View source for Talk:Clarinet

{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=2006-01-31, 06:24:08
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=37401795

|action2=GAR
|action2date=2006-11-08, 00:45:22
|action2result=delisted
|action2oldid=86275027

|action3=GAN
|action3date=21:42, 18 November 2006
|action3result=not listed
|action3oldid=88558032

|action4=GAN
|action4date=19:58, 22 July 2009
|action4result=listed
|action4link=talk:Clarinet/GA1
|action4oldid=303588313

|action5=GAR
|action5date=18:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
|action5result=delisted
|action5link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Clarinet/1
|action5oldid=

|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=music
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Musical Instruments |importance=High}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Clarinet/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}

==Citation style==
{{ping|Why? I Ask}} Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=1117890900&oldid=1117889473&diffmode=source this edit]: the article does not have an entirely consistent style with regards to either proposed addition, but there are more book refs that exclude both location and OCLC than include either. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|Why? I Ask}} please stop making changes to citation style until we can discuss the matter. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, I noticed that later on (the first few sources I looked at in the "Further Reading" ''did'' have location). However, I am going through now to impose a consistent style and verify the sources and add page numbers. This article needs a lot of work. However, removing the OCLC is something that I oppose. [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 04:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::[[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]], again, please hold off on making massive changes until we can arrive at consensus as to which style to use, since it is clear we do not agree on what is most appropriate. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::I mean, is the OCLC and location the only thing you oppose? I'm fine with removing the location if you're so opposed to it, but I prefer the OCLC. [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 04:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::[[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]], no, that's not all. 
::::*Why remove related instruments?
::::*Why remove the bots tag?
::::*{{para|pages}} should not be used for single-page references
::::*If locations are to be included (though there doesn't seem to be a reason to do so), postal abbreviations should not be used
::::*Why remove refs to Lawson that are lacking page, rather than tagging?
::::*Why change section heading to Bibliography, and why de-alphabetize the section?
::::*Lawson is the editor, not the author, of the overall book cited. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::The related instruments are something I plan to add back in a bit; some were clarinets and some aren't really related. I don't see a reason the citation bot should be blocked. I know, and if I miss it the page versus pages, then there is a bot for that; it's not the end of the world. There is nothing against using postal abbreviations. Because I'm getting ready to add citations to the parts removed. I believe "Bibliography" more correctly separates sources and sources cited, but that's my opinion. I know he's the editor, but editor names are generally what is cited. [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 04:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|There is nothing against using postal abbreviations.}} [[MOS:POSTABBR|Yes there is]]. {{tq|I don't see a reason the the citation bot should be blocked.}} I do - it adds unhelpful spam, among other problems. {{tq|I know he's the editor, but editor names are generally what is cited.}} There are separate parameters for that - it shouldn't be using author parameters. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::It doesn't say that anymore. What sort of spam? The difference between an author and editor parameter changes pretty much nothing, especially when they are the sole name attached to the book. If you truly think that change will be an improvement, go ahead. I have no beef with that. [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 05:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Even with your edit it still doesn't support their use here, but since you've said above you're fine with removing location, the point is moot - let's focus on what we still disagree on. For example OCLC: it's a lot of clutter to save a few people one click. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::I mean, isn't there more pressing issues such as the fact that half of the citations fail verification or are improperly formatted to begin with (e.g., lack page numbers)? I feel like your worrying about something that ''really'' does not matter. I'm not going to remove the OCLC number without overriding consensus or without a reason better than "I don't like it" because doing so would waste time. And to be blunt, I was the first person to attempt cleaning up the citations. If you were the first, I would respect your preferences. Why not respect mine? Stop complaining, and add some darn sources yourself. You want this to be a good article, correct? Well it was delisted because the sources sucked. Work on improving sources and the page, and then have the petty arguments. [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 02:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

== Reverting my expansion of the "History" section   ==

@[[User:Nikkimaria]] 

I have taken several hours to revise and expand the "History" section. Because the history of the development of the clarinet does not stop in 1843. An encyclopaedia must do more here. Then I asked another author who knows a lot about clarinets to take a look at my draft, which you can see here [[User:Gisbert K/sandbox3]]. Afterwards I published the text with an additional size of almost 6000 byte, on 8 December, 16:31 h
 
On 10 December, 5:08 h, you, the [[User:Nikkimaria]], undifferentiatedly completely undid my work, simply by clicking the "undo" button several times, without discussing it first. I see this as an act of unkind behaviour. Your terse justification for undoing my extensive works " (rv: largely unsourced or unreliably sourced)" does not apply .For the period after 1843 I have listed 2 significant and each extensive sources:
 
1: Thomas Reil and Dr. Enrico Weller, both recognised musicologists, with their 150-page book on the clarinet maker Oskar Oehler, which is in my possession, and of which an excerpt translation into English has been posted on the internet, which I have cited.
 
2. a dissertation by Dr. Stephanie Angloher, published in full on the net and frequently cited, a scientific work on the various clarinet systems amounting to 280 pages.
 
These two sources of a high standard are already sufficient, yet I have now added some minor sources as an afterthought. In this form I would like to re-post the text. . After all, the English article Clarinet should once again be given the title of "good article"! (The German article, of which I am the main author, even belongs to the "excellent" articles) This cannot be done without thorough revisions and extensions. Everyone who works on this should be welcome. And if an extension should indeed have deficiencies, everyone can contribute to an improvement, e.g. by adding to the sources instead of simply deleting the extension. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 18:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&type=revision&diff=1126517159&oldid=1126244492 This is the series of changes you made] on December 9. Your sources should be cited each time you make an extraordinary claim, for instance naming the "most famous" clarinet concerto, and whether the sound is "sonorous" or "sharper". (You can cite the same source multiple times with a [[WP:NAMEDREFS|named reference]].) Your English composition suffers from stiff and stilted wording: "we now had two fingering systems", "one might say", "one could well speak of a variant", "As already mentioned" and "some suggest". If you would like to re-introduce your material it will need some work. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

::I tried to clean up the bad grammar, unencyclopedic tone, etc. after that was added to the History section. If the material is worthwhile and the refs are solid, it might be worth some editor's time to look at that section after I cleaned it up (before it was removed). I have no opinion about the worthiness of the material or the validity of the refs.  And I'm not attached to my copy edits there. Maybe some other knowledgeable editors can take see if anything is worth keeping. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 20:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:::Hello [[User:Special-T]], If you are willing to make improvements to the wording, I would be grateful if you would do so in my sandbox3 ( [[User:Gisbert K/sandbox3]] ). The current text there is already improved over the reset version and I will add some more sources there, before publishing again. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 21:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:::As per Binksternet, unfortunately the content that was added lacked needed sources, particularly for some of the opinions expressed. Nothing personal, just a matter of further work needed before potential incorporation. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 01:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
::::[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]] - I'm very busy in real life, but feel free to copy it from that version of the article and incorporate anything useful. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 14:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::Thankyou [[User:Special-T|Special-T]], I have it incorporated in my new draft. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 15:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

::::::::@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] 
::::::::I have rewritten the section taking into account the suggestions made here and added more sources. Before I incorporate the new draft to the article (planned for tomorrow evening), I will give you the opportunity to look at it and make any minor corrections or inform me if you think there are still major problems. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 17:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Still needs some pretty significant work. One-paragraph sections should be avoided, as should having a long string of cites at the end of a long paragraph - it makes it difficult to tell what is meant to support what. Some of the sources proposed are of unclear reliability, eg die-klarinetten. It also needs work on prose and formatting, but the structural and sourcing concerns need addressing before that can be considered. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 20:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Nikkimaria]]  Please have a look to this page: [[User_talk:Gisbert_K/sandbox3]]. Do you suggest any other changes? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 09:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Looking at the draft, there is content lacking any referencing - that needs to be addressed first off. Once that's done the formatting can be cleaned up  {{done}}  . [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::What content exacltly? In 17 lines there are 13 References, that should be enough. If I read the article Clarinet, as it is now, much content is not referenced, e.g. the 1st para. Every sence need a source but no source is given - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 06:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The lead section is not required to include citations per [[WP:LEADCITE]]; this text is proposed for the body which has no such exception. For example, what citation is believed to support the claim "After the invention of the thumb rest clarinetists began to attach the mouthpiece so that the reed rested on the lower lip, because they could now hold and position the clarinet with the thumb rest. "? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 05:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{done}} - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 08:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

== "History" section now a torso ==

After Nikkimaria shortened the History section by 2300 bytes last night, it is now a torso. This is not the way to regain the title of "good article".

By the way: I am  with a 37% share the main author of the German article "Klarinette", which is awarded as an "excellent article".

- &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 05:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
:The title of "good article" certainly cannot be regained with material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or unsupported by the sources provided. Additionally the section needs to be balanced against the rest of the article, rather than dwarfing it. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 05:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
::'''1. Sources''': I disagree: For the reader, an article or a section that is informative and substantially complete but deficient in terms of sources is more valuable than an inadequate article or section that complies with WP guidelines in terms of sources.
:: 
::Sources can be added, even by other authors who intend to improve the article. This is better than deleting an important piece of information because no source is given or one that does not comply with the guidelines, which of course are not free of arbitrariness.
:: 
::Unquestionably, the History section was deficient until 4 January 2023. This would not have won the article a prize.
:: 
::'''2. Balance:''' writing 20% on history is acceptable, especially when, as here, the rest of the article also has inadequacies that can only be remedied in additions, see below.
:: 
::'''And:''' I think it is good for the rating, when 2 sections are better than the others, especially the first and the last one. Perhaps we should start with the History. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 15:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Whether you agree or disagree is immaterial: verifiability and reliable sourcing are not only key parts of the GA criteria but key principles of Wikipedia as a whole. Additionally the [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] lies on those wanting to add material to provide appropriate sourcing for it ''before'' adding or restoring it. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

== Expansion of the History Section on 5 and 6 January 2023 ==

I have thoroughly revised my additions to this section, which I presented at the beginning of December, and have substantiated almost all statements with reabile sources. In this form I introduced them into the article Clarinet on 5 and 6 January. After minor corrections by [[User:Special-T]], the History section was now informative, essentially complete and easy to read, and did not need any more changes. 
 
Then, on both evenings or in the following nights, the user Nikkimaria appeared and took possession of my work by deleting most of the original text and - without any gain for the article - replacing it with her own formulations of the same content. In addition, she deleted some sentences containing important or at least useful information.
 
In detail:
 
'''Changes from 5.1.'''
 
Changes 1. and 2. There was no need for these changes to the text. The other wording of the same content is not an improvement. In addition, the deletion of the last two sentences irritates the reader, who knows from the previous text that there is still a 3rd register and who wonders at this point how it came about.
 
Change 3
Here, under the pretext of an inadequate source, an important piece of information has been deleted which the reader expects at this point. At the beginning it said : "At this time, contrary to modern practice, the reed was placed in contact with the upper lip." Here it was listed when and how and why this was changed.
The allegedly inadequate source is a publication of the [[Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts]], which is absolutely reputable, secondary literature with numerous references to original literature

Changes 4-6
Again, my text is rewritten without profit for the article, furthermore useful information is deleted. 
 
'''Changes 7.1.2023'''

Again unnecessary rewording and arbitrary cuts of useful information for the reader.
 
By unnecessary rewording, the person concerned "steals" the creative effort of the author, because in the statistics the new sentences or paragraphs are not attributed to the author but to the person who deletes the author's texts and replaces them with other texts with the same content, an unfair practice.
 
Therefore, with some changes, I restore the state of the texts after the corrections by Special-T. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 15:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:And I have reverted you, because the changes have not addressed the fundamental problems of the proposed text. I also remind you that [[WP:PRIMER|"whatever you might write can and will be mercilessly edited and re-edited and tweaked and poked and changed by others"]] - if you feel that rephrasing your text is in some way "stealing" or "taking possession" then Wikipedia is not a good place for you to put it. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 18:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::My text is more informative for the reader. There are no "fundamental problems". That is why I am re-posting it, together with your additions, as far as they were not wrong, like the addition about the Reform Boehm system. In 2008 it was widespread in the professional sector in the Netherlands, in 2008 Yamaha also still made such clarinets, but not any more. I recommend you to read my article [[Reform Boehm system]]. It shows that you have no real knowledge of the clarinet and its development and that you just copy everything. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 21:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]], unfortunately there are indeed fundamental problems with your text, not least of which that you have not fulfilled your [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] to support it with citations. We are meant to be summarizing and reporting on what reliable sources say on the topic, not what you believe to be informative. And we are also meant to be doing so [[WP:CIVIL|civilly]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::::Your talk that my text is not sufficiently based on good sources is a pretext, not to say a lie. My text, which you can see here [[User:Gisbert K/sandbox5]], is based on 40 sources. In contrast, the article on the clarinet, which is 5 times as long, contains a total of only 120! 
::::Now all of a sudden you're talking about being civilised, after you haven't behaved like that so far. What does that mean in concrete terms?
::::My suggestion: Only write about topics you know something about and leave other topics to those who know something about them. I'm on the move in several country WP in clarinet matters. There I meet authors who also play the clarinet and have good knowledge about the individual instruments, about the manufacturers, about the players and about the compositions, e.g. my French friend Clarioio, who in my estimation is the author with the most comprehensive knowledge in all clarinet matters in the worldwide WP. These authors do not argue with each other but cooperate. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::I have taken considerable effort to incorporate your content where possible, and will now take considerable more to detail the issues with your proposed text. In response you say I'm lying, have "stolen" your work, and ought not to edit this page at all. It's pretty clear which approach is civil and cooperative, and which is not. Will post the content analysis shortly. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 22:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

===Analysis of the proposed addition===
''Taken from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gisbert_K/sandbox5&oldid=1132432039 this version], with annotations added inline. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)''

{{citation style}}
The clarinet arose at the beginning of the 18th century when the German instrument maker [[Johann Christoph Denner]] (or possibly his son Jacob Denner)<ref name="Hoeprich">{{cite journal |last1=Hoeprich |first1=T Eric |year=1981 |title=A three-key clarinet by J.C. Denner |url=http://woodwindsresourcefile.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/0/3/14034613/a_three-key_clarinet.pdf |journal=The Galpin Society Journal |volume=34 |jstor=841468 |pages=21–32 |doi=10.2307/841468 }}</ref> equipped a chalumeau in the alto register{{Sfn|Pino|1998|pp=198&ndash;199}} with two keys, one of which enabled access to a higher register. This second register did not begin an octave above the first, as with other woodwind instruments, but started an octave and a perfect fifth higher than the first. A second key, at the top, extended the range of the first register to A<sub>4</sub> and, together with the register key, to B{{music|flat}}<sub>4</sub>. Later, Denner lengthened the bell and provided it with a third key to extend the pitch range down to E<sub>3</sub>.<ref name="Hoeprich"/>. The resulting range has remained the standard for clarinets. The lower register from E<sub>3</sub> to B{{music|flat}}<sub>4</sub> was called the chalumeau register and the second register from B<sub>4</sub> to C<sub>6</sub> the clarion register.{{repetition inline}}<span style="color:red> ???</span>

A third register, the altissimo, developed as unknown clarinetists used special [[Fingering (music)|fingerings]] to play notes up to G<sub>6</sub>, and later up to D<sub>7</sub>.{{cn}}{{when?}}<span style="color:red"> 20. January </span>

[[File:Programmzettel Stadler 1794, nur Klarinette.jpg|thumb|260px|Sketch of the [[basset clarinet]] used by [[Anton Stadler]] since 1789]]

After Denner's innovations, other makers added keys to improve [[Musical tuning|tuning]] and facilitate fingerings and the chalumeau fell into disuse. The clarinet of the [[Classical period (music)|Classical period]], as used by [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|Mozart]], typically had five keys.{{Sfn|Shackleton|1995}} Mozart suggested extending the clarinet downwards by four semitones to C{{Sub|3}}, which resulted in the [[basset clarinet]] that was about {{convert|18|cm}} longer, made first by Theodor Lotz.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|first=Christian|last=Fastl|date=21 June 2021| url=https://www.musiklexikon.ac.at/ml/musik_L/Lotz_Theodor.xml|title=Theodor Lotz|encyclopedia=Austrian Music Encyclopaedia}}</ref> In 1789 Mozart composed the [[Clarinet Quintet (Mozart)|Quintet for Clarinet and String Quartet]] and founded a new genre with it: the [[clarinet quintet]]<ref>{{cite web}}|first=Katharina|last Neuschaefer|language=de| publisher=Bayericher Rundfunk BR 5|  title=Klarinettenquintet KV 581|url=https://www.br-klassik.de/themen/klassik-entdecken/starke-stuecke-mozart-klarinettenquintett-100.html |access-date=6 January 2023 }} </ref>  {{vague}}{{cn}}{{done}} In 1792 he composed the [[Clarinet Concerto (Mozart)|Concerto for Clarinet and Orchestra in A major]] for this instrument, with passages ranging down to C<sub>3</sub>.<ref name="hacker">{{cite journal |author=Hacker, Alan |title=Mozart and the basset clarinet |journal=The Musical Times |volume=110 |issue=1514 |date=April 1969 |pages=359–362 |doi=10.2307/951470 |jstor=951470}}</ref> Clarinets were soon accepted into orchestras{{repetition inline}}, and by the time of [[Ludwig van Beethoven|Beethoven]] ({{Circa|1780–1820}}), the clarinet was a fixed member in the orchestra.{{Sfn|Pino|1998|p=204}}

The functionality and therefore the potential number of keys with felt pads was limited because they did not seal tightly. German clarinetist and master clarinet maker [[Iwan Müller]] remedied this by countersinking the tone holes for the keys and covering the pads with soft leather.<ref name="bray">{{cite web |url=http://hem.passagen.se/eriahl/history.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030202235101/http://hem.passagen.se/eriahl/history.htm |archive-date=2 February 2003 |title=The clarinet history |last=Bray |first=Erin |date=16 November 2004 |work=The Clarinet Family |accessdate=5 January 2023}}</ref> This made it possible to equip the instrument with considerably more keys. In 1812 Müller presented a clarinet with seven finger holes and thirteen keys, which he called "clarinet omnitonic" since it was capable of playing in all keys. It was no longer necessary to use differently tuned clarinets for a different keys.{{sfn|Shackleton|1995}} This clarinet become gradually the worldwide standard.{{cn}}

Müller is also considered the inventor of the metal [[Ligature (instrument)|ligature]] and the [[thumb rest]].<ref name="Northern Illinois University">{{cite web | title=Development of the Clarinet |first= Gregory|last= Barrett |date=1999| publisher=Northern Illinois University | url=https://www.niu.edu/gbarrett/resources/development.shtml | accessdate=2 January 2023}}</ref> With the added stability of the thumb rest, clarinetists began to orient the mouthpiece with the reed resting on the lower lip.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://wiki.hslu.ch/cladid/Embouchure|publisher=Hochschule Luzern|title= Clarinet didatics, Embouchure 1. Historical sources, 1.2 Reed below - Mandibular Embouchure and 1.3 From Iwan Müller and Carl Baerman to Today's Playing Techniques|access-date=5 January 2023}}{{fv}}{{self-published inline}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.academia.edu/41160061/_The_Clarinet_as_Described_by_Lorents_Nicolai_Berg_1782_Journal_of_the_American_Musical_Instrument_Society_5-6_1979-1980_42-53|page=53|title=The_Clarinet_as_Described_by_Lorents_Nicolai_Berg_1782|publisher=Journal_of_the_American_Musical_Instrument_Society 5-6 1979-2080}} p.53</ref>As can be seen from the above 
drawing, Stadler already used this type of embrochure.{{OR inline}}

Müller's inventions also revolutionised the design of other woodwind instruments.{{attribution needed}} In the late 1830s,<ref>{{cite journal | last=Ridley | first=E. A. K. | title=Birth of the 'Boehm' Clarinet | journal=The Galpin Society Journal | publisher=JSTOR | volume=39 | year=1986 | pages=68–76 | issn=0072-0127 | doi=10.2307/842134 | jstor=842134 }}</ref> German flute maker [[Theobald Böhm]] invented a ring and axle key system, which he first employed on the transverse flute, but which was then adopted by other woodwind instrument makers. In this system, when a finger covers a tone hole it also pushes down a metal ring flush with the top of the hole. The ring sits on an axle on which other rings and pads are mounted, causing them to close.<ref>Stephanie Angloher 2007 [https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7344/1/Angloher_Stephanie.pdf p. 26-27 (The Boehm clarinet p. 25-30)].{{psc}}</ref>

This key system was first used on the clarinet between 1839 and 1843{{fv}} by the French clarinetist Hyacinthe Klosé, in collaboration with instrument maker Louis Auguste Buffet. They made other changes to the clarinet, resulting in a new instrument with different fingerings and a different inner bore{{fv}}, which produced a different sound. One significant change was the addition of new keys for the two little fingers on the lower joint, providing redundant fingerings for certain notes. The inventors called this the Boehm clarinet, although Böhm was not involved in its development. The standard Boehm clarinet has 17 keys and 6 rings.<ref>{{cite web|author=Jean Christian Michel|url=http://www.jean-christian-michel.com/clarinette2b.html|title=''Histoire de la Clarinette.''(History of Clarinet)]|access-date=31 December 2022}}</ref>{{unreliable source}}

End of the 1840s{{copy edit inline}}, the Belgian Eugène Albert transferred the Boehm ring key system to the Müller clarinet, with some changes to keywork. The Albert clarinet, known as the "simple system"{{sfn|Hoeprich|2008|p=183}}, got 16 keys, 5 rings, and rollers on the keys intended for the little fingers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061116191044/http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/ugw/ugwf1j.html |title=Collection of Albert clarinets}}</ref> It's sound is similar to the Boehm clarinet.<ref>{{cite web|first=Oscar|last =Font|title=Albert Systeme The Jazz Clarinet|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120325030127/http://usuarios.multimania.es/albertsystem/|access-date=4 January 2023}}</ref>{{unreliable source}}. The most important improvement of the Simple System is the "spectacle key" patented by [[Adolphe Sax]], another improvment{{copy edit inline}} a "patent C sharp" key developed by Joseph Tyler which was also added to other clarinet models.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061116191044/http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/euchmi/ugw/ugwf1j.html|accessdate=8 January 2023|publisher=University of Edinburgh|title=The Simple System}}</ref> Improved versions of Albert clarinets were built in Belgium and France for export to the UK and the US.{{sfn|Hoeprich|2008|p=184}} From 1920 to 1940 Selmer Paris built an improved Albert clarinet, also called "Full-Albert" versus "Plain-Albert", with very good intonation and extended mechanics with 6 rings, 4 side trill keys, E-flat-lever and F-sharp/G-sharp-trill, which was played by many jazz clarinetists.<ref>{{cite web|language=de|author=Capion Larsen|title=Henri SELMER Klarinetten der 1920/30er Jahre|url=https://capionlarsen.com/henri-selmer-klarinetten-der-192030er-jahre/}}</ref>{{importance inline}}

Around 1860, clarinettist [[Carl Baermann]] and instrument maker Georg Ottensteiner developed the patented Baermann/Ottensteiner clarinet,<ref>{{cite web|author=National Music Museum - The University of South Dakota|title=Clarinets in C, B-flat, and A by Georg Ottensteiner, Munich, ca. 1860-1879 |url=http://collections.nmmusd.org/Clarinets/Ottensteiner/Ottensteinerclarinets.html |date=2016-03-10|accessdate=5 January 2023}}</ref> a clarinet with 16 keys, four rings and four rollers, but in the tradition of the historic sound{{vague}}.<ref name="ste">{{cite web|title=Mühlfeld's Clarinet|periodical=|publisher=|url=http://www.sfoxclarinets.com/basycl_art.htm|url-status=|format=|access-date=5 January 2023|archive-url=|archive-date=|last=Stephen Fox|date=|year=|language=en|pages=|quote=}}</ref> This instrument had new connecting levers, which made it possible to press many keys from several places. It was used from 1860 until about 1910{{fv}}.<ref>Stephanie Angloher 2007 [https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7344/1/Angloher_Stephanie.pdf PDF-File p. 30-31].{{psc}}</ref> 

The famous{{peacock inline}} Brahms clarinetist [[Richard Mühlfeld]] used this clarinet,<ref name="ste"/> and the American clarinet soloist [[Charles Neidich]] has used a Baermann-Ottensteiner instrument for playing compositions by Brahms.<ref>[https://www.sonic.de/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=5561&token=46278529791fad3ff63ec66b6c6bac27de32fbcf Hans Dieter Grünefeld, Interview with Charles Neidisch, Mirakel klassische Musik (Miracle classical music) (in German)]</ref>

In 1905, the German clarinettist and clarinet maker Oskar Oehler presented a clarinet with 22 keys, four rollers, five rings and a blind cover for the right index finger, under which there is no tone hole, but through which two keys on the right side of the lower joint are operated.<ref name = "NBC">{{cite web|author=Thomas Reil and Dr. Enrico Weller|title=The Clarinets of Oskar Oehler|periodical=|publisher=|url=https://mozartbassetclarinet.wordpress.com/the-clarinets-of-oskar-oehler/|url-status=|format=|access-date=2022-05-16|archive-url=|archive-date=|last=|date=|year=|language=en|pages=|quote=}}{{self-published inline}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Thomas Reil and Dr. Enrico Weller|title=Der Klarinettenbauer Oskar Oehler, Markneukirchen 2008, 152 pages|language=de}}{{full citation needed}}</ref> The new clarinet was called the Oehler clarinet or German clarinet, while the Böhm clarinet has since been called the French clarinet. Since the 1950s, most top German clarinets are still equipped with a cup mechanism to improve the intonation of low E and F and are sometimes called "Full-Oehler" clarinets, even though this mechanism was not developed by Oehler{{importance inline}}.<ref name = "NBC" /><ref>{{cite book|author=Thomas Reil and Dr. Enrico Weller|title=Der Klarinettenbauer Oskar Oehler, p.15}}</ref>

The French clarinet differs from the German not only in fingering but also in sound. The characteristic sound of the clarinet that had fascinated Mozart was lost{{editorializing}}. After conducting in France, Richard Strauss spoke of the nasal French clarinets.<ref>Hector Berlioz: ''Instrumentationslehre.'' Ergänzt und revidiert von Richard Strauss, Frankfurt am Main u. a. 1904, p. 214: "Die französischen Klarinetten haben einen flachen, näselnden Ton, während die deutschen sich der menschlichen Gesangsstimme nähern." (The French clarinets have a flat, nasal tone, while the German ones approach the human singing voice.)</ref> At the end of the 1940s, German clarinet maker Fritz Wurlitzer, father of [[Herbert Wurlitzer]], built{{fv}} a clarinet which involved the use of Boehm-system keywork in combination with a German mouthpiece and bore and with a sound approximating the German ideal.{{Sfn|Hoeprich|2008|pp=5, 211}} The result was the [[Reform Boehm system|Reform Boehm clarinet]], which is still in production.<ref>Stephanie Angloher 2007 [https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7344/1/Angloher_Stephanie.pdf PDF-File p. 245-246].{{psc}}</ref>

Changes in manufacturers' drilling techniques and changes in playing technique have changed the "nasal" sound of the Boehm clarinet. Its sound has been described as sharper, richer in overtones and more flexible than the German clarinet sound, which has been called pure, sonorous and warm.<ref>[http://www.sfoxclarinets.com/BenclartII.html Arthur Benade]]{{full citation needed}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|language=de|url=https://crescendo.de/klarinetten-kriege/ | author=Klaus Härtel|title=Klarinetten-Kriege, französisch gegen deutsch (Clarinet wars, French vs. German)}}</ref> 

Other modifications to the basic Boehm system, the Full Boehm, [[Mazzeo system|Mazzeo]], McIntyre,{{Sfn|Ellsworth|2015|p=68}} and Benade NX System,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Benade |first=Arthur H. |author2=Keefe, Douglas H.|title=The physics of a new clarinet design |journal=The Galpin Society Journal |volume=49 |date=March 1996 |pages=113–142 |doi=10.2307/842396 |jstor=842396}}</ref> did not become common.{{cn}}

Outside of Germany and Austria, clarinets with the Boehm system are used almost exclusively today. In Eastern Europe the Oehler system was widespread until the middle of the 20th century, but was largely replaced by the Boehm system{{fv}}. In the Netherlands, the Reform Boehm system was important for a long time{{sfn|Hoeprich|2008|p=211}} but has gradually been replaced by the classic Boehm system.{{fv}}<ref>{{cite web|language=de|url =https://www.clarinet.dk/content/show_content.php?cont=eu&lang=de&instr=cla&id=42|title=Klarinettensysteme|author=Wolfgang Lohff}}</ref> For reasons of sound and intonation, the use of Oehler clarinets has continued in German and Austrian orchestras, including the [[Vienna Philharmonic]] and the [[Berlin Philharmonic]]),<ref>{{cite web|title=The Structure of the Clarinet &#91;Experiment&#93;, The Boehm system and the Oehler system|periodical=|publisher=|url=https://www.yamaha.com/en/musical_instrument_guide/clarinet/mechanism/mechanism003.html|url-status=|format=|access-date=8 December 2022|archive-url=|archive-date=|last=|date=2021|year=|language=en|pages=|quote=}}</ref> while no German clarinets are used in French symphony orchestras{{fv}}.<ref>{{cite web|language=de|url=https://www.reisser-musik.de/blog/ratgeber/wissenswertes-ueber-die-klarinette/|author=Artur Lamparter|title=Kleine Geschichte der Klarinette (Short history of clarinet)}}</ref>

The Albert clarinet has been in common use in Britain since the second half of the 19th century{{fv}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.die-klarinetten.de/content/deutsch/deutsch-vs-boehm.html#albert_system|title=Future of instrument making - new variants}} {{unreliable source}}</ref> These dominated jazz in its early days,<ref>[https://www.francemusique.fr/jazz/le-son-perdu-des-clarinettes-neo-orleanaises-57774 Florian Royer, ''Le son perdu des clarinettes néo-orléanaises'' (The lost sound of New-Orleans clarinets), 26 December 2017]</ref> is still used in folk music in the Balkans and Turkey.{{copy edit inline}}

{{further|topic=systems|Boehm system (clarinet)|Reform Boehm system|Eugène Albert|Oehler system}}{{repetition inline}}
{{reflist-talk}}

It's clear there are significant issues around sourcing and verifiability that persist with this version, among other problems. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

== To-do-list to improve the rest of the article ==

1. Section “Clarinet family”: Addition of the contra alto clarinet

2. New section “Tuning the clarinet”

3. New section  “Sound effects”

4. Review: At the end, review the whole article and check whether the layout is optimal or whether the sequence of individual sections should be changed - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 15:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

5. The "Usage and repertoire" section needs work.  In particular, the single most famous clarinet part in either classical or jazz (possibly both) is not mentioned:  The opening of "Rhapsody In Blue".  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.202.33.17|108.202.33.17]] ([[User talk:108.202.33.17#top|talk]]) 15:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Clarinette omnitonique ==

we have a red link [[Clarinette omnitonique]]. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked [[User:Estopedist1|Estopedist1]] ([[User talk:Estopedist1|talk]]) 15:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:I googled and found this: https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/of-note/2014/ivory-clarinet - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 00:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Indiana_University_of_Pennsylvania/Composition_I_-_Writing_Wikipedia_(Spring_2023) | assignments = [[User:AG029|AG029]] | reviewers = [[User:Bandoputt|Bandoputt]] | start_date = 2023-01-17 | end_date = 2023-05-01 }}

<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Matthewvetter|DarthVetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)</span>

== [[Clarinet family]] article – Any support to merge or unmerge? ==

The article in question has been tagged as an [[WP:REDUNDANTFORK]] for a bit. I'm wondering if that notice should be removed (and we keep the articles as is) or if we should decide to either merge it here or unmerge [[Clarinet#Clarinet family]]. [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:Of those options I think detagging would make most sense. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

== Maintenance section ==

I think that the recently added section on Maintenance is unencyclopedic, largely trivial, and falls under the category of "how-to" information.  Its content can mostly be summarized by saying, "if not properly maintained, things might not work correctly", which is true of anything. [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 14:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
:Agreed. Suggest its removal. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 14:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
::It was added as part of a school writing project, I deleted it, and my deletion was reverted by someone else from that school project.  I tried cleaning it up, but I still think it doesn't merit keeping.  So I'm deleting it again. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Disagree - I think it was a useful addition comparable to the piano section of the same name - [[Piano#maintenance]]. The specific type of maintenance and process of maintenance was well-described, furthermore. Would like to request bringing it back and working to improve the issues noted by @[[User:Special-T|Special-T]]. - [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 18:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] since @[[User:Special-T|Special-T]] and I were both involved in the edits. Would an RfC be more appropriate to get additional feedback? Thanks! - [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'm going to let other editors weigh in & decide. I've stated my opinion & I'm not interested in edit warring. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 18:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::Absolutely, you could open an RfC on the question. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

== Rfc on maintenance section ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 14:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1683900096}}
Should the clarinet article include a section on maintenance? [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 13:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''No'''. There are no similar sections in the [[flute]], [[oboe]], or [[saxophone]] articles, so one is not needed here. --[[Special:Contributions/130.111.39.47|130.111.39.47]] ([[User talk:130.111.39.47|talk]]) 14:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''No'''. As I stated above, the information in this section is either trivial ("lack of maintenance may lead to the instrument not working") or how-to. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 14:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
:Also, the edits were made as part of a school writing project and the only editor advocating for retaining it is the instructor of that school project, so [[WP:COI]]. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 16:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
::I see no evidence of COI, unless the alluded to “instructor” somehow invented the clarinet. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 01:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
::I initiated the Rfc to avoid COIs and to get outside perspective from others not immediately involved in the editorial dispute. Also, here is the content at issue (the quote above doesn't appear in [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&oldid=1147680973| the version]] I'm referring to: 
{{Quote box| Cork is used to connect the clarinet's joints, and cork grease is applied to the corks to allow them to fit into the corresponding socket. Excess pressure when assembling the instrument may damage the keys.[62]

Most clarinets are made of wood and need to be swabbed dry after playing to keep the wood from cracking or swelling. Swabs are typically made of cloth and are inserted through the bell end of the instrument to avoid becoming stuck.[63]

Before cleaning the mouthpiece, the reed and ligature must be removed. The mouthpiece must be cleaned carefully to avoid damage to the tip or the side rails. A mouthpiece cap can protect the mouthpiece when stored. Damage to the mouthpiece tip or side rails can cause the mouthpiece to not play properly, often because the reed cannot seal where a section is damaged.[63]}} 

:Thanks for your input. [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 17:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
::<s>Also, "inserted through the bell end...to avoid becoming stuck" is outright wrong. You pull it a) from the narrow top to the wide bottom to avoid becoming stuck b) from the small holes at the top to the large holes at the bottom so that any remaining spit is less likely to block the holes. --[[Special:Contributions/130.111.39.47|130.111.39.47]] ([[User talk:130.111.39.47|talk]]) 18:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)</s>
::: Hmmph. I still think I'm right, but I'm hesitant to argue with the Army Band video I just watched... --[[Special:Contributions/130.111.39.47|130.111.39.47]] ([[User talk:130.111.39.47|talk]]) 18:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
:::: And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maga0UUyZ0M?t=225 this video from Backun] seems to agree with me. --[[Special:Contributions/130.111.39.47|130.111.39.47]] ([[User talk:130.111.39.47|talk]]) 18:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
*'''Sure''' - as long as the content is [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]] and [[WP:V|verifiable]] and not too lengthy.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:red">''(talk)''</b>]]  04:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

:'''Yes''', per {{U|Isaidnoway}}, but I would add that the tone should be encyclopedic, not instructive. ''Descriptives'' of basic maintenance principles belong in an encyclopedia, but ''prescriptive'' how-tos do not. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span>&nbsp;([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 01:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

*'''Yes''' If detailed and reliable maintenance methods are added to the article, it will be of greater help to those who want to understand and learn the clarinet. And the article will be more comprehensive. So I think it should be added.[[User:Hhhh2|Hhhh2]] ([[User talk:Hhhh2|talk]]) 07:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

*I am counting 3 yes and 2 no - (though I'm not sure we should count the IP). Would it be appropriate to reinstate the content in question and if people have issues with language, they can edit to avoid howto? @[[User:Special-T|Special-T]], would you be open to that as an outcome of the RfC? Respectfully, - [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 17:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

::I question the validity of some of the "yes"es, since they're not taking the [[WP:HOWTO]] issues into account.  "help.. to those who want to.. learn the clarinet" is exactly the definition of how-to.  And sourced/verifiable/not-lengthy is all fine, but, again, ignores the fact that it's how-to information.  As far as [[WP:COI]], I'm referring to the fact that you are the person who assigned this edit to someone. Your working to re-instate the content is a conflict of interest. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 18:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

::What about this? (possibly incorporated into the previous section):

Most clarinets are made of wood in four separate sections (not including the mouthpiece). Each tenon that fits into an adjacent socket is wrapped with cork, which requires [[cork grease]] to allow it to fit.{{sfn|Coppenbarger|2015|p=16}} Wooden clarinets can be damaged by moisture, so should be swabbed dry after playing.{{sfn|Coppenbarger|2015|pp=25–26}} The mouthpiece should be handled carefully, since damage to the tip or side rails can cause it to not play properly.{{sfn|Coppenbarger|2015|pp=25–26}}

:::Sure that would be a good start. -[[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 18:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
:::The article already says most clarinets are made of wood and describes their sections; what's novel here isn't sufficient for a standalone section. The sentence on moisture can be added to #Materials and the sentence on cork can be added to #Components. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 21:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
::::I 100% agree with [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]]. I was throwing out a concise re-write to see how it read, but it doesn't really cut it as encyclopedia information. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 00:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Special-T|@Special-T]] well we have 3 votes for keeping the maintenance section. so how would you like to proceed? [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::We don't actually ''need'' to arrive at a decision right now - this RfC's been open barely a week and the results are not so lopsided as to be [[WP:SNOW|snowing]] at this point. We can continue to work towards a mutually agreeable outcome, or we can wait for the RfC to run its course. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, 3 to 2 is ''not'' SNOW territory by any means. And if you're not sure if IPs count in discussions, should you be teaching people how to contribute to WP? --[[Special:Contributions/130.111.39.47|130.111.39.47]] ([[User talk:130.111.39.47|talk]]) 18:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's where I think this stands after a couple of weeks.  This RFC was started by [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]], who assigned the writing of that section to a student. He has ignored my re-iterated point that this constitutes a conflict of interest. He has also ignored my other policy points, mainly that almost all of that information is how-to - some of the "yes" voting ignores this point also.  Almost all of the rest of the information is trivial - it boils down to "wood can be damaged by moisture" and "damaged items may not function correctly".  I propose just putting a short description of tenon corks under the appropriate (existing) section. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 14:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
:It's simply not fair or accurate to say that I have ignored your points about CoI. I responded above that: "I initiated the Rfc to avoid COIs and to get outside perspective from others not immediately involved in the editorial dispute." It wasn't clear to me that I had a CoI on the article topic. What is my interest, exactly? Nor did I ignore the "how to" policy comments. If you look at the edit history of the article section. Most of my work was in line with yours - trying to revise the content so that it avoided "How to" language. - [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]])
::I've stated this too many times already. Here it is once more and I'll walk away from this. Your conflict of interest is that you are the only editor trying to re-instate a justifiably reverted edit. That edit consisted entirely of a student writing assignment that you assigned. Second, I pointed out that some of the "yes" responses to the RFC were based on the idea that how-to info should be OK. Yet you responded with "we have three votes to keep." So, yes, your responses here have ignored these points, and these are the points that support the reversion of the content in question. I'm done here. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 17:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

::: I am actually trying to reinstate the version you and I revised to remove "How-to" language [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&oldid=1147548958| 1147548958]] - it's a far departure from what the student originally wrote. I'm not sure how working with or even advocating for a student would constitute CoI anyway. If it does, there's a lot of CoI out there! Regarding your second comment, all of the votes responding yes had access to the content in question which btw, was not what you represented in your previous vote/response. - [[User:Matthewvetter|Matthewvetter]] ([[User talk:Matthewvetter|talk]]) 17:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
*I think at this point I will formally '''oppose''' adding the proposed maintenance section due to the how-to issues, and instead support adding the sentence on corks into the existing Components section. Essentially as an encyclopedia the purpose of this article is to help people learn ''about'' the clarinet, not ''learn the clarinet'', and I feel a standalone maintenance section falls in the latter category rather than the former. (Plus causes maintenance issues of its own). [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
{{talkref}}

== Uncited additions ==

I'm re-reverting a recent string of edits.  The statements are uncited, and, in some cases, are inserted into a sentence with an existing ref, implying that the statement is supported by that ref. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 16:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not gonna keep reverting (although it's not edit warring to revert uncited content).  I've explained in the edit summaries, and here on the talk page, what's wrong with those edits.  None of that material has been cited.  Also, the POV of "prominent" orchestral parts, better keywork on the Bb being a reason the C became less important, "impressive" downward extension of the range, "dark, mysterious, introspective nature" etc., is just that [[WP:POV]]. - [[User:Special-T|Special-T]] ([[User talk:Special-T|talk]]) 17:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Cayenarama}} Could you join the discussion here rather than restoring the disputed content, please? I agree that it is problematic to insert content around existing refs when that content is not supported by those refs - it creates a significant problem around verifiability. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 17:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

== Materials ==

Given the recent dark clouds here recently, I've made a modest copy edit in the materials section around plastics and composites, and when they came about; however I stopped short of explaining why one would make clarinets from plastics: cheaper construction and durability for student/band/outdoor use, and less maintenance due to such materials not requiring oiling or being subject to drying out and cracking, etc. This was mainly due to a lack of a handy source; I will have a go at adding this when I get home later; I know there's something in either the Cambridge Companion or the Yale book. This will also neatly cover off one of the points in the contested "maintenance" section above, without it being a how-to. Cheers — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 04:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

== Removal of a new section in the article ==

@[[User:Nikkimaria]] Yesterday I added a new section to the article with the heading "Famous clarinetists of the 18th and 19th centuries". I believe that WP readers who would like to learn more about the clarinet should also have the opportunity to learn about the history of the clarinet and its most famous protagonists.

You deleted my addition to the article without giving any reason. WP-WAR: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page." You did neither the one nor the other.
I ask that you reverse the deletion or post the reasons for it here so that the community can discuss it.

To everyone: the deleted section can be viewed [[User:Gisbert K/Famous Clarinetists|here]]. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 13:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]], as indicated in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=1212065570&oldid=1212061377 my edit summary], your proposed addition is UNDUE. This is not an appropriate venue for mini-biographies of a few of the many noted clarinetists - their articles that can be linked from the existing [[List of clarinetists]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 22:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::The list of clarinettists includes more than 300! The vast majority of them will probably no longer be mentioned, say, 20 years after their death. The ones I have listed with a short biography have all been dead for more than 100 years, but are still famous in the clarinet world for their special achievements. And they will still be listed in current encyclopaedias 200 years from now. I therefore consider it necessary and appropriate to briefly introduce these personalities to readers of this article who are not familiar with the clarinet and would like to find out more. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 23:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:::It's neither necessary nor appropriate to incorporate these biographies here - most of the full articles are already linked within this article anyways. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

== [[Soprano clarinet]] is up for deletion ==

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion! [[User:Why? I Ask|Why? I Ask]] ([[User talk:Why? I Ask|talk]]) 06:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

==Poorly sourced additions==

Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=1282852998&oldid=1282699544 this edit]: this material remains poorly sourced and problematic, so should remain omitted pending significant cleanup and discussion. But to begin with, I noted that some of the sources that were included are already deadlinks - was this copied or translated from somewhere without attribution? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:To avoid consequences, please take note of the following:
:If an author adds factual information to an article but provides too few sources, this is by no means a reason to delete the addition, either in whole or in part. Doing so would be considered vandalism! According to [[WP:WAR]], such measures are only justified in cases of negative, unsourced statements about living persons to prevent harm. In other articles, it is common practice to insert the template "Citation needed" for unsourced sections, allowing the author time to find additional sources or remove the unsourced content themselves.

: I would also like to point out that, as a clarinetist with extensive knowledge of the development of this instrument, compositions for it, as well as leading clarinet makers and renowned soloists, I have written more than 60 articles on clarinet-related topics (in 10 languages, the last one [[:ja:バセットクラリネット|here]]) over the past few years and have significantly expanded numerous others. I do not see a single such article written by you, which suggests that your knowledge in this field is rather limited.
:- &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 09:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
::Unfortunately this analysis is wholly inaccurate. Per [[WP:BURDEN]], "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Tagging is not required, and removal is not vandalism.

::Note also that the sources provided need to ''directly support'' the claims being made. I'd still like a response on the deadlink issue noted above, but the verifiability problems with these additions extends further - for example in citing an 1878 source for a claim about the 20th century, or in asserting reasoning for design choices cited only to a description of a single instrument. The prevalence of these and other issues in the proposed additions certainly merits their exclusion, and suggests re-examination of those other articles would be worthwhile. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, the article "Clarinet" has lost its "Good Article" status. Since I was responsible for more than 60% of the content in the German article on the clarinet, which was awarded "Excellent Article" status, I intend to improve the English article to the point where it can regain its "Good Article" designation. Unfortunately, you are constantly sabotaging my efforts in this regard. I will no longer tolerate this.
:::You indiscriminately and unjustifiably deleted my additions to the "Clarinet family" section yesterday, providing an entirely inaccurate justification—namely, that the sources I included with my additions do not meet the requirements for reliable sources.
:::Even if that were the case, you should have followed [[WP:BURDEN]], which states:
:::''Consider adding a [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tag as an interim step to removing to allow references to be added. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, [[Wikipedia:PRESERVE|you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself]] before removing or tagging it.''
:::I took the effort to compare [[User:Gisbert_K/Clarinet_family|here]] the old and new texts of the section, along with their respective sources and comments. From this comparison, it is clear that most of the sources I added, in addition to the existing ones, originate from the respective main articles and have not been previously challenged there. Some sources are new but of outstanding quality, such as the more than 200-page catalog of all works for basset horn and basset clarinet, compiled by the esteemed authors Thomas Grass and Dietrich Demus, and published by the German Clarinet Society. In two instances, a website was cited, but this is permissible as a secondary reference. One of these can be replaced with a source from an official journal on wind instruments.
:::The only source you explicitly mentioned in your statement today, from 1878, describes the early development of the contra-alto clarinet and is therefore valid.
:::In light of all this, the accusation of vandalism remains. I will reinstate the texts (reverting your revert). At the same time, I officially warn you against deleting this text again. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 15:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Again, tagging is optional, and removal does not qualify as vandalism. BURDEN imposes a requirement on the person adding material to provide citations that directly support the material. I'll add to that [[WP:ONUS]], which imposes a requirement on those seeking to include disputed content to get consensus for it. This material should not be restored until those requirements are met.

::::The issue I raised with your proposed addition was not primarily reliability, but verifiability. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1283615297 here] you added a claim that "The contra-alto clarinet is largely a development of the 2nd half of the 20th century, although there were some precursors in the 19th centuy." You cited this to a book from 1878. Whether that book is reliable or not, it cannot verify a claim about something that happened ''after'' it was published.

::::Another example is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1283568414 this edit]. You added a claim that "Due to its small size and more compact key work, the A♭ clarinet is usually constructed with a one-piece body that combines the separate upper and lower joints and the barrel found on larger clarinet". You cited this to a [https://collections.ed.ac.uk/mimed/record/16364 museum record for one such instrument]. This source, again regardless of reliability, does not verify the claim: it supports that this example has a one-piece body, but does not demonstrate that this arrangement was "usual" nor why that design might be used. The claim is [[WP:OR|original research]].

::::These are only examples of the issues pervading the proposed additions. I'd be happy to review a rewrite if you'd like to bring one forward for discussion, but at this point this material is not suitable for inclusion. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be fair I'd probably argue that one-piece A♭ clarinet bodies are a self-evident [[WP:SKYBLUE]] revealed by simply looking at any example instrument or photograph, of historical or modern manufacture. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 04:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
::Nobody doubts your expertise and experience, but we can't add stuff to the encyclopedia that isn't well referenced. I am knowledgeable about brass instruments, and there's stuff I could have added (that is well-known to players) to the [[bass trombone]], [[contrabass trombone]], and [[cimbasso]] articles that I'm trying to improve. But until there's published material to cite, I have to leave it out, especially if I need them to pass GA criteria. What you're adding may well be true, and some of it I have seen in places like the Cambridge Companion, Grove, etc. so it just needs citations. But "I'm an expert clarinettist just trust me" doesn't cut it. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 04:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Hello Jon,
:::I'm glad you joined the discussion to bring it onto a concrete, factual level. If I remember correctly, you've thanked me several times before for uploading new images or text contributions, including the addition of the audio samples.
:::I fully agree with your points, as well as with Nikkimaria's general statements about the requirements for suitable sources. These explanations might have been unnecessary, after all, I've been contributing to Wikipedia as an author for many years.
:::There are sources of varying quality. Sometimes, as an author, you wonder: can I use this source or is it inadequate? I’ve read that it's better to use a source that doesn't meet all the criteria than to have no source at all.
:::We are discussing a tabular overview of the ranges of individual instruments. Technically, it shouldn't require any commentary, as everything about these instruments should have already been said beforehand. But since that unfortunately hasn't happened, and to save the reader from flipping back through the article, the column with comments is useful. If it only contained brief summaries of what was previously stated, repeated source citations would be unnecessary. As long as already referenced content is merely being summarized, we don't need citations again in that column.
:::It's important to note that I provided or supplemented separate comments for each instrument. These are therefore multiple individual contributions. I hope you agree that if the comment for one instrument lacks sufficient sourcing, it is not acceptable to delete all other contributions as well. I see this as vandalism—even more so if, for instance, two of the three sentences in a comment are well sourced and the third is not, and yet all three are removed.
:::There’s no way around going through my additions in the table individually. I put a lot of effort into compiling [[User:Gisbert_K/Clarinet_family| this list]]. We need to go through it step by step, starting with the Ab clarinet. Based on your comments, we can delete footnote 1 (museum) here. The other sources come from the main article, which hasn’t been challenged so far. Is that acceptable to you or not? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 06:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
::::You need to learn what vandalism is on Wiki, because it's clear you don't have a clue. Please read [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] then read it again, taking it all on board. Then stop throwing the term around: if you continue to accuse others of vandalism when it it you that is not following proper practice and procedure, you will end up at ANI for being uncivil. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 06:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert K]] - I went through some of this when I was getting [[A-flat clarinet]] up to GA. I don't see what you're doing is particularly destructive, but perhaps we sandbox it somewhere until everyone's happy with it? Sorry, normally I'd be keen to help but I have a bunch of "life" going on at the moment, so I have only been able to do small wiki-gardening and maintenance edits lately; I can't currently commit to a big project. I agree that the article needs work. I very much appreciate your recent additions of audio clips from Richard Haynes, and sounding ranges using Lilypond. If you add the sound clips to the relevant clarinet article's infobox, like I did for A-flat clarinet, you can remove the audio clip request from the top of its talk page. I might be able to help find citations for contested things, I have the Companion and other books, and University access to Grove Online, library books etc. Let me know. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 07:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] and others interested in improving the article
:::::Let us continue with the [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet family|list]]. I believe the A♭ clarinet is settled. The same applies to the E♭ clarinet, so I assume that point is also resolved. For the C clarinet, I have added a sentence citing a new source (the first page of the score of The Barber of Seville). Regarding the basset clarinet, the text has been expanded and two new sources have been added, one of which is the website of [[Richard Haynes]], which is open for discussion, and the other is an academic work (catalog of all compositions for basset clarinet and basset horn).
:::::I would like to pause here for now and hear any objections or suggestions for improvement. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 10:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent|6}}
Continue to the end:

For the basset horn, I added some important compositions and supported them with the new source (catalog) already mentioned for the basset clarinet.

Alto clarinet: I added two sentences, mentioning a type that extends down to low C and providing the manufacturer's name as evidence.

Contralto clarinet: I added a sentence about its historical development and provided a source. I plan to revise this sentence when updating the text and support it with a new source; see the comment in the list.

For the contrabass clarinet, it was absolutely necessary to include these two sentences for clarification in regard to the depicted ranges and the sound example: "For the depicted tonal range, the execution in B-flat down to low C is assumed. The sound example from the 9th Symphony by Gustav Mahler is originally played by a (standard) bass clarinet." - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 15:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
:The A♭ section remains problematic per above.

:E♭: has Gangl previously had work published by reliable, independent publications?

:C: why does this claim warrant inclusion?

:Basset clarinet: the Haynes source is self-published and the Grass source does not appear to support the claims for which it is cited. That "most soloists" have used reconstructed instruments to perform the Mozart concerto in particular is a very extraordinary claim, given how widely performed that piece is; examples of performances on reconstructions aren't sufficient to verify that.

:Basset horn seems overly detailed

:Alto is partly unsourced

:Contralto remains problematic per above

:Contrabass is partly unsourced. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] Richard Haynes is an expert in the subject and this article is not a [[WP:BLP]], so he falls under [[WP:RS]] / [[WP:SPS]] [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 05:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Okay, could you point me to where he's been published by reliable sources on the subject? On a quick look I hadn't seen any. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 13:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::::1. https://www.manufaktur-aktuelle-musik.de/richard_haynes.html
::::2. http://www.cubus-records.ch/en/work/richard-haynes-en/
::::3. https://pakt-bern.ch/portraits/richard-haynes - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 14:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those aren't really what I was asking about. For a source to qualify per [[WP:SPS]], the author's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". So for example, if Haynes had written an article that was published in an academic music journal, that would qualify. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 14:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::He is a famous clarinettist, playing nearly all kinds of clarinets, but no musicologist. He doesn't write articles. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 14:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That means he's probably not a reliable source then. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Nr.2 is a reliable source for the basset clarinet d'amore. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 15:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::The problem with this description of [[WP:SRS]] is that Richard Haynes' "field" is musical performance on the clarinet, of which he is undoubtedly a leading expert. This field does not produce peer-reviewed published material like an academic or scientific field. The closest thing would be his extensive discography and experience performing with ensembles and orchestras all over the world. By that measure, I argue that material on his self-published website qualifies as [[WP:RS]] when used to cite aspects of playing the clarinet. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 01:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]]  I have commented on all points in the [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet family|list]] under commentarys “@Nikkimaria”. A number of changes were made to the text and the sources. I have come a long way to accommodate you, but I also expect a certain amount of compromise from you. You can see the final result [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet (parts of the article)|here]]. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 18:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Suggest replacing the 'New' sections with what you're actually now proposing - it does not seem that some of the issues above have been addressed but that may be a lack of clarity in the commentary. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 18:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Look at the result: all proposed changes have been incorporated. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 19:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::That does not appear to be accurate - for example [[User:Gisbert_K/Clarinet_family#New]] still has what you proposed last time, but the commentary has plans for changes that have not yet been incorporated. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 19:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent|6}}
Where did you look, [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet (parts of the article)|here]] or in the article Clarinet? I have checked everything again. [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet (parts of the article)|Here]] I have inserted the new text with the suggested changes, with the exception of the Contrabass clarinet; the old text was still there, I have now replaced it with the new one.
I would now like to transfer the section “Clarinet family”, as it can be seen after a long discussion [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet (parts of the article)|here]], to the article [[Clarinet]]. Okay? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 21:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
:I looked at the version you linked above. Looking at [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet (parts of the article)|this version]], it appears that many of the issues raised above do remain unaddressed, and new ones added, such a citation to a source that appears to be a [[WP:USERG|wiki]]. If the goal is to bring this article to GA status, it does need to have its contents directly supported by high-quality sources.
:One change that would help bridge the gap between the versions would be to not try to have the commentary column substitute for proper captions. For example, the caption on the A-flat sound example could be changed to "[[Béla Bartók]], ''Scherzo for Piano and Orchestra'' (1905)", rather than placing that information in the commentary. What are your thoughts on this approach? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 22:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::Can I suggest that we just go ahead with it as-is, and we work on it over the next 2-3 days. The goal is to get the article to GA. None of this is particularly controversial, and citations can and will be found, or spurious claims modified/removed. This would be easier than gate-keeping the article and working in a sandbox. Most of your concerns can be addressed in a couple of books I have at home, if you allow me a little time go dig them out. [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 23:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Why not wait until you have had that time and have the sources available? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] because I'd like to work on the article as one whole, not just this section, and consolidate/dedup, and copy edit it. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 00:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I've incorporated material with cn tags, and adapted the captions as proposed above. Go ahead with your consolidation and copy-editing, [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 01:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::I have looked through everything again and converted all the sources to sfn. There are 2 sources missing in Alto clarinet and Contra Alto clarinet, marked with “Citation needed”. All other statements are backed up by sources that have already been used in the main articles and some new sources of good quality. I have added a passage with a source for basset horn (Mozart K 621). 
::::::In my view, apart from the two missing sources, there is nothing to criticize. If I have understood Jon correctly, he wants to make some additions to the texts (with sources). I'll wait and see. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 09:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent|6}}
I've finally tracked down and dug out my copy of Rice's ''From the Clarinet D'Amour to the Contra Bass'' which covers the early history of the low clarinets.<ref>{{Cite Q|Q124426192}}</ref> — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 04:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:This source is also listed [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet (parts of the article)|here]], footnote 25. Although this book is available as an e-book, I have not yet found a way to download it or even to read it on my PC. I could only borrow it from a library. This is complicated and takes time. Do you have another option? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 06:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert K]] I have the actual book, but it's also on Oxford Academic (if you have Wikipedia Library access, [https://academic-oup-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/book/7882 here]). — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 06:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Thankyou very much Jon! I have now downloaded the book as PDF-file. In the list fo the citied sources you find it as Rice|2009b. I added the missing sources from this book. Do you still want to make additions or changes? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 12:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] and @[[User:Jonathanischoice|Jonathanischoice]]
::::In your opinion, can the paragraph Clarinet family as it is presented [[User:Gisbert K/Clarinet (parts of the article)|here]] with the extended "Cited sources" now be transferred to the article [[Clarinet]]? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 03:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Material from that sandbox was already moved here two days ago and has been developed since then. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]], which means you should ''not'' copy and paste from sandbox now, since it overwrites the improvements made since then. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 04:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I've been editing [[Clarinet]] directly. If there are E♭ alto clarinets with keys to low C then we can probably just refer to a manufacturer's site or catalogue. I can't find anything about substituting them with low D keys for Basset Horns, or are you talking about using an extension tube? Either way, I think for ranges we should stick to the typical ''tessitura'', i.e. their most useful range, as found in various orchestration texts, rather than hunting for the highest note in the lit/rep and using that. There's also more to say about the physics of reed behaviour and why the contrabass with all the crazy overtones has a wider written range than the A♭ piccolo.<ref>{{Cite Q|Q133835076}}</ref> — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 05:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC) [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 05:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[Alto Clarinet]] to C: see image in the main article. I saw the instrument on my visit to [[Dietz Klarinettenbau]] and other manufactures.
:::::Alto clarinet to D is made by [[Herbert Wurlitzer]], specialy to use, if no basset horn is avaible, source: Oskar Kroll 1965, Die Klarinette, p. 71. I changed the ranges now for an instrument to E (instead of D).
:::::High ranges: The highest notes are not addressed in the scores for clarinet. Mozart goes up to high A, another composer up to Bb. In jazz, the high C is also used in improvisations. I learned to play up to D using Baermann's fingering chart.
:::::On the website of [[Richard Haynes]] - Clarinets - you find the higher notes (not the highest possible) in his ranges for the deeper clarinets. Here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJhuOiXYdc -  you can hear 5 1/2 oktaves on a bass clarinet! 
:::::(The lower, the higher the instrument can play, the smaller, the less high, see Ab and Eb clarinets). I used this and his additional informations as a guide. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 06:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]]
::::::'''The highest ranges (written)'''
::::::C clarinet: Haynes C7, article Bb6
::::::Bb + A clarinet: Haynes D7, article C7
::::::Basset horn + Alto: Haynes D7, article D7
::::::Bass clarinet: Haynes E7, article E7    
::::::Contralto: Haynes A7, article F7 
::::::Contrabass: Haynes B, article F7  --> G7
::::::Sub contra Haynes: -, article G7  --> A7
::::::As you see the article is very conservative. I suggest for Contralto and Contrabass G7 and for Sub contra A7. What do think about? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 06:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert K]] Yes, I'm aware, but we need to keep to what's actually published. I've gone off Adler even though it seems to be a popular standard text. Blatter's 2nd ed (1997) might be better, he describes most of the instruments well and for some includes multiple ranges for "elementary", "high school" and "professional" use.<ref>{{Cite Q|Q133852959|pages=105-111}}</ref> I'll summarise here shortly. [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 00:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

<!-- Reply above this line -->
{{reftalk}}

== New extension ==

I have posted a proposed new extension [[User:Gisbert_K/Martin|here]] and am hereby submitting it for discussion. I consider it essential for improving the quality of the article. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 08:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:How do you anticipate this proposal interacting with the current content? It looks to have issues with verifiability much like the previous proposal. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::This text will replace the current section on Classical Music, as I have done before. Back then, you deleted the text with the justification of too few sources. Now, everything is supported by a major musicological source (Kroll).
::PS: I will undo your reverts again, as they are completely unfounded and do not reflect the outcome of the discussion. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 01:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi [[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]], the discussion above would not support that action on your part. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 01:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Would suggest continuing the discussion about the family section above if you have questions about why some of your additions were reverted; they shouldn't be restored without consensus, per [[WP:ONUS]]

::::As for your new proposal: I don't think a straight substitution is the best approach. Some of the sourced content could be incorporated alongside the existing material, but the proposed section has a lot of unnecessary detail (for example, for the purposes of this article we don't care that Mozart was a Freemason) and omits some necessary detail that is currently present (eg usage in concert band). [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::'''Clarinet family and new extension'''
:::::My intended additions were discussed endlessly here. In the end, a text emerged that could have been incorporated into the article as it was. However, since two citations were still missing—citations that Jon was supposed to obtain—you told me to wait another two or three days. Then, without a word, you added part of my text—some parts verbatim, others paraphrased—to the article under your name, just like you had done once before. I call that theft of intellectual property, theft of my work.
:::::Every time I recently expanded the clarinet article, you immediately deleted the entire contribution instead of discussing possible shortcomings—usually insufficient sources—with me and giving me a chance to revise, as is otherwise standard practice on WP. The reason seems obvious to me: You want to prevent me at all costs from becoming the top contributor to that article. Currently, I hold a 19% share, and you 24%, but only because you stole my texts. With a single somewhat longer contribution from me, the balance could shift. You don't want to allow that—hence your malicious behavior toward me.
:::::You know very little about clarinet-related topics, particularly lacking knowledge of the relevant literature for this instrument, and you’re unable to assess the significance of existing compositions when they’re brought to your attention. That’s why you removed Mozart’s "Trauermusik" for basset horn, even though it is one of the most important compositions for the instrument. That’s why you shortened my text about the basset clarinet in Bb. My version reads: "The most famous composition is Mozart’s opera La Clemenza di Tito, No. 9, aria from Sesto “Parto, parto, ma tu ben mio”, for mezzo-soprano, basset clarinet in B♭ obbligato and orchestra."; yours: "The most famous composition is Mozart’s opera La Clemenza di Tito." That’s entirely wrong. Mozart uses regular clarinets in this opera. Only for this one aria does he use the basset clarinet, in such a magnificent solo performance that, in the most recent productions of the opera in Salzburg and Amsterdam, Peter Sellars brought the clarinettist on stage, interacting with Sesto during the aria. When you see and hear this video from Salzburg - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxktacsjSjk&t=29 - you need no longer doubt that this piece is the most famous composition for this instrument, an unsurpassable masterpiece that received the most applause in Salzburg and the most praise in the reviews. There is no opera or symphony in which the score consistently calls for basset clarinets. This instrument only ever appears in solo concerts and solo parts. You don’t know any of this this and much more and yet still want to act like the big shot here. This way the article will never regain the GA rating.
:::::'''Now to the point''':
:::::1. Revert: As mentioned, the texts were extensively discussed, so there is no need for another round of discussion. There were no objections raised to the passages I added.
:::::2. New Addition:
:::::I reject your objection that I should not mention Mozart was a Freemason. Mozart and Stadler were two individuals who played an outstanding role in the history of the clarinet. The two happened to meet in the same Masonic lodge. This is well known and should not be concealed. Parts of Mozart's music are influenced by his Freemasonry, for example, the opera The Magic Flute, particularly the part with Sarastro's realm. The march of the priests there, which is clearly shaped by Masonic elements, emphasised by the lowest of the clarinets of the time, the basset horns.
:::::    
:::::The 2nd objection is irrelevant, as I already retained the text about the concert bands in the version you deleted, and that will remain the case now as well. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 09:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::From my perspective, there are several things going on here.
::::::# ''Citations.'' I have not had as much time as I'd like recently to find all the sources I want. One the one hand, I think we need to change the ranges of the instruments to what is in sources, which is always conservative (and more like the ''tessitura''); I'd say we could use Adler's ''Orchestration''.<ref>{{Cite Q|Q115258889}}</ref> I have it at home, it lists most clarinets, but unfortunately I know that his material for other instruments is persistently outdated or flat wrong through all four editions (e.g. bass and contrabass trombone). Regarding Mozart, if there is citeable, musicological discussion about Mozart's Freemasonry in relation to clarinet, then I see no reason to object to it. Just add the source(s).
::::::# ''Alto range.'' I have also found nothing to support the idea that an E♭ alto can substitute for an F basset horn when it has keys to low D. It sounds like a bad idea anyway, since they have different ''timbres''; Georgina Dourée describes how the "alto has a bore which begins to approach that of the bass clarinet, whereas the bore of the basset horn is closer to that of the clarinets in B♭ and A".<ref>{{Cite Q|Q116448371|page=58}}</ref> Also, all altos in current manufacturer catalogues have keys for low E♭ (sounding G♭₂) as standard (Yamaha, Buffet, Amati, Leblanc, Selmer Paris, and Foag), and only two altos go lower, from Wurlitzer (to low D sounding F₂) and Dietz (to low C sounding E♭₂), and they are only offered with Oehler keywork.
::::::# ''Contributions.'' Unfortunately @[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert K]] has taken on some idea that contributing to Wikipedia is some sort of competition to see who can add the most material to an article. To some extent, this is clouding things. We certainly don't need to accuse each other of malicious behaviour if it is not present(?)
::::::# ''Gatekeeping''. Not to be too accusatory, but it does looks to me like @[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] is gatekeeping this article a bit too much, especially for someone who professes to enjoy content creation. Editing should be a collaborative and incremental process. Rather than reverting all the time, perhaps hunt for a citation yourself, or tag claims/sections with {{tl|citation needed}} so that other editors can address it. ''That is, after all, what those tags are for.'' <s>It is also a valid point that adding someone else's contributions to the article as your own is un-cool; the same problem can crop up in some open source projects with copyright assignment and attribution of [[Git|git commits]].</s>
::::::I am not keeping such a close eye on all this edit-warring, because I don't want to make it worse. I also don't want to edit the article if it's only going to get lost in a churn of edit warring. We should be able to compromise by making smaller, more frequent, incremental edits to the article, rather than preparing a huge tract and then cycling through another edit war each time. I have got several articles to [[WP:GA]] status, and reviewed several others. I would like to get this article and several others I am working on to GA status too, but it won't happen if the GA reviewer sees too much of this going on in the talk pages. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 22:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC) [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 22:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I restored some of the disputed content ''per your request'', Jon, ''with'' attribution, and you're both throwing around theft accusations? ''That's'' uncool, and definitely not the basis for collaboration. I don't care about who's got the most edits or highest percentage; I care about the quality of the article, and it remains my view that the proposed additions at this point are detrimental, particularly if any efforts to alter them are met with the kind of outright hostility exhibited above.

:::::::To elaborate on some of the most recent reversions, explaining the objections to the proposal as presented (because it certainly is not the case that there were none). (1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1284665555 This] information is covered by the written and sounding range images provided. (2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1284665771 These details] were migrated to the captions for the ranges and sound examples, as proposed in the discussion above. If you now object please clarify your rationale. (3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1284665854 This] was to refocus the section on the instrument, rather than the Concerto, since the instrument is the object of commentary here. It is also not necessary to comment on every work that uses the instrument; it is already noted that the instrument is used primarily for Classical-era works. (4) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1284665975 This]: the work being a masterpiece or a video of its performance does not cite the claim that it is the most ''famous''; if there are reviews saying so they should be cited. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1284827802 added specificity] on the work in response to the objections above. (5) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1284666108 This] is [[MOS:PEACOCK|unnecessary puffery]]; we already say that there is little other material published for the instrument beyond the Mozart works discussed. (6) For [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarinet&diff=prev&oldid=1284666464 this], see Jon's comments. 

:::::::As to the new proposal: [[User:Gisbert_K/Martin|This]] is the proposal linked at the top of this section. It does not include any mention of the concert band. If there is a different version that we should be evaluating that does, please specify what that is so we can all be discussing the same thing. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry @[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] I was not paying enough attention to the right thing, and did not mean to accuse you of edit theft; I had forgotten you'd done that for me, please disregard that. Uggh. If @[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert K]] could make smaller commits to the article directly, and add a cn tag if you know there is one but haven't found it yet, then perhaps we can all just have a much happier time collaborating on the clarinet articles. I like kittens; what's your favourite furry animal? — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 02:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Kittens are lovely, and thank you for the apology. But I don't think cn tagging alone will be enough to address the issues at hand. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
<!-- reply above this line -->

{{reftalk}}

== New version “Usage and repertoire” ==

I hereby present my proposal for a partial revision of this section for discussion. You can see it [[User:Gisbert_K/Martin|here]]. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 05:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would suggest instead dividing the classical section into ensembles vs solo/chamber, and moving the concert band back into ensembles - if anything the multiple clarinets section could then be incorporated into the ensembles as well, since it is heavily focused on orchestra. The listing of different chamber group types in the current version is potentially valuable in pointing readers to more specific pages, is missing here, and could be better incorporated in a different structure.

:Beyond the organization, this is a ''lot'' of detail. Some of it overlaps with the History section - eg "By the time of Beethoven (c. 1780–1820), the clarinet was a fixed member in the orchestra" there vs "In Beethoven’s works, the clarinet became a permanent part of the wind section in symphonies, on equal footing with the oboe and flute" here. Streamlining would be beneficial. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::After your contribution, you revised the section Usage and repertoire. Does that mean you consider my suggestion as completed? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 03:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Not sure what you mean by that? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::::In view of the long texts on the structure of the clarinet, its acoustics, its physics, its history, its tunings etc., the reader rightly expects a detailed explanation of what the instrument can be used for. Details should be provided here. I have therefore created a synthesis of your Usage and Repertoire section and mine, which you can see [[User:Gisbert K/Martin|here]].
::::I have presented usage and repertoire separately. The Usage section contains your text, with the individual compositions being eliminated, which are presented in my Repertoire section according to epoch (as in the French article). Can you make friends with this or accept it? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]]
:::::I would also like to hear your opinion on this. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::::I think a separate "Repertoire" section is entirely appropriate; I've followed this in other instrument articles. the "Usage" could be something like "Performance practice" maybe? — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 23:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::In that case the lower-level subdivision of the Usage section would not be necessary. But my concerns about the detail and overlap regarding Repertoire persist. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 01:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Overlaps with other parts of the article have been removed. The details in this section are more important than some details in other sections, e.g. the mention of the quarter-tone clarinet, which was merely an experiment. What is presented on 30 pages in my main reference (Kroll, The clarinet 1965) has been extremely shortened. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 09:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

== Instrument tessitura (range) ==

Adler is out of date, and Blatter (1997) is conservative (giving the ''tessitura'' range as up to written A₆ for all instruments) but he at least bothers to include all the extra family members we care about.<ref>{{Cite Q|Q133852959|pages=105-111|ol=unset|oclc=unset}}</ref> On p. 107 he assumes the contrabass has keys to low C, and the bass has keys to at least E♭, and sometimes D or C. Curiously, he has indicated E as the lowest note for the contra-alto and alto. All modern E♭ contra-altos in current catalogues from the few manufacturers that make them (Leblanc, Selmer Paris, Buffet, and Foag) have keys to E♭ (Foag to C). All modern E♭ altos have keys to E♭ (Yamaha, Buffet, Selmer, Leblanc, Foag, and Amati), D (Wurlitzer), or low C (Dietz). Anyway:
<score>
\layout {
  system-count = #2
  \context { \Score \omit BarNumber }
}
{
  \new Staff \with { \omit Score.TimeSignature } \cadenzaOn
  \clef treble \omit Stem

  \clef treble \hide r16 ^ "B♭ clarinet"
  e1 \glissando a''' \hide r1
  d1 ^ \markup \small "sounding" \glissando g'''1

  \bar "||" \hide r1
  \clef treble \hide r16 ^ "Basset Horn (F)"
  c1 \glissando a''' \hide r1
  \clef bass
  f,1 ^ \markup \small "sounding" \glissando \clef treble d'''1

  \bar "||" \hide r1

  \clef treble \hide r16 ^ "Alto (E♭)"
  \magnifyMusic 0.7 { ees4 }
  e1 \glissando a''' \hide r1
  \clef bass   \magnifyMusic 0.7 { ges,4 }
  g,1 ^ \markup \small "sounding" \glissando \clef treble c'''1

  \bar "||" \hide r1

  \clef treble \hide r16 ^ "Bass (B♭)"
  \magnifyMusic 0.7 { c4 d4 }
  ees1 \glissando a''' \hide r1
  \clef bass \magnifyMusic 0.7 { bes,,4 c,4 }
  des,1 ^ \markup \small "sounding" \glissando \clef treble g''1

  \bar "||" \hide r1

  \clef treble \hide r16 ^ "Contra-alto (E♭)"
  \magnifyMusic 0.7 { ees4 }
  e1 \glissando a''' \hide r1
  \clef bass
  \magnifyMusic 0.7 { ges,,4 }
  g,,1 ^ \markup \small "sounding" \glissando c''1

  \bar "||" \hide r1

  \clef treble \hide r16 ^ "Contrabass (B♭)"
  c1 \glissando a''' \hide r1
  \clef bass \ottava #-1 bes,,, ^ \markup \small "sounding" \glissando \ottava #0 g'1
  \bar "||"
}
</score>
Anyway, if we are happy with this compromise, I propose we put these ranges in the family table in this article, and the infoboxes of each of the individual articles, if not already cited. I'm well aware of the ability to play up to E₇ and beyond, but these are conservative ranges, and are a good approximation of the ''tessitura'' (typical useful range) of each. In the prose of each article, the range can be elaborated with a more detailed Lilypond snippet, describing low keys, altissimo fingerings, harmonics and other extended range techniques. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to have 8vb and 8va everywhere. Clarinettists are used to its very large range, and parts routinely show low E₃ or C₃ with three or four leger lines, and up to at least G₆ or A₆ with four leger lines above. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC) 

:Hello Jon, what does Blatter write about the highest notes for “elementary”, “high school” and “professional” for the clarinets from the basset horn downwards?  I was able to play up to D7 on the A and Bb clarinets at the beginning of my 2nd year of clarinet lessons (with a stronger reed). Had low clarinets been available to me, I would definitely have reached higher. I think, we can't show the ranges for beginners here. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 16:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::Sure, I can play to at least C₇ but, yet again, ''it does not matter'' how high you, I, or Richard Haynes can play. It only matters what published [[WP:RS]] say the ''tessitura'' is, which is usually based on the range used in existing repertoire. Feel free to find another orchestration or jazz writing textbook, but Blatter is as good as any that I've been able to find so far. Does Hoeprich (2008) provide anything useful?<ref>{{Cite Q|Q133857282}}</ref> I don't have it. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 22:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC) [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 22:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:- &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 20:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
::..usually based on the range used in existing repertoire
::Who knows the highest note in all compositions for each type of clarinet? What do you think of my representation of the ranges in the article Eb-Clarinet? - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 00:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi Jon, the range of the Bb clarinet is normally given as E3-C7. The ranges of the lower clarinets are higher, one to two notes per lower octave. So you can't specify A6 as the highest note for the contraalto and contrabass clarinet, the same as for the Eb clarinet. That doesn't fit together. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 04:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert K]] I know. You know. How many times do I have to repeat? ''Find it in a printed [[WP:RS]].'' — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 04:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

<!-- reply above this line -->
{{reftalk}}

== Recent improvements to the article  ==

1. The table of ranges has been expanded both textually and with sound examples. The individual ranges have been revised. Some types of clarinets have been newly added to the table.

2. A new section titled "Acoustics" was created, consolidating all relevant content from the article into one place.

3. The section "Usage and repertoire" has been divided into two separate sections. The repertoire section was expanded and organized by historical periods.

4. The article's structure has been improved. Related content was grouped into coherent sections, and redundancies have been removed.

With these changes, my to-do list from October 3, 2024, is complete—except for item 2. However, parts of it can now be found in the new "Performance practice" section (formerly "Usage"), which also includes content on sound effects.

I believe these updates have significantly enhanced the quality of the article. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 11:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Good work. I propose a peer review — see [[WP:PRG]] — to get ready for a future GA nomination. I'd be happy to do it. — [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 01:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

== Tuning ==

@[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]]  You deleted the section "Tunig" I added with the justification of "cleanup." I'm beginning to worry about your state of mind.  Above all, your action once again demonstrates a clear lack of understanding in the field of instrumentology.  Similar sections on tuning can be found in articles about other instruments—for example, the violin and the piano. It appears you have never read them.

It would be best if you refrained from engaging in musical topics altogether.

I urge you to cancel the cancellation immediately, otherwise I will. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 01:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:See [[WP:NOTHOWTO]]. I incorporated the encyclopedic content into the Acoustics section. 

:It would be best if you refrained from continuing with personal commentary. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 02:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
::[WP:NOTHOWTO]] is not opposed to a tuning section. I refer to the corresponding sections in other instruments and to section 1.2 of the German article, which was not written by me but by another author.  This article still has the ‘Excellent Article’ award. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 03:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::[[WP:OTHERCONTENT|The existence of a section in other articles doesn't mean such a section is unproblematic]], and does not demonstrate consensus for its inclusion here. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Your reasoning is irrational, as these are similar articles—articles about musical instruments. And where is it written that Nikkmaria alone decides in the case of disagreements?
::::I am convinced that you would not have removed the addition "Tuning" if, for example, Jon had added it. Since the beginning of December 2022, you have been deleting almost all of my contributions to the article, purely out of competitive motives. You want to prevent me from taking the lead on this article, meaning that my contributions might outweigh yours in percentage. You are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this. In several cases, you first deleted my contributions and then reinserted them into the article, slightly rephrased, under your own name, or you submitted my suggestions under your name while we were still discussing them. I consider this to be hostile, malicious, and unfair behavior toward me. And in the current case, you are trying to block my text with a justification that clearly defies the rules of reason. I won’t let you get away with that. - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 09:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::[[WP:ONUS|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content]]. Neither [[WP:INAPPNOTE|canvassing]] nor [[WP:NPA|personal commentary]] contribute to that. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::My opinion is, that a section about tuning is useful. Only with pull out/push in the barrel. Sources of error like temperature should be omitted. Because some orchestras are tuned at 443Hz, tuning is essential. [[User:Grimes2|Grimes2]] ([[User talk:Grimes2|talk]]) 11:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That tuning can be adjusted by changing or pulling out the barrel was in the article prior to this dispute and remains so. I've added the clarification that tuning can be adjusted to match an ensemble. Is there any other content you feel needs to be included? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
:My comments on the section are: 1. the source (a post on the Selmer website) is probably a not qualifying [[WP:RS]] but the same information is likely to be in a decent clarinet book or method, 2. it is a small and [[WP:TMI|technical detail]], that only occupies professional clarinettists and not the general audience, and thus possibly doesn't need to be in the article, and 3. the last paragraph read like [[WP:NOTHOWTO|"how to play the clarinet"]]. [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 04:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::The tuning of a clarinet may be more developped than in the present WP page. You may help to ameliorate the Gisbert's proposal instead to suppress it. 
::Playing "well tuned" is of interest to beginners as well as professionals with different approaches, and that is not a detail. A special page could be created to explain how to play in tune with other instruments, such as the flute, whose behaviour is the opposite of that of the clarinet. [[User:Clarioio|Clarioio]] ([[User talk:Clarioio|talk]]) 10:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
:::That special page sounds like an excellent proposal for [[Wikiversity]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

== Closed harmonics ==

The article briefly mentions in a parenthetical that only the odd harmonics resonate: "A wide variety of compression waves are created, but only some (primarily the odd harmonics) are reinforced." But this seems like one of the first and most important things to explain to readers because it sets the clarinet family apart from all other wind/brass instruments as far as I'm aware. A detailed explanation of the clarinet acoustics in comparison with other cyclindrical bore instruments with open harmonics (double reeds, trumpet/trombone, etc) as well as single reed conical bores (sax family) would be very useful in contextualizing clarinet acoustics. I recommend getting this closer to the front. [[Special:Contributions/216.161.14.226|216.161.14.226]] ([[User talk:216.161.14.226|talk]]) 16:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi IP, what specifically would you proposed saying? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::Hi Nikki, a good source on this topic is this: https://www.niu.edu/gbarrett/resources/acoustics.shtml
::You can try to summarise the most important points from this in a suitable form. (If I did it, you would find a reason to delete my text as usual.) - &nbsp;<span style="font-size:115%;background:#E6E6FA">[[User:Gisbert K|Gisbert]]</span> ツ ([[User talk :Gisbert K#top|talk]])&nbsp; <span style="font-size:85%"> Illustrate Wikipedia !</span> &nbsp; 21:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)