.physics.odu.edu/~hyde/Teaching/Phys332_Wk13.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Playing range

Should be updated from C0–F8 to C0–B8 (including rare extensions), as a 108-key piano has now been built by Stuart & Sons. (Of course, the standard range remains A0–C8). Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp: I've updated the image, should be right now.--17jiangz1 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@17jiangz1: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

MR. John Vizilan is the one who created the piano 2600:1700:5700:3450:549B:EAE1:E92:9874 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that supports this claim. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Lengthy lead

Not looking to rework it without input, but does it strike anyone else that the lead of this article is a bit too long because it has multiple redundancies? It almost like somewhere along the way the lead was expanded so it more fully summarizes the article, but that expansion didn't really look to integrate better with the existing material. Or that someone wrote the pockets paragraph as a summary of the lead itself while the lead is summarizing the body. The part that jumps out the most to me is the multiple summations if the mechanisms, including describing the construction of the hammers and the role of the pedals. The lead is the summary, it doesn't need to be summarized further. I think it could stand to have some fresh eyes to make sure there's a little less redundancy in the writing. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

Hello! In your depiction of the range of piano, there is an error on how the lowest note of the piano is written. The lowest A of the piano should be 6 ledger lines below the staff, not 5 as shown.

Thanks! 50.227.146.163 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done -- those extra notes (C0 and B8) are the extremes of the range of one piano manufacturer -- see note 39, and the "Keyboard" section -- this particular manufacturer makes a piano with 108 keys and a 9-octave range. Antandrus (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Piano "history"?

I couldn't believe it! Not one mention of Jonas Chickering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B45B:4577:E974:12D8:9104:80E7 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

this piano Penpow3250 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done correct Name Dam222 🌋 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Pianoforte

The article says this: "The word piano is a shortened form of pianoforte, the Italian term for the early 1700s versions of the instrument," but pianoforte is the standard Italian term for a piano still today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBrasilo (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Clefs

This article says nothing about the two clefs in which piano music is typically written (cf., e.g., the article about the Bassoon), nor about its typical arrangement on two staves. Should this be included in the article and, if so, where? Ishboyfay (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify "playing range"

I have no idea how to interpret the complicated illustration titled "Playing range" with two notes at the bottom, two notes at the top, plus the cryptic notations "8 - - -" at the bottom and "15 - - -" at the top.

Furthermore, the linked article Playing range does nothing to clarify this illustration.

Would it be too much to ask for the playing range to also be described in simple English somewhere in the text of the article? Like maybe with its own section?

Saying something like "The range is from the X that is K octaves below middlle C, to the Y that is L octaves above middle C". Maybe also giving the frequencies of the extreme notes. 2601:200:C000:1A0:C489:7AF2:743B:FE25 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The 8 and 15 bit is pretty standard notation for octaves up or down from the written notes. See Octave#Ottava alta and bassa. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No many people can read notes from the staff. Even fewer people grasp uncommon musical notation. Many readers are not musicians. 98.255.224.144 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

In the keyboard section, the article states: Almost every modern piano has 52 white keys and 36 black keys for a total of 88 keys (seven octaves plus a minor third, from A0 to C8) I agree that the fact that there are two notes is confusing though. The graphic in the infobox should include a caption. intforce (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Marion

I have a upright piano that has marion on it. April 25 1899 and I can't find any information on it. Please help SugarTaz (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. It's probably this company, who also built pianos badged as "Marion Piano". Hope that helps, Antandrus (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Description

In the description we find "The name was created as a contrast to harpsichord, a musical instrument that does not allow variation in volume; compared to the harpsichord, the first fortepianos in the 1700s had a quieter sound and smaller dynamic range."

A couple of issues: 1) "The name was created as a contrast to harpsichord..." doesn't make any sense. How could a name be "created" in contrast to an instrument? Do they mean, the name was created in contrast to the name "harpsichord"? But that doesn't make much more sense. How does the name "piano" or "pianoforte" or whatever show a contrast from the name "harpsichord"? 2) A more substantive question: how could "the first fortepianos in the 1700s" have a "smaller dynamic range" than the harpsichord, when the harpsichord "does not allow variation in volume," which is the same as saying the harpsichord "has practically no dynamic range"? So the text is saying that the fortepiano, which is marked by its capacity to have variable volume, i.e., non-zero dynamic range, had a smaller dynamic range than the harpsichord, which has basically zero dynamic range. 107.132.168.109 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Both were cases of poor word choices. I copy edited the sentence to mare correctly describe the intended meaning. oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I just went ahead and edited it myself. It still didn't make sense. Just took out the sentence that said "the name was created as a contrast to harpsichord" the meaning of which is undecipherable.Chafe66 (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Quantity of each one of the 12 notes of the piano

A common piano contains eight As, eight B-flats, eight Bs, eight Cs, seven C-sharps, seven Ds, seven E-flats, seven Es, seven Fs, seven F-sharps, seven Gs and seven G-sharps/A-flats, forming a total of 88 notes. Your enharmonic notes are the G-double sharps/B-double flats, the A-sharps, the C-flats, the B-sharps, the D-flats, the C-double sharps/E-double flats, the D-sharps, the F-flats, the E-sharps, the G-flats and the F-double sharps/A-double flats.

2804:18:8BF:A288:1:0:A43:A00A (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

I need this hatnote for italic to be cancelled per WP:ITHAT, see like this:

"Pianoforte" redirects here. For earliest versions of the instrument only, see Fortepiano. For the 1984 film, see Pianoforte (film).

181.118.158.133 (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done oknazevad (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

First piano

Hello, I noticed that the bowed clavier, with clavier being the Deutsch /German word for piano, was invented as early as 1575. I was wondering why if this should be listed in the history of the piano 2600:1014:B11F:19A7:4013:D159:6891:AE34 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)