Talk:Organ pipe

message: Not sure if the proposed merge is a good idea, simply because it might make the Pipe Organ article a bit too lengthy. Madder 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but is there anything here that isn't said in Pipe organ - is this just a poor summary of what is there? Also I have had been looking at Organ stop and I am not convinced that that article is any better. What do you think? Mdcollins1984 13:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both of these articles are articles in their own right. They are long enough and detailed enough to warrant being separate articles. Furthermore, pipe organ is already a very long article, and merging these two articles into it would make it far too big and difficult to manage. Madder 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge

message: I believe there is a better way to present the information in the "Variation in timbre" section. Currently, it is simply an outline, but I think it would be nicer to have it written out, possibly with a little more information about each point. For example, instead of just saying "Tin" or "Wood," explain how the sound differs with each, etc.
Also, it would be nice to have some more (or simply better) pictures of individual pipes. www.organstops.org has a collection of some great pictures of individual pipes...
I'll work a little on this when I've got some more time. I don't believe this article needs to be merged with another, but it could use some work.
:)
- Matthew (SuperOctave) 26 November 2006
:I have attempted to address this concern. The Variations in timbre section is now in prose form. However, as may be gleaned from reading the section, I do not possess the expertise necessary to do this information justice. Furthermore, I would raise the question of whether the section should be scrapped altogether, and the relevant subsections moved into Flue pipe and Reed pipe... what does everybody else think? —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I got bold and did all that (and a bit more) without anybody saying anything. If there's a good reason to revert, please do. —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Variations in timbre

message: I've just tidied this some more, no reason to revert! Either the subsections of variations of timbre (what a horrible section title...) could be expanded on in flue/reed pipe, or they can be brought together here. Not sure really! –MDCollins (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick update: Variations in timbre was moved to Flue pipe and Reed pipe, cleaned up, and renamed "Tonal characteristics," which makes more sense, though there may be a better name still for that section. This article received a short "Pitch" section define organ pitch terminology, which is used in the article. It doesn't really fit anywhere, though… what can we do about this? Should there be a short Organ pitch stub to which we link from all the articles that require this terminology? —Cor anglais 16 15:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: these doodads sound splendid : ) IHATETHOSETHINGS (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  i love these thingamabobs