Talk:Triple harp

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

John Parry?

This article mentions John Parry (1776–1851). There is a John Parry Ddall, Welsh harper, but his dates are 1710-1792. Confusion? --Alvestrand 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strung side

My understanding is that Welsh harps were traditionally constructed with the strings on the right hand side of the harp from the harpists's viewpoint, so that they are closest to the harpist's face when the harp is played on the left shoulder (as was the usual Welsh practice, see cited reference in article). Continental harps and modern concert harps were and are constructed the other way around, with the strings on the left side of the harp from the harpists's viewpoint. Can anyone find a citable reference to confirm this? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by page mover) Simplexity22 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triple harp → Welsh triple harp – There are other triple harps besides the Welsh triple harp, e.g. the Italian "Arpa tripla", which is also mentioned in the article.Gnom (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. samee ^talk 12:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ammarpad, can you explain why you contested this move? Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gnom. Many sources just called it Triple harp and that fits WP:COMMONAME. I agree may be there some triple harps also referred by the single name but so far this one is more prominent and since there's no other article which can claim the name no need for further disambiguation. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ammarpad, but the Welsh triple harp is just one example of the triple harp, which is a sub-group of the parallel chromatic harp. The (Italian) triple harp was played from Sicily to Flanders in the 16th and 17th centuries. Composers like Claudio Monteverdi wrote for the (Italian) triple harp. Please see multi-course harp and the following gallery. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Welsh triple harp ("telyn deires").
An Italian triple harp ("arpa tripla").

Oppose, because the Italian triple harp can also be (and is) discussed within the article we have now. The current title does not appear to be ambiguous. Dekimasuよ! 05:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Current title is unambiguous and describes the article scope perfectly. Topic is encyclopedic (and fascinating), and quantity of material would not currently justify a split. Really no trouble found at all. Andrewa (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.