Jump to content

Talk:Vuvuzela

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pikiwyn (talk | contribs) at 23:03, 24 June 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


About this Talk page

Please see the Talk page header above, and read (at least) the four key points in the white box - observing them will really help this Talk page to stay useful and comprehensible. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other types of vuvuzelas

Are these horns blown in the same indescriminate, incessant manner as they are in South Africa ? Or are they blown in rhythm, after goals and other noteworthy events in a match ?--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The plastic version of these were available in Argentina already in the early 1980's, if not even before that. I remember them exactly in red as in the photo. If memory serves well, they were not played incessantly but blown in some rudimentary rythms (they are not that easy to handle many people could not get a sound out of them) or blown after noteworthy events in the match.--Jorge Pullin talk 09:30, 28 June 2009 (Central Time)
And these have been available in the US for a number of years. I bought and used one at minor league hockey games about 2000 or 2001. Of course, I did not blow it incessantly, only to celebrate goals or to spur the team on at critical times.--Wschart (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had one while growing up in Silicon Valley in the 1970s and 1980s. And they have been an obnoxious presence in the stands of Oakland A's games since at least the 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatkins679 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had one of these horns in thin plastic back in the mid 60's, bought here in the USA at a college football (American football) stadium. Other people had them too, so I question the dates in the article. -NKB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.138.92 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That orange one pictured in the article looks like the one my brother got 30 years ago. Back then he was (perhaps still is) a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. It used to annoy me and the family when he blew it, but from a distance (i.e. radio), I kinda like it. It does sound like bees or hornets. ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the Central/Latin American horns that plague games in that region but make exactly the same noise. I'm not sure what they're called, but there should be some mention of their relation to the South African variety in this article.Ellsass (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember red horns, very similar to the picture, were sold at the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) in Toronto back in the 60's. I also question the dates in the article. Blue horns were available in the 70's from the CNE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.138.117 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember them, too. Similar horns have been widely used throughout North America since the 60s. The important difference may be in the technique -- in North America they're blown with a trumpet embouchure, or like a post horn. John FitzGerald (talk)

I just noticed this issue is settled definitively below. Again, though, I think the important difference is in the embouchure. John FitzGerald (talk)
I don't see how the following discussion resolves this issue at all. Surely the fact that similar instruments have been widely available in North America and elsewhere for at least 25 years or more is worthy of being referenced in the article. Ikester (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed information

Information in the "Origin" section of this article about plastic vuvuzelas is disputed. I have a yellow one which was purchased from a souvenir stand at Chicago's Soldier Field prior to a United States men's national team match against AC Milan in June 1991. The manufacture & mass-marketing of plastic vuvuzelas predates the 1990s and didn't begin either in that decade or the next one as currently implied in this article. There is a good chance that the information in the reference sources are really inaccurate. Much more research is needed for this piece to attain acceptable Wikipedia standards. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I have been using these in soccer matches (and sports events in general) in Brazil for decades (at least the 80's). In Brazil they are called "Corneta" (horn), and the construction and design is pretty much identical to what is shown in the article picture. Maybe a case of local pride prior to the world cup, trying to credit the creating of this iconic soccer instrument to the host country? Quase (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a reference? I did find a picture on an internet shop, but that's not really suitable as a reference. http://ciudadcotillon.com.ar/eshop/index.php?page=shop.product_details&product_id=413&flypage=flypage.tpl&pop=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=53 Zaian (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These plastic horns have been at American football and baseball games since at least back to when I was a kid in the 1970s. Hard to find a quotable reference via google though (might actually have to go to a library... gasp). If you do a Google Book search for '"long plastic horns" fans' you will find a hint of references in the book The year I owned the Yankees: a baseball fantasy written in 1990 and a 1975 Time Magazine article about a Reagan political rally, however, neither have enough preview text available. It would be really hand to find a sports souvenir catalog from the 70s or 80s. —Noah 06:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These things are likely as old as plastic itself. A high school friend of mine had one in the 1980s, I think from a Toronto Argonauts game. No proof because I didn't think a plastic horn was noteworthy enough to photograph - but in North America they definitely predate 2001 by several decades. Even the South African manufacturer claims an American origin: http://www.boogieblast.co.za/#truthvuvu 99.230.231.234 (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have attached a link to an image available for purchase at getty images http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/81452390/Sports-Illustrated showing fans at the 1964 World series blowing these plastic horns. These were banned at most major league parks, because of the noise. These could be purchased in Woolworth stores and 5 and dime stores. 69.121.122.126 (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)~[reply]

Nice find! Unfortunately, we cannot add copyrighted images to Wikipedia, but this is useful information. Do you have a reference for the horns being banned in major league parks in the 1960s? That would be a great thing to add to the article. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot add the image (although it may be that Getty will give permission to use a reduced-resolution version if somoene asks nicely) but we certainly can use it as a reference and remove the clams that it was invented (or that the first plastic version was introduced) after 1964. Guy Macon 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...and emits a loud monotone B-flat" is a little misleading, as other harmonics are easily played with a reasonably strong embouchure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.36.123 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, but only a little misleading. Most of the fans playing them do not seem terribly interested in exploring the upper reaches of this (ahem) wonderful instrument's wide range, so actually the monotone Bb is pretty much what we hear. I am note being greatly troubled by harmonics numbered =>2 when I hear it on the televisual apparatus. So if its, er, emissions need characterising for the purposes of this article, I honestly think that does it pretty well. People wanting to read about the physics of trumpet playing, lip-vibrated aerophones in general and performing Bach on plastic instruments may well want to click on a few links to get them out of SA football stadia! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't that fact be made clearer at some point in the article? I've been trying to find out, out of curiosity, if the vuvuzela can be played as a natural horn or if, for some reason (length/construction/limitations of human embouchure) it could only produce a B♭3. Laogeodritt [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes maybe it should. I did make these recordings available:
- but they've not really caught anyone's interest on en.wiki much. The other problem is that while the recordings speak for themselves I can't, because that's WP:OR so we'd need a citeable source talking about it. But, just so you know, even if we can't find a source, yes it works like a natural trumpet but it is too much of a mess and starts too high to do much with it. Harmonics 1, 2 and 3 are OK but from 4 on (please see above) you start to lose it a bit - certainly on the one I was playing! I think I bang on about this somewhere else on this page too (oh yes, under the subhead "do re mi") ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the early history: These things existed in this form at least in 1966. In high school we bought pretty much exactly what's shown in the picture (orange plastic straight horn about 3 ft long), at nearby college's (American) football games. (Amherst College in Mass.) They sounded just like we hear on TV now, though we only blew them when it was appropriate to cheer. Since I moved from there in the summer of '67, they at least were there in the fall of '66. Urbanaokie (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I owned one of these in the early 1970's in the USA. I am pretty sure I got it at a high school football game. It was virtually identical to the red one in the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.17.190 (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vuvuzela

The World Cup is here! And the world has been (noisily) introduced to the Vuvuzela. My question is: Is there a collective noun for VUVUZELAS? Or can we "create" one? DJ3007 (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place. Wikipedia is not a forum and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day... Zaian (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations there on a splendidly po-faced response to what was almost certainly a light-hearted comment. Jesus. 90.217.137.126 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if we didn't get the joke, but you would not believe some of the things people suggest here in all seriousness. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but "splendidly po-faced" is frankly unfair. The folk asked a question, I gaves the answer. Zaian (talk)
It's called "a po-face of vuvuzelas", on wiki at least.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "a murmuring of innumerable vuvuzelas" --Hugh7 (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Let's remember that the talk pages are NOT forums! (sorry to rain on your parade) Thanks Dockofusa (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

word choice

"football" should be "soccer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.50.177 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. "Football" is entirely fine in this context. There's no need to adapt the vocabulary of this article to this one usage. DBaK (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should actually be "association football"
No it shouldn't. "Football" is entirely fine in this context. There's no need to adapt the vocabulary of this article to this one usage. Or do you think that every American-based football article should specify that is is about American football, and so on. Context is useful here. DBaK (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually maybe you are right, for the first appearance: it does indeed appear that many/most American football articles do specify at or near the start which flavour (or indeed flavor) they mean. Sorry. I will change it and see if anyone objects. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: and indeed that's just what the 2010 FIFA World Cup article does. One AF at the start and F thereafter. DBaK (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does "hooligans" really fit this context? It seems that the term almost conveys that only certain people would use the vuvuzela as a weapon which doesn't seem to be realistic. If we broaden this term from "hooligans" to "people", then I think it would focus more on the fact that it might be used on a weapon rather than focusing on the people who are using it. 72.218.36.251 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Serious Mum had a three-part song on their 2001 album De RigueurMortis called "Fielding At Long-on" - originally known as 'Who The Fuck Blow That Plastic Trumpet?' Someone else can decide whether the sports fan's plastic trumpet being immortalised in song rates a mention ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest to add this below information under the section on popular culture with a link to the YouTube video. Devenirchaud (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]


musical use

The vuvuzela can not only toot a single very loud note. Like any other natural trumpet it can be played musically. E.g. there is the Vuvuzela Orchestra and the Rainbow Vuvuzela project (both can be also found on YouTube). Please add this to the article.

When blown at moderate intensity, the volume 50cm away is only about 80dBA (I measured mine), so it will be only deafening loud when blown that loud intentionally, which makes it also well suited for musical practising. Like a digeridoo it can make plenty of different timbres by mixing human voice into the trumpet tone.

An easy method how to play musically:

Hum with your voice the notes you want to play and close your lips to make them vibrate by your voice. Press the mouthpiece gently against the lips until you hear the notes coming out of the vuvuzela. Blow during this to make the notes sound louder. Your voice tone will help to make the air in the instrument oscillate at the intended pitch. (Make a slow siren tone with your voice and listen how different pitches behave.) You will notice that some notes sound clearer than others those have a beat frequency in them; although you can vary this a bit by lip tension and mouthpiece squeeze, you can not make all notes of a chromatic scale sound equally clear. You may notice that the louder you blow, the less notes sound clear. Don't worry - this is the normal behaviour of a natural trumpet or lur (which the vuvuzela essentially is) and the reason why modern trumpets have keys and trombones have a slide. This play method works well for low and medium pitched notes. High notes still need a different technique with blowing through strong lip squeeze, which pitch is hard to control and needs (like with trumpets) a lot of training to sound more melodical than an elephant.

(AerialTheShamen) 89.50.58.21 (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is multiphonics not everyday brass technique, does not sound musical in inexpert hands, and is hardly mainstream. To all intents and purposes the allegation that it only plays one note, or two or three at best, is true. Introducing multiphonics into a discussion of playing this toy plastic trumpet is a bit like pointing out that a VW Beetle can fly as long as you install wings and a rocket engine! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I wish we could get longer ones, preferably *much* longer, as it would be more of a laugh musically. On the other hand, I suppose one could start making holes in it so it could be played like a cornetto, but it would be hard to get right and I don't want to wreck my precious (and very expensive!) vuvuzela! :) DBaK (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, I do agree that an extreme type of using a Vuvuzela need not to be described as a mainstream playing method here (by a section showing “how to play it musically”); for those who are that much interested, rest of the web is full of opportunities for self-learning.
However, I think we should show that Vuvuzela doesn’t have to be a single-note instrument and can be played differently (otherwise this would be ignoring the updated knowledge). Therefore, I suggested to add the below text at least under the external links section.
p.s. Dear DBaK, in “inexpert hands” a VW Beetle can crash into a wall too... :) But this didn't prevent us to put a link in the VW Beetle article to show how the National Lampoon magazine depicted Ted Kennedy flying to the sea with a Beetle (the Chappaquiddick incident, without wings and a rocket engine, and even without a Beetle herself), right? Rainbow Vuvuzela ensemble project is a way of playing it, and should not be ignored. Kind regards, devenirchaud Devenirchaud (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest adding this below sentence with one of the links, it shows how Vuvuzela can be played alternatively. (The first one is purely about the technique, second is about the project; the choice is yours.) devenirchaud Devenirchaud (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • See various vuvuzela playing styles, by Dr. Bruce Copley and the Rainbow Vuvuzela ensemble project.

[2] OR [3]


Would someone please add this link to an article/photo of the giant vuvuzela mentioned in the article. Thank you.

http://af.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idAFJOE65H0MC20100618 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.133.145 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks very much, good call. DBaK (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

length

Despite other sizes exist, the average vuvuzela is not "about 1 meter long" but only 60 to 65cm (check the vendor websites), much like a trumpet.

Yes, up to a point. The plastic one that seems so common is about 60-65 cm and this seems to be a standard. It's misleading, however, to talk about its length compared to a trumpet, which is S-folded, so that the overall outside length of the trumpet is meaningless here. An unfolded B flat trumpet would be more than twice the length of the small vuvuzela, at somewhere around 135-140cm. I wish that longer vuvuzelas could be obtained easily in the UK as it would be somewhat more musical. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly it is clear that other lengths are made: See for example this: [4] but sadly we don't seem to be seeing (or hearing) much of these - certainly not in the UK anyway, and by the look of the telly not in SA either. DBaK (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the lead slightly to incorporate the problematical fact that the 1m horn doesn't play the note we hear so much - it's the very common 60-65cm size that makes that B flat. A 1m horn would be a fair bit lower. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trademark quarrel

Mention this: several companies attempt to claim a trademark on the term "vuvuzela" despite it is a generic local language term for the instrument and thus unpatentable.

Bought mine in 1967

As a student at the Univ of So. California I bought one sold at a football game. It was blue, so it must have been sold to support UCLA. Origin for sports applications at least in the 1960's.

Ccronan (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)CcronanCcronan (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. They passed red plastic versions out in 1984 at hockey games where I went to school. The article reads like the plastic ones didn't come into being until much later. Not true. 108.7.9.189 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At Yankee Stadium in New York in 1967 I got a plastic one as a souvenir from a vendor which is exactly like the red one pictured in the article, down to the molded grip in the center, the only difference being stripes molded into the flared bell end, like the old Yankees "bat and Uncle Sam top hat" motif. Rogwherm (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)rogwherm[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup controversy

http://www.vuvuzelapetition.org has called a petition to ban the vuvuzela from the 2010 FIFA World Cup. quote: "The noisy vuvuzela horns that South African fans promise to bring to this summer's World Cup games were widely assailed during last summer's Confederations Cup by coaches, players and TV broadcasters and viewers. Yet FIFA refused to ban them while calling them a South African soccer tradition.

Let us let the vuvuzela go and get that singing spirit back. Pro passion, emotions, singings, chants and world cup feeling! Against Vuvuzela! Sign the petition now!"

Maybe this should be added since fans all over the world are complaining about the noisy sound and the lack of atmosphere (chants, singing, "oohs" and "aaahs"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metzgerr (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could find a few more sources on it. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vuvuzela is not just a South African tradition, but an African tradition. Every single game on the continent is dominated by these horns. If you want a World Cup in Africa this is what you get. Sepp Blatter is even quoted as saying as much: http://www.1000goals.com/sepp-blatter-vuvuzelas-will-not-be-banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.39.219 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but no one outside of Africa and FIFA wanted an African world cup. Heck this was World Cup that was dedicated to African only bids. TPershiganv50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Edit request from Musnyanita, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I would like to place this group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=127115050656408

Musnyanita (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Facebook group? Adds nothing. SpigotMap 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Vuvuzela as indicative of South African football culture

According to this article by a south african football fan and analyst, the current use of the vuvuzela during world cup 2010 matches is not consistent with the south african tradition. He asserts that the horn is used to show disgust at your squad in the final moments of a game they are losing or to intimidate the opposing team during a hard press offensive onslaught. Not as a general background noise. If the claim is to being asserted in this article that is because of a preservation of culture that they have not been banned, it is worth mentioning that some feel FIFA's understanding of the cultural use of the horn may be warped/shallow. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/columns/story?id=796528&cc=5901&ver=us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.90.27 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an article with a similar sentiment http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/columns/story?id=796519&cc=5901&ver=us 68.165.90.27 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football rattle

The nearest British football has ever come to this pandemonium? and thas was in the 1920s?? But the nearest wiki has is Ratchet (instrument). Oi vay! what's to be done, already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.140.27 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I removed a WP:DRIVEBY NPOV tagging because I feel very strongly that people need to do what the policy clearly states, which is very much not to driveby-tag. Nevertheless, the tag for NPOV may have had some justice to it as the article does seem very imbalanced in favour of negative views of the vuvuzela. Can this be fixed? Is it a real bias or just a reflection of what is out there, or what?? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inevitable that the article will be dominated by the overwhelmingly negative media attention that has been put on the subject in the last few days. That said, we should still be careful to write as neutrally as possible -- write about the controversy but don't endorse it, etc. The recent edit that took out all of those ridiculous Internet petitions was a good start, for example. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Obviously it is difficult at the moment while feelings are running high and there is so much press. It's at times like this that I like to remind myself that it's nice that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a news service, because it gets (for me) a bit rubbish when we push too far that way. In a few weeks this will all have calmed down a bit and lost its urgent focus. For the moment, I still think there's a bit of a balance problem - the controversy pretty much defines the article, there's less about what it is and more about its effect than I'd think balanced, and the lead goes into much detail that could perhaps be lower down. You know, there's a lot going on in there that reads a bit like we're trying to get everything into one paragraph - for example the SIX different descriptions and figures of speech for the sound are fun, but might be more appropriate further down than crammed into the lead. However, like I say it will all blow (aha) over and can be looked at calmly in late July when it will present a somewhat different aspect. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to compliment everyone. Given the nature of the subject matter, this is actually quite a decent Wikipedia page.66.92.37.74 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't speak for anyone except me and I have only played a very small part, but, off my own bat, thank you for noticing. It has been an interesting time! :) Toot toot!! DBaK (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the article isn't particularly NPOV given the controversy and the (deserved ;-) negative media attention. I'm in favor of removing the NPOV tag. smurfix (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If people conclude that the article is neutral, the tags can be removed. However, I'll place the clean-up/rewrite tag to those sections. The article isn't well structured and written yet. Davtra (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin or Controversy?

As part of the Origin there is a quote from Jon Qwelane saying he no longer watches soccer because of the vuvuzela. How does this fall under Origin? Shouldn't it be under controversy? 41.162.4.3 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree and have moved that paragraph to the 2010 World Cup section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this different from horns at Olympics?

Having watched various Olympics over the years (winter and summer), there seem to always have been people blowing horns at events where competitors race each other. Is this the same horn? If not, in what way do they differ? 70.50.63.63 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely preposterous entry...

I do understand that emotions flourish during the World Cup, but claiming that the wheel was invented by the hosting country is a long shot. The wheel was invented by prehistoric Neolithic men, most likely to transport stuff, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel --Bowzee (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information!!!

In the article it says a new Vuvuzela was anounced with a decreased (20 db) sound level on 14th of June. This kind of Vuvuzela is already being produced in Germany for a while, so it is not true it's a new Vuvuzela! —Preceding unsigned comment added by217.24.58.160 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC) http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2009-10/15206473-anpfiff-fuer-die-vuvuzela-r-made-in-germany-im-deutschen-handel-fantroete-fuer-die-schwarz-rot-goldenen-fans-besteht-aus-drei-teilen-ist-sicher-007.htm[reply]

Poor Grammar

The use of 'which' in the first section should be changed to 'that.'

Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.47.175 (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2010

I'm not sure which it should. DBaK (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The which harkens to the lowered dB mouthpiece itself, so it's very ok.
  • Vuvuzelas that are made of plastic are cheaper.
  • The football fan bought a vuvuzela made of plastic, which was cheaper.
  • The company makes vuvuzelas made from plastic, which are cheaper.
...and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But bear in mind that in BrE the "that/which" distinction does not get observed much and no-one much minds, so the comment is a bit WP:ENGVAR-ignorant. I must add that I was deeply, deeply upset by the gratuitous capital letter above on Grammar, but I am trying to cope with it. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all bad

The intro covers "controversial" by expanding on all the negatives and criticisms. It should also cover the positives - some people must like them, or they wouldn't be so popular. It should cover both the positives and negatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.251.89 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair point. DBaK (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE REVERT. Looks like somebody messed with it and now it just covers positives.
I added a neutrality tag to the top of the page recently, but the article is getting a lot of edits and somewhere along the line it looks like it was removed. This article is still in serious need of editing for neutrality, however. There is a list of several negative comparisons made in the media, but as suggested, there must also be positive aspects or they wouldn't be so popular. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. But in a couple of weeks it will calm down a bit and the article can get more balanced without being edited every 15 seconds by strongly-opinionated drop-in editors or whatever. We will look back on these days and laugh. Toot toot! DBaK (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consolidation of controversy

Every section seems to have something about the controversy. Could that all be collected together in the section of that name?--Hugh7 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been but the version up there right now is a mess. The controversy bit's been over-consolidated into the wrong place. Please see below for a plea for someone to make sense of it. DBaK (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lips or reed?

There is a reference to an early one being made from a car horn. They have a reed. Does the vuvuzela have a reed? That would explain how they all play the same note and not harmonics, and also how everyone who blows it seems to be able to get a good note, when as most people know, first attempts on a trumpet or bugle are usually a failure.--Hugh7 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lips. This is dealt with in the text where it explains that it's a brass instrument technique. It is very easy to get a note out of a vuvuzela compared with a trumpet; conversely, it is quite difficult for an unskilled player to get anything much more than the first harmonic, hence the general sameness of the note you hear. Big short floppy wide-bored horn, huge mouthpiece, it just works. Trumpet: tighter, smaller pipe and mouthpiece, precision job, harder to lock in. At the stadiums, some will be getting the (near-) octave 2nd harmonic (or more!) but it'll probably get drowned out and blended into the lower one as they will be a smallish minority. The shape of the horn makes it just buzz - and pretty effortlessly - with its (rather high) fundamental but basically the higher you want to be able to go up the harmonic series the longer you need the horn to be, and the more appropriately-shaped the pipe, and the nicer the mouthpiece! If you look elsewhere on this Talk page under "recording" you can hear me nearly killing myself going for the 4th harmonic! It's nasty. And it hurt.Cheers,DBaK (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bijou Notette: I unpacked a couple more vuvuzelas the other day and they have better, and less painful, mouthpieces than the first one I tried. If this dramatically effects the performance I might redo the recordings! :)DBaK (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS:

Nasty. :) DBaK (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EQ vuvu removing

I don't know whether this is what the german engineer was talking about. http://lifehacker.com/5564085/how-to-silence-vuvuzela-horns-with-an-eq-filter Ms.henrick (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy edit - a bit of a disaster

An earlier edit, which also did quite a good job in sorting out much of the text, has rather wrecked the controversy section. Much of what now appears in the text before the Controversy header is actually about the controversy and the controversy section now looks, frankly, a bit stupid, having been reduced to just a couple of lines. I am sure this big edit was made in good faith but it now quite desperately needs sorting out by a calm and good editor. I don't think I'm the man for the job right now - any takers? DBaK (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How-to bit moved out of lead, should it be here at all?

I (just moments ago) moved a how-to quoting 235Hz and whatever out of the lead. I thought it was far too specific and that it was weird and duplicatory(?) to give the frequencies, unexplained, when we say it's a Bb - there is no point in repeating this in another form. Few enough people know musical notation but to quote frequencies is probably of use to even fewer. to be honest, I am not sure this should be in at all - it just quotes a rather bloggy to-do site and there are probably millions of them out there, and if we were to lose that then the frequencies - if they are accurate - don't add much My inclination would be simply to take it out but I'd like to know what other editors think. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 193.106.165.65, 18 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the "Controversy" section, please remove the last line which reads, "Broadcasters have considered filtering the sound out of their broadcasts.[57]" This is misplaced and quite clearly stated other places in the article.

193.106.165.65 (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done You're quite right. I rescued the ref from the orphan sentence in case it might be useful. toot toot! DBaK (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kuduzela

A request for circumstantial positivity

My excuses for the repetition (I have previously placed them in line with past threads). Here is couple of suggestions which may contribute to the 'positive' covering of the Vuvuzela article, however only circumstantially. Kind regards, Devenirchaud (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes you did indeed post this before and were rudely ignored. Sorry, that seems to happen sometimes: if it makes you feel better please search this page for my name and then check how many replies I get! :) I'm getting into a slight state of despair about this article at present so I am probably not the best person to comment here, lest I end up just saying "Burn and Salt"!!! But I feel guilty that you have been trying to help and no-one's even said boo (let alone "toot"!) so I will have a try. I only looked, so far, at the Bruce Copley things you sent so apologies for that, and if the other stuff is very different then I am doing it all an injustice, but my work-life-wiki balance can't take it! I can see what you are trying to do but I think it falls back to a fundamental flaw which I suppose is maybe notability, though I am not very good at the use of Wikipedia Terms of Art so it might be something else. You gave me a very good reply about flying cars, but that's still the issue. For more or less any wp topic I suspect we could find examples of novel uses, but these would not necessarily be worthy of inclusion. Most of Copley's stuff - and it is a very nice and clever extract, and I enjoyed it - is about playing the vuvuzela in a manner unlike a vuvuzela. It's a brass instrument but only one of his techniques is brass instrument technique - for the rest, almost any object would do as long as it offered an aperture or a tube. It's a novelty thing, but has nothing to do with the vuvuzela. You could, for example, find something on how to play a kettle, and put that in the kettle article, and then find something about cardboard rolls from inside posters, and put that in the article about posters. It reminds me a bit of a year or two back when more than a few articles were invaded for a while by some kind of lunatic spankophile, who insisted that since a hairbrush or a ruler could be used for the purpose it had to be faithfully recorded in every case. Since most objects which don't actually have a nail through them could presumably also be used for this purpose (no, I have not tried), you can see that this was not an approach that was sustainable. I assume he's now gone off and founded Spankopedia and is happy there, but meanwhile over here on wp I still feel it's a real problem to pursue trivial uses too much lest you end up having to mention every trivial use in every article. Category: things that can be made into a useful ashtray. Category: things that make a musical noise if you push them off a 100ft cliff into a pile of timpani. And so on. It's true that these things are out there, but I do not feel it is necessarily true that we have to report them.
Sorry, you've waited all this time for a reply and it's all just negativity and what's worse is I still feel guilty about you in maybe 2-3 different ways, 4 if I put my mind to it! I will try to look at the other sources you gave and that will take one off the list. For now, I still don't yet see anything which I feel needs to be in the article, even though I ought to be grateful for anything which looks like it helps balance it. I suppose that's my problem - the negativity is about the vuvuzela at and near matches, and we can't balance it with positive things about how lovely it is if you whistle or sing down one, because (effectively) no-one will do so, despite Copley's lovely video. The nice thing about wp though it that someone else may sort it out, or you might, or I might think about it some more, or all of the above, and more. Certainly, if the article were to be restructured out of its current horrid mess then there might be room for this more fringe, art-music stuff. Thanks again for your input. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vuvuzela Orchestra. [5]
  • See various vuvuzela playing styles, by Dr. Bruce Copley and the Rainbow Vuvuzela ensemble project. [6] & [7]

This is the most slanted-sounding Wikipedia article I have ever read

The only people quoted as supporting the use of the vuvuzela are in the Controversy section, way at the end of the article. The intro lists a lot of accusations people have thrown at it (hearing loss, spread of disease, etc.), which is not what I expect from a Wikipedia article intro. Would it not be enough to say that the vuvuzela has sparked lots of controversy and put the quotes and claims in the article proper?

To me, the way it's organized (lots of negative stuff at the very beginning, the positive buried at the end) makes the whole thing read very slanted to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyroberson (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're sort-of right. This issue is already mentioned, several times, above. (I had said "and adding more new topics complaining about it all again with slightly different wording doesn't exactly help" but that's a bit snotty and maybe, on reflection, it does! So instead I will say thanks for raising it again). The problem is that although plenty of people recognize the issue, no-one seems to be willing to tackle it. There's not actually that much wrong with the content. The negative claims are all/mostly supported by references and it is hardly surprising that they are in the majority since this seems quite a good reflection of coverage. As said several times before in this talk page, it'll calm down eventually but it's almost bound to be a bit unbalanced during this somewhat hysterical period. I do not agree entirely with what you say about the order though I think you're right about the lead, just not the rest. The complaints come first since they make all the noise, then the attempts to counter them come afterwards, as they do in real life. It's very hard to see what's wrong with this. It would be weird to start with the defence of the instrument then explain what it was defending against. Where you are absolutely right is that the structure is screwed at the moment, especially in the matter of headers. Someone trying to improve the article did a big edit a while back and messed up, seeming to think that only positives should be put in under "controversy" and leaving all the negatives in what looks like the main body, though it isn't, really. Unfortunately it's not as simple as just moving the controversy header though it is tempting - there's two much of a mix of (at least) two lines of thought, one being historical (other tournaments vs the present one) and one being the controversy - vuvuzelas are good vs bad. I'd also quite like to just revert the whole thing to before the stupid edit, but we'd lose tons of work done since then so that comes over a bit nuclear ...
I do think this article is in a real mess at the moment, or at least a bit of a mess. We've got all these different lines which are mixed. We've got the origin problem. We've got a lot of people, me included, who think/hope they know a bit but don't really have access to authoritative sources, which leads to a horrible anecdotal approach with people reaching backwards in time - yeah, I remember one being played at Middlesbrough in 1921, etc. Everyone knows about vuvuzelas but no-one knows about vuvuzelas. And finally, because it is a hot topic, we've got the world and his wife plus Colin the dog popping in for a go, which is nice in a way but can be dispiriting to editors who are used to working in calmer waters. Well, alright, to me then. My problem is that I can see lots of ways that this article is wrong but I am not sure I am the right person to sort them out. Actually I am sure I am not. As a trumpet player, and one with a special interest in this kind of (non-art-music) topic, I'm pretty pro-vuvuzela biased, and I am having trouble containing my impatience with the negativity and the fact that some people just want it to be www.ihatevuvuzelas.com.
What occurs to me is that there's some sort of guild of copy editors or some such title (they have a round table I hope, or at least enamel badges) and I don't know if they have someone who would help. Maybe I will ask. Cheers, and sorry for the long ramble, DBaK (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have put the {{Copyedit}} tag on here and asked for help on the Guild's page. To be honest I am not sure that copy editing per se is what I am asking for, but I hope it is, and the expanded tag talks of "cohesion" which is definitely an issue here. Further, I note that they have a backlog of 7000+ articles, which is slightly worrying. Nevertheless maybe someone will show up to give a hand. Otherwise it's just us lot! :( Toot toot! DBaK (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On a lighter note, sorry, I meant to add, Casey, that if it is true that "This is the most slanted-sounding Wikipedia article I have ever read" then I fear you haven't read enough Wikipedia articles. This one certainly has its problems but isn't even breaking sweat in getting its slant on, compared with plenty of others! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What unique about this one-sided faux "Controversy" section is that it contains lengthy rebuttals defending the numerous and constant blowing of vuvuzelas against arguments opposing their use which don't appear in this section. The rebuttals ought to be moved to the sections which discuss the alleged problems. This isolated section could only be titled "Response to Criticism". patsw (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit Rewrite Request

I'll be copy-editing (or rewriting) this article. Anyone is free to help as well . I looked at the article's history. It appears the article was structured and put together quickly. I won't do much today as I'll be heading off to bed. I'll try to get the first introductory paragraph in a good state. Davtra (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has so far been viewed +80,000 per day since 15 June 2010. Is this when things started to get messy? Anyways, as per Wikipedia's style guide, apply italics to vuvuzela. It's a foreign word and uncommon in everyday English, yes? Davtra (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davtra and thank you very much for coming to help. As you know from my edit help request, I felt very strongly that we could do with some calm, uninvolved, outside help. To answer your points, as far as I am able (and again I'd be delighted to see others pitch in here):
  • Certainly the article in its present form has developed pretty fast, yes, in response to current events. As we're not a news site, I think this is almost always a bad way to develop an encyclopaedia.
  • I could not swear to the exact date but, yes, the rapid expansion and ensuing mess is pretty much contemporaneous with the World Cup! There was a bit of a flurry of activity last year when the Confederations Cup was on and it was discussed a fair bit. Since the World Cup, though, it has really become a major topic in the (British, at least) media and obviously this will reflect here ... to put it mildly.
    • Query: when you say "This article has so far been viewed +80,000 per day since 15 June 2010," where is that information? Sounds interesting, if ordinary people like me can access it!
  • The question of italics is a very interesting one: thank you for raising it. Actually, I think the word may already have jumped past foreignness to the point - in the UK at least - where it is already "common in everyday English" per MoS. If you are not here you might not see/hear this but I honestly, seriously don't think you could find an English speaker in the UK who does not use the word comfortably and know exactly what it means. More "quiche" than "weltanschauung", if you see what I mean. It will undoubtedly be in the next edition of all major BrE dictionaries and I very much doubt that it will be treated there as a foreign word - it's pretty much just slid (or honked) Its way into the language. I don't know the situation wrt South African English but I'd bet it's even further assimilated into mainstream English there. So, to stop waffling and to answer your question: no! :)
    • Note: When I claim that it's become common English usage, I am not sure how one could document or demonstrate this, without waiting for dictionaries to release new word-lists in a year or whatever. Hmmmm.
    • I think, for now, it is safe to apply italics on the word. Davtra (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope, Davtra, that you will find a moment or two to read the rest of this Talk page where many editors' concerns about the structure are aired. Yes, I have an interest here, but so do lots of others. It's a mess of different strands, and in particular the Controversy bit has somehow become only the positive stuff, whereas the negative dominates the main body, and, in bizarre detail, the lead. This older version, though possessed of many other faults, certainly uses the Controversy material, and positions its header, in a way that makes a bit more sense. As I said before, it's not, in this article, that the material is necessarily bad, just that it's badly used at present. But I really am waffling badly now and should stop. Thanks and best wishes, toot toot, DBaK (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spent two hours looking at the article, and I can't get pass the lead (introduction) section. This article is a complete mess. I'm not going to read the article from start to finish. I am going to check the references and see if they meet Wikipedia's criteria. If they do not, the reference and its associate contents will be removed without me reading the content. I believe this is the first step to cleaning this article. Davtra (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references were not that bad. I removed a couple of stores and a personal blog. Davtra (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?

Can someone please tell me the purpose of using vuvuzelas? This needs to be added in lead section. After that, the "controversy" paragraph will flow nicely. Davtra (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research, I found its purpose in academic journals (these are reliable). Davtra (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

I rewrote the lead section, added new content and references. You may compare the current version with the old version. It will require a copy-edit. Davtra (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Body

The aim and purpose for each section needs to be defined. I'm currently thinking about the "Origin" section. I can see that perhaps the "Use at international tournaments" section and "Controversy" section may be merged. These sections are written like a news report as they contain too many direct quotes. These need to be summarised. I bet you they can be summarised in five or less paragraphs Davtra (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An update, I've rewritten and cleaned up most of the article. I've got this "Controversy" section to go through. I don't know what this section goes on about.  Davtra  (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bubuzella

There needs to be a redirect thingy so that a search for 'bubuzella' directs here. I could not find the page for a long time because I thought it started with a 'b' not a 'v' and it certainly sounds like a 'b' not a 'v'. Someone who knows how this sort of things gets done should please do it. If you do a google search the bubuzella turns up. Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.132.157 (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A quick google search shows that this is a plausible spelling mistake so I've just set up a redirect. I've done this for both bubuzella and bubuzela. I'm not sure if these terms are spelling mistakes or alternative names, but they both seem to be in wide use according to a google search. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually someone beat me to bubuzella, but I've modified it to eliminate a double redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite! :) DBaK (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you very much. You people are good! 71.17.132.157 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of Vuvuzela is much older than you nthink

The Hindus are blowing conch shells in their religious rituals for more than four thousand years. The technique is the same as a modern Vuvuzela. Hence the man claims to INVENT it in 1965 is a fraud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.171.241 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this helps us. The article makes it clear that the guy "claims" to have invented it, but does not state that he did so, and it already makes it clear that there are lots of known sightings of it before its (re-)emergence in SA. Furthermore, you have to read not more than twenty words into the whole article before it tells you it is a "blowing horn", and if you follow that link you get educated even more! :) Given these facts, I'm not sure what you would like the article to do about this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreaded Vuvuzela Claims its First Victim: Woman Busts Windpipe by Blowing Too Hard

By Mail Foreign Service

South African football fan Yvonne Mayer who ruptured her throat blasting her vuvuzela Insurance saleswoman Yvonne Mayer, 29, was unable to speak or eat for two days after ripping her windpipe when she blew the three foot horn during a street party in Cape Town.The next day shocked doctors diagnosed her with a ruptured throat and ordered her to rest it completely to allow it to heal.The bizarre injury is the first known vuvuzela-related accident since the World Cup kicked off last week.

Yvonne, from Cape Town, said: 'I had never blown a vuvuzela beforebut was given one at work and was going to watch the first South Africamatch so thought I'd take it along.'I was walking towards theFan Park in Cape Town and blowing it as hard as I could when suddenly my throat started to hurt. 'At first I thought I'd gone down with a bug but the next day it was worse.'When I went to the doctor he took a look and then laughed. 'He said I'd ruptured my throat by blowing too hard, and that perhaps I had been doing it all wrong. 'After that I was told to go home and relax the whole area. 'It meant I wasn't allowed to eat or speak at all for almost two days.'I was starving by the time I could finally eat some soup and yogurt on Monday.'

Yvonne was given a check-up after the incident at the Medi-Cross Hospital in Cape Town's Table Bay suburb. Specialists said an initial tear in her throat caused by air pressure had grown into a wound due to her constant blowing. Yvonne added: 'They said it would heal by itself given time but were worried that it could get infected.

'That's why they told me not to eat or speak while it was healing.' A medical report on the injury confirmed Yvonne had ruptured her throat. It said: 'Extensive surgical emphysema is present in the retrophayngal prevertrebal space.' This extends from the base of the skull to the supraclavicular regions on both sides and is probably due to a traumatic rupture of the pharynx.'

Dr Scott Barker, who treated Yvonne, said: 'She simply overdid it. We had to keep a check on her for potential infection after the initial tear caused damage to soft tissue.

England fan Caylin Groenewald blows her vuvuzela with Table Mountain in the backgound 'I checked with our ear nose and throat specialist who did not seem to be worried about any long-term damage. It was the first time we'd seen anything like this.'I would urge other fans not to go over the top while blowing, and just follow what your body tells you. If it hurts, stop.'The worst health risk with the vuvuzela is still the high volume your ears are subjected to. The best health advice I can give for England fans is to take a pair of earplugs to the game.'

Today Yvonne warned other football fans to take care when blasting their plastic trumpets.She said: 'This happened to me on my first time. 'I thought I was blowing it right but perhaps I was trying too hard.'They're fantastic fun and really bring people together during the soccer, but my experience has proven they can be dangerous if underestimated.'I don't think I'd ever blow one again, because it wasn't much fun.

'Apparently they sell smaller ones these days too so perhaps I'll pick one of those up instead for the rest of the tournament.' Her injury came as it was revealed a German fan had been diagnosed with severe tinnitus after watching his team's 4-0 over Australia. Sven Wipperfurth, 27, of Rommerskirchen, Germany, said: 'We were watching it on TV and then suddenly someone let rip with an ear splitting blast right next to me.

'It was so loud that I passed out. When I came round I couldn't hear properly in one ear - it was just a permanent ringing.' Now fans in Germany have been given the option by BskyB bosses to select a special filter to remove the blaring drone of vuvuzelas from their World Cup coverage.

A test by local media described the results as 'impressive'. And internet antivuvuzelafilter.com has designed an independent filter for just 3 GBP which they claim can remove the sound of the horns from all commentary.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.176.180 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you requesting a an edit? If so, please use the {{editsemiprotected}} template and phrase your query as "please change X to Y". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty glaringly obvious that this person isn't requesting an edit. It is this exact same haughty tone and false-unassumingness that makes people hate wikipedia editors. This person just doesn't seem to realize that this is not a personal form, so why not just say that. 173.166.45.177 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the title of the news article that was pasted, silly person. I suggest you be less quick to assume bad faith. Jtrainor (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vuvuzela didn't cause the tear in her throat. She caused the injury herself. This wouldn't fit into the article.  Davtra  (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

Does anyone have a photo of the mouthpiece portion of a vuvuzela that they could upload? — RockMFR 04:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vuvuzela mouthpiece
Hi, I've taken a few pictures for you. Same instrument, a few different angles, with and without a ruler. Please see:

These are all on Commons but a standard syntax of the form [[Image:Vuvuzela mouthpiece 1 with ruler.jpg|thumb|300px|Vuvuzela mouthpiece]] would get it into the article.

Hope this helps. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great contribution! Thank you for taking the photographs and sharing them. Davtra (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly dedicated to this article, DBaK. I wonder how one of these images might be appropriately incorporated into the article, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think one will be enough. There are so many choices . Davtra (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Davtra: My pleasure, thanks. Less stressful than text! :) @GW: Dunno, I just wanted to meet the user's request, since I could. I'm agnostic on their use! :) I'm trying to get less dedicated to this article, as it happens ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@DBaK Yes, it certainly is. If the image was to be added in article, I think the one with the ruler is best. I don't have a vuvuzela, so I'm not familiar with its size. Just by looking at the image, it conveys a lot of information. Plus it's a close up photograph of a real vuvuzela. Davtra (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image shown on this thread (the first image with ruler) is probably the most appropriate one. It's just a matter of where to place it so that it benefits the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main argument against

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs292.snc3/28260_403475273213_600513213_4528545_2186401_n.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looris (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning? Davtra (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess, looks like the main argument against is that they never, ever stop. --98.232.209.203 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to avoid the sound

I've marked this section as being somewhat advertisement-like since it lists some software which can be used to perform this function, where I feel it'd be more appropriate to instead discuss how it is done. There's nothing inherently wrong with mentioning software which can do it, but it'd be more appropriate if it was justified as to why these pieces of software are significant (which one first developed the technique(s), which one has been reviews as being most effective, etc.?) Comments welcome. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all free software, serving a simple task, available to anyone with no costs. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being free software doesn't necessarily mean that this isn't advertising, and without an explanation of why each piece of software is significant and relevant, I don't think this section is appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wunsch regarding the tone. Further, I believe the "Technical measures" section covers the same material but in a more encyclopaedic fashion (describing the approaches taken rather than listing software). My suggestion is to remove the "Attempts to avoid the sound" section; however, I wrote half of the "Technical measures" section so I think another editor should make the judgment.--mcld (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't noticed this section. You're right, it covers much the same information but with a focus on the means of filtering the sound rather than which companies have produced software to do it. I'll be bold and remove the "attempts to avoid the sound" section now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Inventor"

According to an AP story June 18, the "inventor" of the vuvuzela was Neil Van Schalkwyk, a South African. Here's a link:

http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/vuvuzela-inventor-cashes-in-on-success-at-wcup--fbintl_ap-wcup-vuvuzela.html

Here's another, to a June 21 story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/soc_wcup_chinese_vuvuzelas;_ylt=As59izakBKAqKjNEWrfFC7ys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN1cGpiNmVuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjIxL3NvY193Y3VwX2NoaW5lc2VfdnV2dXplbGFzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDNgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA3RoZXZ1dnV6ZWxhdQ--

Whoever invented it should be taken out and vuvuzelaed to death. Sca (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Neil Van Schalkwyk says he invented it? A man named Freddie "Saddam" Maake claimed he invented the vuvuzela and Van Schalkwyk stole the idea from him. This is messy. I think it's worth putting this in the article.  Davtra  (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

I'm not sure why this article is protected, but someone should capitalize "World Cup" in the third to last paragraph. 68.82.179.158 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, like most semi-protected articles, this article has recently received a lot of vandalism from unregistered users, most likely as a result of the controversy during the world cup. If you need to request another edit to a semi-protected page, I'd recommend using the {{editsemiprotected}} template, as this will alert users who may be able to help review the change you are suggesting. Thanks for your contribution. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, you must mean "controversy during the World Cup"? or am I just being controversial? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a bit picky there Martin; it may be necessary for a formal article, but I can't be bothered to capitalise it in a comment ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, and I can't even be bothered replying to your comment about me being picky. As you can see. D'oh! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(B♭3) note?

is that a typo? What is the 3 for? Kingturtle (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's been there before I made the major edits. We need a musician.  Davtra  (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here. But if I was, I would have added Scientific pitch notation to the "3" just now, and mentioned it here. All it's telling you is it's the B flat below middle C. I think "B flat below middle C" is very roughly 1698.45% more meaningful to 78.32% of readers than the pitch notation, but I'm trying not to edit this article any more ... Byeee! :) DBaK (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. You can take a peek but no touching the article .  Davtra  (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "3" indicates which octave it is, it's a pretty common way of specifying the note, at least in the music analysis circles I move in. But maybe it's worth clarifying since it's at the head of the article, I'll add a bracket --mcld (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, mcld. It's great that you could clarify it for us.  Davtra  (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vuvuzelas causes cancer

Many people assert that vuvuzelas cause cancer. Especially in hot climates when people blow strongly into them. The cancerous agent comes from paint pigments in the plastic. So according to scientists they should be avoided at all times.Please warn everyone at the world cup in SA so this epidemic can be stopped.124.38.87.83 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which people assert this? Do they have any scientific evidence? According to which scientists? This sounds like a hoax to me; there are plenty of non-toxic plastics which would be safe for this type of instrument, so why would they use carcinogenic pigments? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Experience the Vuvuzela as YOU try to concentrate.

{{editsemiprotected}} My friend showed me this, thought it'd be interesting to add to the Wiki as a link or mention somewhere.

www.vuvuzela-time.co.uk "Browse the internet just like you're sat at the South Africa world cup with Vuvuzelas!" Kingofthekaiju (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please change your request to the format "please change X to Y" and try again. I don't see how this site has any relevance to the article, however; it seems like advertising to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South African English?

That South Africa flag seems quite appropriate up at the top of this talk page, but is this article really "written in South African English"? It looks very much like Britsh English to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this I took a look at the page explaining the differences: essentially, it seems South African English has a few dialectical colloquialisms added, but is otherwise primarily British english with some american terms. Unless any of these South African (or American) terms arise, it's likely to be indistinguishable from British English. If you spot something which you think isn't correct South African English, be bold and change it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at this in case you're not fluent in South African English ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm not fluent, so I had a look. Shouldn't football be changed to soccer throughout this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I'm not sure, the article about South African English doesn't seem completely clear about that, and for example it says "usually". It's probably not a good idea to change every instance of the word for the sake of "usually". I think this should be supported by finding some sources about the world cup written in South Africa, given that they're hosting it that shouldn't be too hard to find. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good idea. Like these maybe: [9], [10], [11] [12] [13]? But perhaps editors who actually live in South Africa and/or who are fluent in South African English should decide this? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think the sources you've provided here demonstrate that "soccer" is the norm in South Africa, so to keep it in line with that I'm going to change each instance of "football" to "soccer" now. This can be further discussed here if other editors have issues with that change. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's  Done now; I used a script I threw together but manually reviewed each change since most occurrences of "football" were actually in quotes, references, wikilinks, etc. where they shouldn't be changed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, apparently I killed the unicode. I'll try again in a sec. Another user fixed it already, never mind. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I thought the use of South African English would be most appropriate. I'm not familiar with South African English and I had to ask the Reference Desk about it. I'm about to submit a rewrite for the 2010 FIFA World Cup section. I wonder if there is a South African English dictionary online?  Davtra  (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, I found this: http://www.oxford.co.za/dictionaries/southafrican/. If only there was online access.  Davtra  (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World cup horns

This identical plastic horn was sold in the US when I was a kid, 40 years ago. What is its origin? Was it originally made in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.219.114 (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, its origin is unknown.  Davtra  (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube developers seem to think that vuvuzelas are disruptive. It's worth starting a popular culture heading to include this, I think. .Absolution. (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why don't we just send the boys at xkcd a written invitation? Josiah Stevenson 04:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahstevenson (talk • contribs)

A mention by name in the alt attribute is, at best, provably circumstantial. .Absolution. (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vuvuzela&oldid=369997169"