Talk:Harald Bode

Date for Multimonica

The figure caption for the Multimonica refers to 1940, indicating that this instrument has been developed then. The small white sign next to this instrument which is depicted in the picture refers to 1953 ("entwickelt 1953"), which seems more likely judging from the form of the instrument. The link #1 is broken, so the reference article is no longer readily available. I suggest to re-evaluate the date.
93.201.43.162 (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC) S. Thierfeldt, Germany

These difference is the release year and the manufacture year. Hohner Multimonica itself was first released in 1940, and Hohner Multimonica II on the photograph was manufactured in 1953 as written on white card. --Clusternote (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to update references based on reliable papers on eContact! 13.4

Currently this article heavily depend on 120years.net, however, its description seems slightly inconsistent and possibly inaccurate. In 2011, Canadian journal eContact! 13.4 was published to summarize the achievements of Harald Bode, and it contains many reprints of reliable papers by first persons. Therefore, this article needs to re-verificate based on these papers and to update references.

On the other hand, reference format war doesn't contribute in the true quality of contents at all. Please stop these useless war. --Clusternote (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

[Proposal] Separation of "References" and "Notes"

In the early stage of evolution of this article, slightly incorrect sources on 120years.net were extensively referenced due to lack of more reliable sources. As a result, Harald Bode#Notes section have been complicated and hard to verify. Also the several difficulty of verification (and readability of Notes section) are caused by the current mixture of reliable sources (references) and miscellany notes (footnotes).

In July 2011, Canadian journal "eContact! 3.14" was published with more reliable sources including reprint of historical papers and old articles, and now we can re-verify and improve the article based on these, as I already mentioned on the edit summary field since 13 September 2011‎.

On doing this work, I propose clear separation of "References" and "Footnotes" ("Notes"), for ease of later verification and readability of references. On my proposal,

• Slightly unreliable sources and miscellany notes including photographs etc. will be kept on Notes section
• Reliable, important sources will be moved to References section, and linked with Harvard style citation on Notes section

For example:

display	wikipedia source
Article body	== Article body ==
Sample of article text.	Sample of article text.<ref>{{harvnb|Harvard|2011|p=(optionally page number)}}</ref><ref>miscellany footnote without important references.</ref>
Notes	== Notes ==
	{{Reflist}}
References	== References ==
Title of special issue of journal, web sites, etc. (ex. eContact! 13.4, 120years.net, etc.)	* Title of special issue of journal, web sites, ''etc''. (ex. eContact! 13.4, 120years.net, etc.)
Harvard, citation (2011), Sample title, Sample publisher	:* {{citation     | last = Harvard | first = citation     | year = 2011     | title = Sample title     | publisher = Sample publisher    }}

On the above example, each items are linked as following

Article body		Notes		References
"[1]"	linked ⇒	"1. ^ Harvard 2011, p. ..."
		"Harvard 2011"	linked ⇒	"Harvard, citation (2011) ..."

best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Bravo. The referencing in this article has been a mess for a long time, and it is about time this was discussed properly. As I read the edit history, there were what amounted to unformatted references, mostly consisting of external links, up until September 2011, when an editor finally started using a consistent format (full references in footnotes), with [edit]. Shortly after, I began adding some sources, attempting to adhere to this format. Recently, I noticed that a variety of conflicting formats had begun creeping in, and tried to restore the originally established format, per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations. This was met with some resistance, however, which I found a little puzzling, since it came from the same editor who had established the format in the first place. While I am personally unhappy with the full-reference footnote format I have been trying to restore, I can also foresee problems with this proposal. First of all, since so-called Harvard referencing dispenses with footnotes in favour of parenthetical inline citations, I fail to see why footnotes and Harvard referencing are being proposed together here. They are mutually exclusive. Second, the citation templates currently embedded in this article (which I have been trying not to disturb while at the same time making them display—against their nature and intent—the established reference format) are plainly designed for use in the kind of alphabetical reference list used with Harvard referencing, and not in inline citations which, in that general system, should have only author last names, year of publication, and page number ("author-date" format). I find it difficult even to understand what is being proposed here instead, but it is certainly not Harvard referencing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

1. Surely, pure Harvard reference, such like a "(Harbard, 2011)" in the middle of article text, seems not so much used on Wikipedia, probably because it is place consuming. Instead, above mentioned style (with alphabetically sorted reference list) is sometimes seen on the several articles, for example on Electronic music, to avoid burying references on the sea of miscellany footnotes.
2. Although the {{citation}} template family have several problems (such as resulting output format and several lack of features), these template are widely accepted on most articles on Wikipedia, and are almost de fact standard of Wikipedia. Without these templates, we can't enough manage the quality of reliable sources on various articles.
3. Also I know that your format is sometimes claimed as standard by several peoples in the several fields, however, that format is not always supported on the papers in this field, for example, the papers referenced on this article itself. The legitimacy of your format may not be enough accepted on Wikipedia due to lack of practicality, such as the lack of support by the templates (Note: after the popularization of TeX and DTP in 1980s, consistency and format of citations are mainly kept by the various citation software). At least, on the {{citation}} templates, several customization for generating your format may be highly required to keep the quality of references. (i.e. adding template option such like a {{citation | format = technical |...}} to generate your format, etc.)

After my several experiences to clean up the reference lists and footnotes on the various articles in this field, currently I think above mentioned style is best for current state of this article. Possibly I failed to grasp the problems you pointed out. I'm glad if I could read your concrete proposal on the cleanup of references and footnotes. --Clusternote (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we are going to get on splendidly with this proposed change. I only hope that any other interested editors concur. Let me first present my objections to some points that you raise. First, the frequency of use of Harvard referencing on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for advocating either its use or its rejection. This is perfectly clear from Wikipedia:Citing_sources and from the cautionary note in the FAQ at the head of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. The same applies to your second point: frequent use (or misuse) of templates does not validate them. Third, I do not have a format, let alone do I claim anything for standards in this field or that. However, at this point a really important issue is raised: the "field" of this article, and the larger "field" to which you refer. Is it an article about musical instruments, electrical engineering, or what? Even assuming this can easily be determined, are there actually standards for references in this field, or do standards actually vary from one publication to another (this is an entirely rhetorical question, I think).

That said, I think we can easily move on to the question of changing the reference format here. If I understand you correctly, you find the present arrangement awkward, because it interposes a lot of junk at each and every inline reference. I could not possibly agree with you more. A full bibliographic reference at each footnote is intolerable, in my opinion. (Others no doubt will disagree.) Furthermore, the lack of an alphabetical list makes it difficult (for the au fait reader, at least) to assess at a glance whether or not the sources used are both complete and reliable. So far, I think, so good. All that remains, in fact, is whether the inline references should be parenthetical, or sequestered in footnotes. Using the available templates, the difference here really boils down to whether the reader should be asked to drill down from a parenthetical reference directly to the item in the alphabetical list, or first drill down to a footnote containing the author-date (or author-page, or short-title-page, etc.) reference, and then to drill down a second time to reach the item in the alphabetical list—and then reverse the process, of course, in order to resume reading the sentence in question. Personally, I cannot imagine that the creator of the Harvard-linking templates intended anything other than linking from parenthetical references in the text directly to the full citation in the alphabetical list. Nevertheless, I have seen many examples on Wikipedia where the long and tedious route has been implemented instead.

Finally, there is the issue of whether the available templates adequately address normal bibliographic formats. I'm sure you are perfectly aware that "Harvard referencing" is not a format, but just a general method of referencing. This leaves open the issue (a minor one, in my view, but one that might just as well be settled now) of which of the various formats are best for this article. Whether placed within parentheses embedded in the text, or shunted off to a footnote, do you recommend the author-date-page format favored by style sheets such as Chicago and Oxford, or the author-page format or short-title-page format used by APA and MLA, etc.). I do not have very strong opinions myself, though I am accustomed to the Chicago/Oxford method, and feel it has certain advantages over the others, which I would be happy to explain if you want me to do so. But please tell me your views.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A "collaboration" that wasn't

In the "Biography" section, the final sentence reads "Andrew Deutsch, James Fei, Aaron Miller, Robin Rimbaud (aka Scanner), Steina Vasulka and Stephen Vitiello have collaborated with Bode posthumously." That's just silly. It's impossible for an album that was released in 2005 (which included musicians who weren't even born until after Bode died in 1987) to have "collaborated" with him. The source given for this claim is to a Discogs listing for an album. That page describes the recording thus: "This CD set seeks to reestablish the sounds and ideas of pioneer electronic instrument designer Harald Bode into a contemporary sound art context." So even the source doesn't claim that it was a "collaboration". I propose that the sentence be reworded to something like "Bode's influence upon electronic music has persisted long after his death, with a number of 21st century musicians referencing or sampling his work." Bricology (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree and just changed that.77.180.160.117 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)