Talk:Handpan

Wikipedia principles

This stub wasn't edited for three months now. In its current status it is not an encyclopedia article and far from meeting the Wikipedia principles. Especial Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. See also: Wikipedia:Five pillars. If the article won't be shortly developed in order to meet the principles it is very likely that it will be deleted. --Ixkeys (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental revision

As I stated in my preceding post, the article was very far from maintaining the basic Wikipedia principles Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. When there was no substantial activities to improve the article in the last two months I thought about how this could be done. I found out that so much of the existing text had to be deleted that it was easier to write a new text.

It is important that by now no definition or scientific discussion about handpans were published. Therefor references for this term are very rare. I tried to stick to statements and information that can be verified by references. By now we cannot do more because this would be original research. I hope this helps to introduce the term to Wikipedia but to avoid that the article is deleted because of not maintaining the basic principles. --Ixkeys (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Instrument chapter edit

When I made an intense research on handpan builders a half year ago I found over 70 handpan projects in different development stages and a lot of them offering instruments for sale. This means that it can no longer be accepted as neutral point of view to list just a little number of instruments estimated by the single editors as being important. The only criterion that can be used as a neutral one is history. Therefor I decided to delete the current handpan list with its links to the makers websites and replaced it by a short neutral historical description mentioning the first four handpans Caisa (2007), Bells (2009), Halo (2009) and Spacedrum (2009). I think the year 2009 can be seen as the year, when the handpan market really started. Therefor it can be estimated as NPOV to mention these early four instruments. Instead of makers websites I added the handpan.org forum as reference. So readers can start their own research while original research by a Wikipedia editor is forbidden. --Ixkeys (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A list of various worldwide manufacturers has been added

A list with various manufacturers of Handpans were added. Please, add another manufacturers, if You know someone somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassa342 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It doesn't make sense to incorporate a list of all manufactures of a musical instrument in an encyclopaedia article. There also is a problem of neutral point of view and original research because there are up to 100 manufacturers. Who should decide which of them should be in the list? You will understand the difficulty of this question if you visit the forum handpan.org and follow all the discussions there which maker should represented there and in which way. Therefore I have removed this section from the article. --Ixkeys (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ixkeys. On a side note: It seems certain handpan makers desperately want their brand listed in the handpan wikipedia; Namely SunPan, Pan Chameleon, Harmonic and the ever brash Tzevaot. We have already mentioned the first four established handpan makers. Why are they important? Because the brand Halo invented the term handpan. Therefore, Halo and those brands that came before the creation of Halo are the first to be recognized as handpans. Many companies have come after but are not so important when relating to the term handpan.OoflyoO (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Handpan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pantheonsteel.com/default2.asp?action=article&ID=3
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hang-music.com/forum/viewforum.php?id=18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lead Image for this Page

The lead image for this page use to feature a handpan musician. This is not a page about handpan musicians. It needs to show an image of a handpan instrument. I replaced the photo of the handpan musician with an image of a handpan. The new image shows an instrument from Pantheon Steel's first batch of handpans. Since Pantheon Steel created the term handpan, it is most appropriate to use an image from their first batch of handpans. --OoflyoO (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you to exchange the picture. But I made two edits in the picture discription:

a) That Pantheon Steel came up with the term handpan is already said in the text. It is not necessary to repeat it in the picture description. I guess you added it to explain why you chose this picture. But this isn't necessary. You explained it here on the talk page. This is the correct place.

b) I deleted the external link to the originator of the photo from the picture description in the article. This is not how originators of pictures are indicated in Wikipedia. The indication of the originator of a picture is already on the Wikimedia page where the picture is hosted. The readers will find it there together with the license information. --Ixkeys (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the picture: Another user deleted your picture because it was watermarked. I think he is right. This has a smell of self promotion and shouldn't be used. I think the best we can do is to add a number of three pictures of different looking handpans to the article to give an impression of the whole field of instruments. I have added a second, that I found in Wikimedia Commons --Ixkeys (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll get one without the watermark. The pictures of musicians shouldn't lead and shouldn't be in the article unless the article get into playing, etc... --OoflyoO (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the pictures I don't know a really good solution. So, if you think the second picture is better deleted, just do it. --Ixkeys (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox with lead image

The Handpan wiki entry is heavily focused on handpan as a "term" and "expression", etc... The lead image on the Hang wiki states brief points of information that is already said in the text. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hang_%28instrument%29. Following that precedent, allowing some repeat under the handpan lead image seems reasonable.

And, according to wikipedia, the infobox's purpose is to, "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format" and needs to be "Materially relevant to the subject" and "cited elsewhere in article". The infobox information added to the lead image is ok to use.OoflyoO (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your last edit doesn't make the article better and it doesn't fit to Wikipedia standards. It is not ok to construct an infobox that looks like a musical instrument infobox but isn't one. A category "term orign" doesn't exist in infoboxes about terms. The orign of the term handpan is described in the text and there are also the references to the sources. Also in Wikipedia external links are not used this way. And personal blogs are not reliable sources. See: Wikipedia: Verifiability. I think a musical infobox doesn't fit to the article handpan. This article has the problem that there aren't good sources published about the whole field. Handpans look quite different so there cannot be a single picture that represents the instrument in the infobox. Therefore I think your idea to use a photo of one of the earliest handpans and present it as a single picture was good. Topics like this are not easy in Wikipedia and we must be very careful to do no original research. Therefore I reset the article to the previous version. --Ixkeys (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional consideration: There isn't any reliable source for that Kyle Cox is the originator of the term. There only is a source for the fact that the term handpan was on his website in 2007 (and this is described in the article correctly). Saying that Kyle Cox is the originator is either speculation or own research. On the other hand, such a term isn't the "work" of a single person. It became a term for this group of instruments because it was used by the people. This was a development in a collective not an invention of a person. --Ixkeys (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Making the article better:

I believe the edit did make the article better. It quickly summarizes important key facts in an easy-to-read format. That is the purpose of the infobox. It is expected that the points are also described in the article text, sources, etc… as per “What infoboxes do” and “What should an infobox contain”.

About info boxes:

You don’t have to use an infobox template. It appears that it is perfectly ok, and encouraged, to construct your own if needed. And, that includes creating a Headers or Titles such as “Term Origin”

1. see Thinking outside the infobox wherein is states, “…custom data is sometimes needed,” and “It is not necessary to code every infobox into a separate template page, outside the article. Some infoboxes should be coded inside an article.”

2. Also in Designing an infobox it states “Most” (i.e. not all) requirements are probably met by an existing infobox and the remainder “…can be met with a tweak.”

3. In Quick impromptu infoboxes it specifically reminds you to, “Learn to code a custom infobox, as specific inside one article, outside infobox templates.”

Even if I wasn’t allowed to code a custom info box, I could simply use an existing infobox-templet and add a follow-on infobox after the template (as specified in the Quick impromptu infoboxes section of Thinking_outside_the_infobox

Additional

Blogs may be considered reliable sources in certain circumstances. See: Wikipedia: Verifiability. However, you are most probably right in this instance.

A Musical infobox, or more specifically, one like it, does fit to the article handpan. I believe, generally, handpans look quite the same.

Kyle Cox was the first known to use the term for this style of instrument or publish the term, etc…. To me, that means “originator of the term.” Therefore, the term is the work of Mr. Cox. The term became known because the people used it. There is a difference.

Before I add another custom infobox, i'll think more about everything, especially the semantics. --OoflyoO (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Before you think about a new info box, please show us other Wikipedia articles with "term orign" in an info box. And please explain, why it is necessary to put this single information in the info box.

And I strongly recommend considering No original research. As far as I know nobody has ever told about how the term was originated. Nobody of us knows if, how and by whom it was used offline before. Everything we know is that it appeared on a certain website at a certain date. And even this could be seen as original research done by me because I used that website and the subforum in the Hang Music Forum as sources. If we are not very careful here, this could end with the deletion of the whole text about the orign of the term or of the whole article. Reliable sources are the main problem of this article. So please be careful. --Ixkeys (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to show you another Wikipedia article with "term origin" in an info box. I already showed you it is acceptable to use custom headings, titles, labels and data in an infobox. I probably won't use that label though. As already explained, the inforbox's purpose is to quickly summarizes important key facts in an easy-to-read format. Is the origin of the term handpan a major point in the article. I think it is.

Like i said, I do plan to think about everything, especially the semantics. --OoflyoO (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to do nothing. But I asked for arguments that this information needs to be in an info box. If there isn't any Wikipedia article using such a content in an info box, it is a strong argument not to put it there. If you can show that it is already usual in other articles, you have a strong argument to put it there. That's all. And your assumption that I want to delete the article is very strange. Have a look at the history of the article: I am the one who did a lot of work to rewrite this article in a way that it meets the Wikipedia principles in order not to be deleted. It is not me who would start a deletion discussion it would be other experienced users, if the article doesn't meet the principles. --Ixkeys (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The infobox purpose is to summarize key points. There doesn't have to be another Wikipedia article that uses that content. An infobox's content can be customized to suit this handpan article. Please read the quotes above for Wikipedia's stance that custom infoboxes including header, title, label, data, etc... can be used. --OoflyoO (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right, it can be done. But my point is: Should it be done? Remember the No original research problem. And remember that this is a short article. In order to meet the Wikipedia principles the content regarding the origin in the info box must say the same as it is said in the text and this would be just redundance. And redundance should be avoided in lexicon articles. Redundance in Wikipedia articles is very often deleted. --Ixkeys (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if summarizing the key points in an infobox would be considered redundancy. After all, the infobox is meant to be redundant (if we call summarizing key points redundant).

Aside from whether or not an infobox should be added: I know you didn't like the 2nd heading "The Term Handpan" followed by the lines "Term Origin: Kyle Cox" and "Year Coined: 2007" Were you also opposed to the 1st heading "Percussion Instrument" followed by the lines "Hornbostel–Sachs Classification: 111.24" and "Hornbostel–Sachs Description: Percussion vessels"? --- OoflyoO (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The main problem of this article is the lack of reliable sources about the handpan. To find out and to describe more details about these instruments one have to do a lot of own research in a vast multitude of partly contradicting sources. Also much of detail knowledge is based on own experience. But Wikipedia principles doesn't allow original research. This is the dilemma of an Wikipedia author interested in developing this article. "Hornbostel–Sachs Classification: 111.24" is a good example: You will find not a single source outside Wikipedia stating this. It is classical original research. And I think before we cannot solve this problem for the development of the article it doesn't make sense to include an info box. Info boxes for musical instruments are included to summarize and standardize some main information about the instrument. But we need scientific an descriptive efforts outside Wikipedia before we can summarize and standardize the result of those efforts in an Wikipedia article. --Ixkeys (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)