Wikipedia talk:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Archive 1

message: Being a relative newcomer to the pipe organ, I will not be able to contribute the grand additions/revisions of some of the more learned members. I shall, however, continue to chip in as I have before. As a final note, yes, my account name was inspired by the article and my interest in the organ. Kudos to all who make this place go round. 
P.S. I've made a userbox for this project. The link:  If you don't like it or would like to change it, feel free to make changes.
Doublediapason 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome. Thanks for the userbox, I've added it to the template section of the main page. MDCollins (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Message from a new project member

message: This is a discussion about the re-naming of :Category:Popular organists, extracted from above - struck out text is irrelevant to this discussion, and has been acted on.
How about a category for non-classical organists?  The likes of Reginald Dixon, for example?  The Wurlitzer is, after all, a pipe organ.  Guy (Help!) 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed here as well: rename the category "Popular organists:" perhaps "Non-classical organists" or "Popular music organists?" I am woefully inadequate when it comes to my knowledge of Wikipedia conventions, and especially where to  find them, but British sounds good to me. :Category:Cathedral organists also sounds like a good idea. —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything to avoid the current confusion between "being popular" and "playing popular music" - "Light Music Organists"?.  As for "British", the approach at :Category:British musicians seems to be to have English, Welsh, etc as sub-categories of British.  So, to conform, I suggest we aim to use English organists / Welsh organists etc rather than British organists, wherever possible.  There's more about naming conventions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization I'll create :Category:Cathedral organists and put John Scott (organist) in it for now - one of the "popular organists"! Bencherlite 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Non-classical organists' sounds the best so far (is there a bot we could use to change all of these?) I suppose it doesn't matter if not, because we need to enter each one anyway. MDCollins (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have raised the :Category:Popular organists problem at the WP:Musicians cat-sort project here, to see what they suggest. I think for now, we can continue with the category sort - leaving it as popular organists for the time being, then rename it afterwards! MDCollins (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion now raised at Categories for discussion.MDCollins (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion closed - decision rename, but to what? –MDCollins (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular organists category

message: Discussion extracted from talk pages of Mdcollins and Bencherlite
Hi. I noticed that you asked whether Dudley Buck was a cathedral organist or not. I have probably been going against my own rules, but have used discretion in cases like this and included organists of large-ish/ or many parish churches in this category as well, not just for cathedrals. I know this might create problems, but save another :Category:Church organists it kind of seemed logical! MDCollins (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, not sure I agree that non-cathedral organists should be in the cathedral organists category.  I think you then have a real problem of deciding whether someone played at "enough" churches or a "large enough" church to qualify, whereas "Did he/she play at a cathedral?" should be a straightforward question to answer.  I don't think we need a "Church organists" category as well, though - "classical organists" doesn't have to be an empty category consisting only of sub-categories. Shall we move this discussion to the Project talkpage? Bencherlite 12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cathedral organists

message: How about :Category:Female organists? There aren't that many on here, but more than I anticipated. Would it be a useful category? MDCollins (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was initially unsure about :Category:Female organists but have checked and found :Category:Women in music, with sub-categories including :Category:Female guitarists and :Category:Women composers.  It would appear to fit nicely and (if created) should be added as a sub-category of Women in music too. Bencherlite 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Created! –MDCollins (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Female organists

message: I'm tagging the American organists at present, and beginning to think that we need another new category of :Category:Baseball organists - still in the C section and found two already (Lambert Bartak and Ray Castoldi)! Bencherlite 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, maybe...When the popular organists category debate is finished and we have done all the sorting, perhaps some more sub-cats of :Category:Popular organists would be apparent. MDCollins (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have found another baseball organist - my tongue-in-cheek suggestion about :Category:Baseball organists is getting less tongue-in-cheek now! )(Moved from below) - didn't initially mean it as a serious suggestion, but have found three so far and only up to G.  (Aren't there sometimes organists at other American sports?) Agree that decisions can wait until later. Bencherlite 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball organists

message: Would :Category:Hammond organ players be more consistent with other sub-categories if renamed :Category:Hammond organists?  Bencherlite 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly... MDCollins (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Hammond organists sounds good to me, and more consistent, though it's similar to the phrase "Hammond organ." —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hammond organ players

message: Should :Category:Organists and composers in the North German tradition be placed as a sub-cat of :Category:Classical organists? My thought is that yes it should, removing individuals from the latter - unless of course there are some non-organist composers in the category. It is all in the wording. I'll check them as I populate the German organists list. Any thoughts –MDCollins (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organists and composers in the North German tradition

message: I think we could do with an organist-stub. Before proposing one, I believe we have to see how many articles would require the tag. I am marking these on the article list page, and tagging all relevant articles with "Keyboardist-stub" - the closest I can find! MDCollins (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now proposed this stub, current estimate is nearly 100 stubs!–MDCollins (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And created at  –MDCollins (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed stub  

message: Fun though it is to go through every organist-related category, tag the talk page and check for disambig and redirect pages, can't we ask a bot-owner to do at least the initial tagging for us?  How about :User:WatchlistBot, for example? Bencherlite 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe - but we've probably done most of it. I'll do the non-american organists for a bit! MDCollins (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and I'll do some more American organists.  D and E, here I come...  Bencherlite 10:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it allows us to correct the categorisation as we go! See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 11#Category:Popular organists and help me out! Somebody seemed to get the wrong end of the stick. MDCollins (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though WatchlistBot can be used to perform "maintenance" checking of the categories once a week or so, which would save us having to check for new pages in every category and tag them.  Worth rememebering for when we've tagged every blinking organist/organ article?! Bencherlite 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeding up a boring job for humans? 

message: I've made a start on :Category:Classical organists, with the help of trusty AWB, and when that's done, I'll turn to :Category:Cathedral organists and put names from there into :Category:Fooian classical organists as well.  Apart from that, I plan on leaving :Category:Cathedral organists untouched - i.e. not deleting it from any articles, but not subcategorizing it by nationality either, since otherwise it is too much of a duplicate of :Category:Classical organists.  Any other views? Bencherlite 00:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep that's exactly what I was planning to do. The three categories :Category:Cathedral organists, :Category:Organ scholars and :Category:Female organists don't need touching or recategorizing. I'll give some a go as well. Bear in mind the French still need checking, unless you've already done so! –MDCollins (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Nearly done. I've also delisted the pop/hammond organists from our article list and remove the project banner from the talk pages as well. –MDCollins (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder about the French. Many, but not all, will be covered as we go through Classical organists, turning "French organists" and "Classical organists" to "French classical organists".  We can then tidy up the rest when we weed out the "Fooian organists" pages one by one.  Can't use AWB at work, unfortunately, otherwise I'd carry on now... Bencherlite 14:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Progress report - :Category:French organists now empty, all moved to :Category:French classical organists.  :Category:Classical organists is now also empty of articles, and just has its subcats.  Bencherlite 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Progress report (2) - all members of :Category:Cathedral organists are also in the appropriate :Category:Fooian classical organists.  That covers most of the work, I think - now all we need to do is check the members of :Category:American organists, :Category:English organists etc, pick up the ones we've missed and boot into touch (or into :Category:Fooian genretype keyboardists, whichever is easiest) the ones we don't want!  Bencherlite 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All booted to keyboardists by nationality for now. Seems a good place to put the 'wrong' ones so somebody else spots it, and reclassifies. I was wondering what to do with the theatre organists, Reg Dixon and the like, because although 'classical' they are more light/popular, so I put them in the generic keyboardists for now until somebody else works out where to put them. The baseball organists were the same, in fact all of the hammond/wurlitzer types - guess its not really our concern! Is that categorization and linking and tagging complete then? A milestone reached if there ever was one. Can we do some real articles now?? –MDCollins (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray, job done and page updated to reflect the fact.  Good work, MDC.  What, real articles?  Can't we just play with categories for ever?!  Bencherlite 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recategorizing Category:Classical organists to Category:Fooian classical organists 

message: I just attempted a revision of Organ stop, and I believe it is now a better article, though it certainly needs more cleanup and information. Much of the text is pulled and revised from Pipe organ. I ended up commenting out a good portion of the article because it confused the definitions of stop and slider (the latter of which never showed up in the article). This begs the question: how shall we incorporate various chest actions (slider chest, spring chest, cone chest, Pitman chest, etc.) into the organ articles? Should they be portions of Organ stop or their own separate articles? Does anyone have a good enough understanding of these mechanisms to write about them? Am I bringing this up way too early in the life of the project? —Cor anglais 16 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that an explanation of the various chest actions should be all in one action, not Pipe organ but possibly one of the others. You might be bringing this up a tiny bit too soon - we might need to get the more mundane tasks out of the way first!–MDCollins (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Organ stop]] revision

message: So I was comparing some of the organ-related articles in the English Wikipedia with their corresponding organ-related articles in other languages, and I came across the "Portail de l'Orgue" at the French Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portail:Orgue
In addition, I found information on portals in the English Wikipedia.
This "Portail de l'Orgue" looks really cool. Can we do this on the English Wikipedia? Does it make sense to? Is there already one I don't know about? —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can do this. I think it would be really useful. Lets add it to the list of things to do. Perhaps, I'll create a list of things that need doing to get this project up and running. There are still a few maintenance things to be done from setting up really. –MDCollins (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The French Wikipedia Organ Project also looks as though it has some useful material that we could steal use for inspiration, although my GCSE French gets me as far as buying "un croque-monsieur, s'il vous plais"...  The creator of both the Fr Project and Portal is Sonusfaber, whose talk page says that s/he speaks English at a near-native level, which might be useful if we need to ask for help or guidance, either with the Project/Portal or for matters French.  I'm sure that there would be things that we could help them with in return - they have a list of articles that need writing, including Simon Preston and "Georges" Guest, for example, that we might be able to at least start off in schoolboy French for them.  Bencherlite 00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, this got me thinking - there must be material on organs at other Wikis.  If we have members with language skills, then the article text might be useful.  At the very least, photographs etc are almost certainly going to be re-usable under standard Wiki licences (and even if we can't understand the article we can probably work out what the caption says).  For example, the German Wiki organ page has a plenty of pretty pictures, some sound files, even an animation of the mechanics of wind entering a pipe when the key is pressed.  The Italian Wiki organ page has as its lead photo a shot of the Bristol Cathedral console(!); the Spanish Wiki organ page has some fine horizontal trumpets on show; even more photos and sound files at Wikimedia Commons.  Might be useful to remember when we move from project page tagging to writing / improving articles.  Bencherlite 00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep. I think most of the photos are in the commons, so an easy access link to that would be really useful, as I think by definition, if they are in there the licenses are fine for this Wiki too. I've got average French and mostly forgotten German which have proved useful in the past, especially when expanding Olivier Latry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdcollins1984 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, this looks great! I'm all for it. I can't think of any suggestions for improvement at this time, but I'm sure sometime in the life of the project we'll have a good enough start to make the portal really spiffy. I had no idea we had such a nice shot of the Roskilde organ! That needs to be somewhere in Pipe organ.—Cor anglais 16 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organ portal? 

message: The article Organ builder is being tagged with lots of cleanup type messages and is potentially a candidate for speedy deletion. Is it worth trying to save the article? –MDCollins (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think List of organ builders would be a good place for the list; it could also be material for :Category:Organ builders :Category:Pipe organ builders, if the category proves a better idea than the list. Other than that, I don't think we can use that article at this time... maybe down the turnpike we can put together a decent article on organ builders, but personally, right now, I can't think of anything I'd put in one that would turn it into a decent-sized article. At any rate, the list needs to be saved in one form or another, with appropriate wikilinks to the organ builders' articles. —Cor anglais 16 12:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Have moved, see talk page for further work. I'll get onto this sometime soon! –MDCollins (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organ Builder 

message: I just got an idea: would it be helpful to have a standardized succession box for titular organists of French churches and cathedrals (other countries, too, but the French are the folks that really dig the titular system)? I think that would be really cool somewhere down the line. —Cor anglais 16 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe yeah. I think we could do with getting a few people together to work on the changes above (like Pipe organ and the stop/pipes etc - ie the basic clean-up). It seems everyone is rather busy at the moment. –MDCollins (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes for titulars 

message: I think that the pipe organ pictured in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir article should be added to the List of notable pipe organs. It would be a great addition to the list. Arya 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This organ used to come up quite a lot when the list was in its old format at the Pipe organ page. It was never really made clear why this organ was notable, other than for the sake of the choir. What do other participants think? If a paragraph could be written explaining its notability, then maybe. Perhaps a section on the organ could be added to the choir page itself? –MDCollins (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from the things I've seen, there's a few distinguishing characteristics about it. Depending on who's counting, it ranks in the top 15-25 largest in the world...built by G. Donald Harrison...11,600+ pipes. Other than that, I really couldn't see anything overly special about it. Doublediapason 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this all quickly turns into an issue of semantics: what makes an organ "notable?" Is it historicity, size, tonal design, visual design, unique features or mechanical/electrical characteristics, the person who built it, the person who played it, the persons who played guest recitals on it, etc.? I don't know that there are any answers to these questions. This is not to say that the Mormon Tabernacle organ is or is not notable. Rather, the list itself is my concern. It seems to me to be a collection of random information. I think that if an organ is notable, it should have its article, and I think the the Mormon Tabernacle organ qualifies for its own article. Separate articles for "notable" organs would clear up the list issue, and would likely reduce the number of instruments described as "notable" by a large amount. —Cor anglais 16 00:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "I think that if an organ is notable, it should have its article" ...or its own sub-article in a related church/building-type page.  I think this is a good idea. The list was originally created in order to remove material from Pipe organ anyway, I think it may serve as links to pipe organ articles (although would a category do? - maybe not if the organs are infact sub-articles).  Then they can be reduced to one-line summaries if necessary. I toyed with the idea of adding pictures to that page, which of course would be a stupid idea! –MDCollins (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of notable pipe organs]] 

message: I've decided that having created a sandbox for my organ pipe revision (can anyone assist?) that it would be better in project space, so I've created some sandboxes at the top of this page. –MDCollins (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! I'll be glad to assist. —Cor anglais 16 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox

message: I was looking around at the other versions of the pipe organ articles.  It seems like the Japanese version has quite a few illustrations that would look good in the organ pipe and construction articles.  If you guys think it would be worth it, I'll try to edit some of the images so the labels are numbers, rather than ideograms.  I don't know how much time I'll have to do it, but I think it would really help the articles.  W0lfie 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one think it would be worth it… especially in Reed pipe and Flue pipe could we use good images and schematics. —Cor anglais 16 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I'll give it a shot over the next few weekends.  It's probably a multi-day task. Cheers! W0lfie 18:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've started working on the flue pipe.  I was wondering if we could use the stop/key air flow drawing in the French wiki . -W0lfie 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! Just have to translate it from French into English… I don't know how that fits in with the licensing. —Cor anglais 16 01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CC-BY-SA, should be fine as long as we link to the original.  I'm still working on the pipes, so I won't be able to get to this other one for a little while. --W0lfie 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow… I love the image! Keep it up! Hope taking care of baby doesn't totally burn you out. —Cor anglais 16 15:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations from other wikis 

message: Is there an article on voicing?  I couldn't find it if it's there.  Unfortunately I know very little about the art of voicing, otherwise I would take a crack at writing an article.  Its importance to organ building is undeniable.  Surely deserves its own article complete with a history of the various techniques and applications over the centuries.  Since tuning has its own article, it seems like voicing should, too.  Maybe I can find some good books about it once the library construction is over. -W0lfie 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest thing I know of is Organ flue pipe scaling, but that's not really voicing. There is a provisional voicing section in Flue pipe, but there's nothing in it. The "Variations in timbre" section there used to contain some voicing information, but it's been incorporated into the rest of the article. In short, I don't think we have one. A real voicing article would be great if we can manage it. —Cor anglais 16 05:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found this  thesis.  Very interesting reading, and the sources cited are varied.  I thought you guys might like it, and it may help spur some ideas for a voicing article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W0lfie (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voicing 

message: Anyone up for editing simple:Pipe organ once the full article has reached FA?
–MDCollins (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow… sure; that looks like quite a project! —Cor anglais 16 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just reading that article last weekend.  It sure could use some work, all right.  Does the simple Wikipedia have its own style guide and vocabulary recommendations? -W0lfie 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No idea! Just as simple as possible I guess...–MDCollins (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future project - simple 

message: Hi,
Sorry for not doing a lot over these last couple of weeks - been busy working on getting another article to FA status. Ready for completing Pipe organ now. Anyone else ready for a combined push?? –MDCollins (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for a combined FA push. What do people think needs to be done to it? IMOH, we're just about ready to request a FA review… I don't think there's any shame in potentially failing it, but I'm running out of ideas to improve the article, and if that's the case with other people as well, it might be beneficial to see what the FA reviewers think. The only two sections that don't have any citations are "Console—Couplers" and "Repertoire—Overview," which shouldn't be too difficult to repair. There's also that one pesky  tag in the lead, but other than that, I think the article looks pretty good. Thoughts? —Cor anglais 16 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: –MDCollins (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of finding references, I have added a couple. I cannot find anything in print (that I own, at least) that will reference unification etc. or percussion stops. Do we need to reference the labeling of draw knobs? Also, does anyone think we are relying too much on any one reference (in particular, all those Cambridge Companion refs I add!)? —Cor anglais 16 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a thought: if anyone has Sandra Soderlund's A Guide to the Pipe Organ for Composers and Others, this will reference what I mentioned above, as well as much more about the practical matters of organ playing. —Cor anglais 16
I've added the remaining missing refs, as well as some in the repertoire section. It now looks good for a nomination to me. I wouldn't have thought the nomenclature needs referencing, and why should the 'definitive' reference not be used a lot - it is hardly controversial, or expressing POV is it!! You happy Cor? –MDCollins (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks really good… I only bring up the issue of relying too much on a particular reference because of what I found at #11 here and at #3 here. It's probably not a major concern, though, as everything that needs to be cited is cited, and we have a pretty good mix of print and online sources. I just ran through the article to copyedit once more, and I think it's a go. Woo hoo! —Cor anglais 16 16:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the infobox, and think it should be included.  I wish all the instruments had an infobox. Do we need to include  (or the other sub-categories)?  --W0lfie 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm… I like the idea of the infobox, but in the sandbox right now it really doesn't look that great. Also, pretty much all of the information from the infobox is somewhere in the article… except for range; maybe that could be incorporated into "Console:Keyboards?" That's really my only concern. Maybe we can leave the infobox out for now and see if the FA folks want one; if they do, direct them to the sandbox and ask for suggestions? —Cor anglais 16 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I just added range information to "Console:Keyboards". as I was typing it, much more ended up coming to my mind that isn't covered in the article: ravelement, split sharps, variable keyboard ranges depending on nationality and time period, "half-range" manual keyboards (as in the Echo manual of a French classical instrument), keys that don't play the note they otherwise would (as in some ravelement cases where the low C-sharp key plays AA), etc. I have incorporated some of this; do we want more, or does some of this not need to be here and would rather sit at Organ console (or a future article on French classical organs or the like) instead? I put in one  tag as well, denoting the AGO specifications for keyboard range. But we may not need the AGO reference after all, but just a general statement on modern range convention (which would probably also need to be cited). Sorry to bring all this up at such a late stage in the game, but certainly the basic keyboard range information needs to be part of the article… what does everyone think? —Cor anglais 16 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that just the other day, when I noticed a change that said each pipe only plays one note.  I thought "well what about the rare pedal pipes that play both CC and CC#"  Then I thought about all the other stuff that is uncommon, but that a professional organist would expect to see at some point in his career: split-keys, toy stops, haskelled basses, etc.  The organ has such variety that it would be impossible to include all of the technical esoterica in the main article, but there is plenty of room in the smaller articles like console and pipe.  --W0lfie 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I removed most of the range paragraph from Pipe organ and placed it in Organ console, where it can be dealt with at a later date. I think History of the organ keyboard would be a great idea, but it too will have to wait. There's still a  tag, but it could be filled in if somebody has the AGO pamphlet on organ console specifications. Are we ready for an FA review? —Cor anglais 16 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipe organ 

message: I have just made a few more small edits to Pipe organ and nominated it for FA review… the discussion is available at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pipe organ. I'll do my best to catch whatever the FA reviewers throw at it, but if everyone could please watch the discussion and help out that would be great! —Cor anglais 16 19:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pipe Organ FA review

message: This is something of a redux of my recent comments at Talk:Organ pipe, since they have to do with the project in general. What do we do about the definitions of pitch terminology? It makes sense in Pipe organ, but if we need to re-define it all in Organ pipe, Organ stop, and future articles about stop and wind action (which is certainly likely), that's a lot of redundancy for people to read. Should there be an Organ pitch stub to which we link from all the articles that require this terminology? Or perhaps a short template of some sort?
:I don't think the section adds much to the pipe article in it's current form, since the only mention of 16' 32' etc. comes in the diaphone subsection.  If the length nomenclature were used extensively in the article, then I would agree that it's necessary to include a brief explanation.  Besides, the meaning of 8' etc. is covered quite well in the Organ stop article, with it's own subsection, which seems like the logical place for it.
: What's more pertinent to the Organ pipe article is that the pitch and the length are related.  Longer pipes are of lower pitch than shorter pipes, all other variables being equal.  We could also mention that an open flue pipe has a low C that's approximately 8' long.  We could link to the pitch and length subsection for those who want to learn more about that.  What do you think? --W0lfie 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've got me convinced: you're absolutely correct. I will embark presently to add that information to Organ pipe. —Cor anglais 16 03:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And done… it's not exactly elegant, but the information is now there. Copyedit away! —Cor anglais 16 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited what you've done. I've linked to the pitch section in organ stop - if that gets moved, remove the link! –MDCollins (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitch 

message: The discussion is here.  Bencherlite 23:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone! –MDCollins (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Female organists is up for deletion. 

message: Erik Suter - any thoughts? Just wondering about any precedent set here, and whether it affects us. I guess this probably fails notability and isn't much of an article to lose really, but say for example it was a full length article would deletion be considered? 
Think I'd be happy for it to go though...
–MDCollins (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to deletion - the "used to" language bothers me.  If it were rewritten such that he's a recording artist - which he is, with a significant discography, it might be salvaged.  - Philippe | Talk 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erik Suter - Deletion 

message: Just to let people know I've started various organ pages and added organ info to various other pages, as follows:
*Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell#The "Father Willis" organ - all my work
*Truro Cathedral#Organs - Mostly my work, but the Organists subsection is not mine.
*Basilique Ste-Clotilde, Paris#The Pipe Organ
*Lyon (diff)
*Basilique du Sacré-Cœur, Paris#The Organ (diff)
*Church of St Peter, Brighton#The cultural life of Saint Peter's
*Church of St Martin, Brighton#Organ
*J. L. van den Heuvel Orgelbouw - all my work
*Church of St. Mary & St. Nicholas, Leatherhead#Music
*Brighton Dome#The Dome Pavilion - all my work
*Pipe organs of Brighton and Hove - all my work
*Blenheim Palace (diff) - only small, but there was no mention of the world-famous organ there.
*The Pipe Organs of Blenheim Palace - Now only a stub, but will be expanded.
This is just a start - I hope to continue adding more. - Vox Humana 8' 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. When I get time, I might give them all a look, see if I can add anything. You might like to check that they all have the project banner on the talkpage and add them to the Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan/Article List so we can track the recent changes. –MDCollins (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Created section Downside Abbey#The Organs.--Vox Humana 8' 12:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My organ-related contributions

message: Since someone on a church music forum I frequent pointed me in the direction of three obits of John Sanders, I've created an article on him at John Sanders (musician) (John Sanders is now a disambiguation page after I moved an American Theologian from there to John E. Sanders).  Feel free to copyedit, expand further, correct catgorisation (I based cats on the Stanley Vann page) etc., etc..  David Underdown 15:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Sanders