For Andrewa   string is vernacular embedded in our business from the catalogues of the original manufacturers the last people interested in logic or organology and later folk nomenclature never scholarly nomenclature The same holds for the BC Rich companys catalogue referring to its coursed instrument as the string guitar   Any instrument with at least one nonsingle string should use course for clarity by any serious musicologist   Intruments with  single strings should be termed stringed guitars rather than the string guitar because there is no one string guitar with the definitive article   I suggest you start a new article and title it stringed guitars under which you differentiate the various types under subheadings accordign to their number of courses The baroque guitar would fall under course the BC Rich instrument would fall under course    I suggest a nonguitarist baroque lutenist should mediate this and offer an opinion on the established musicological use of the terms course and string    We must recognise that string guitar is an exception to and deviation from a wellestablished musicologicalorganological convention and not the rule according to which we should rewrite the terminology We should also recognise that the term string guitar enters not via musicologists or scholars but via guitar manufacturers and was later taken up mainly by folk musicians In contrast there is an extensive scholarly history of referring to instruments with at least one PAIR of strings as coursed not single strungstringed Now I am not suggesting renaming string guitars but it is a mistake and folly to try to oppose centuriesold scholarly conventions and to take the exception as the rule and rewrite the terminology of organology