Template talk:Infobox instrument

message: The template forces the image size to 200px.  This is fine in most cases, but take a look at Clarinet.  The image is less than 200px wide, but the template forces it to the larger size, resulting in a very tall, pixelated image.  Is there anything we can do?  Can we parameterize the width?  Powers T 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —METS501 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive response time.  =)  Powers T 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: Just wondering why the range field is required, not optional.  Seems awfully common-practice-orchestra-centric to assume that feature to be clearly defined or even existent. --Theodore Kloba 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. __Just plain Bill (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing range 

message: Can anyone add an image description field that would describe the particular image currently being used in the template? --Boguslav (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and added it.  You can use it with the field image_capt. --Pipian (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Description 

message: I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to make the color depend on the common classification of the instrument (Keyboard, Woodwind, Percussion, String, Brass).  While this may raise classification issues with non-Western instruments, I think a color scheme in this vein would be more useful to audiences than one according to the Hornbostel-Sachs system.
Also, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to add a few more fields, such as:
* Adding a 'creator/creation year/developed during' field: This may not be clear for many instruments, but for a few of the more recently devised and 'experimental' instruments, this might be invaluable.  "Creation year/developed during" may still be able to illustrate a timeframe in which the first recognizable predecessors were created, such as 'mid-17th century' for the oboe, and 'ancient' for the aulos.
* Adding a simple audio sample field: This way, a simple sample (either musical or just a scale, I'm not sure which) can be easily found for most instruments without hunting in the article.  Other samples could be embedded in the article itself as needed.  I personally favor these samples being a combination of a scale, possibly an illustration of the lowest and highest notes reachable, and a short tune played solely with the instrument to illustrate some of its capabilities (e.g. the ability to hit chords for non aerophones, the rhythmic nature of many membranophones, etc.).
* Modifying the classification field to specifically take a generic classification (useful if we choose to differentiate infoboxes by common classification type) and a Hornbostel-Sachs classification field (both numeric and descriptive)
Pipian (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you'll no doubt discover, it's difficult to get responses on this topic.  I like your ideas, though.  I think the infobox gets a little too dense with the audio field - I would recommend leaving that out.  Other than that, it looks very good.  One of the problems with changing an infobox is that you have to deal with any potential problems from making the changes in articles that already use the box.  --Laser brain (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  It's one of the reasons why I more or less am planning on having to retain the 'Related Instruments' and 'More Articles' sections despite their potential inappropriateness, mostly as a legacy issue.  Likewise, I could add an alternate names field under background information... --Pipian (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more possible fields/improvements 

message: Why aren't the name and names fields within the border of the infobox? Wouldn't it make sense that these would actually be in the border of the infobox and not just floating above? TIM KLOSKE|TALK 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and names 

message: On clarinet and saxophone I noticed that if a field contains a list of bulleted points, the first item displays as a "*" rather than a bullet. I'm not savvy enough with infobox code to enforce a bullet in such a situation - if that's even possible. JFW | T@lk 07:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally the articles themselves should be edited just to use line breaks or commas. These can be fixed on an individual basis by placing  tags around the bullets, making sure to start the list itself with a new line. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet lists in box 

message: Per my comment above, I've merged in the new fields "hornbostel_sachs", "hornbostel_sachs_descr", "inventors", and "developed", as well as "background" to vary the infoboxes up by 'common classification' (i.e. woodwind, keyboard, brass, etc.).  I've also fixed headers on the latter half of the infobox to revert the general style back to what it used to look like, and added DIV boxes around each of the last few items to make bullets work properly again. This now depends on Template:Infobox Instrument/Classification for the header field between the image caption and the background data (this could be changed to just read "Background Data" instead of the common class, if you really wanted) and Template:Infobox Instrument/Color for the header colors. --Pipian (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged in new fields, some fixes... 

message: May I suggest that a "General MIDI" field be added to this infobox? For instruments that are included in General MIDI, this would simply list their MIDI number. For example, Acoustic Grand Piano would be listed as 001 in normal listing, and 000 as the program change message. Likewise, the violin would be 041 in normal listing, and 040 as the program change message. A percussion instrument like the Agogô bell would be listed as MIDI notes 67 and 68, or G3 and G#3. What are people's thoughts on this? dogman15 (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added this "midi" field. Discuss changes here. dogman15 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed the broken implementation, and the moved it up a bit.  Basically, the parameters are case sensitive, and the  template requires unit field names (e.g., you can't have both header14 and data14 and/or label14). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you so much! I'm not very familiar with how infoboxes are constructed in their core code, but I like researching information to fill them out when I can. I thought a MIDI parameter would be appropriate for the instrument infobox. Again, thanks! dogman15 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Um...what's the reason for this? Sure GM is a standard implementation, but it seems as if it's not something important enough for the info box. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Why did it take me actually changing things for people to start talking about this? Does no one normally read this talk page? As it is, the "midi" field is very unintrusive, and it doesn't even work for saxophones, which have their own elite infobox. dogman15 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the purpose for adding this new field to the infobox of every single musical instrument in wikipedia?  It adds no new information about the instrument, is not a classification system in and of itself, and really has no place in the info box.  It is of no use whatsoever to people reading an article about an instrument.  The place for general midi codes is in the article on general midi. That is where people will go if they want information about them.  It really has no place in the infobox.  As for uninstrusive, firstly that is no justification for action and secondly for some instruments, such as guitars and pianos, where there are several codes, it is very intrusive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinobass (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much my thoughts. It's just unhelpful all around, and anyone that cares would know exactly where to find a list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: "General MIDI" field 

message: I have removed General Midi from the musical instrument infobox.  
The infobox should contain relevant information about the musical instrument, it should also be general (applicable to any musicial instrument).  For example, instrument classications, and related instruments.  
The general midi code is a piece of information that is not related to any physical or familial aspect of an instrument, or informative outside the context of general midi synthesizers.  It is not a classification scheme, or meaningful grouping, and there are many instruments for which there is no general midi code (and never will be).  Some instruments have several midi codes for slightly different and restricted/fixed variations of that instrument - which is again not helpful in terms of information about a given instrument.  It therefore has no place in the infobox about a musical instrument, I would argue it has no place in an article about any instrument other than the midi synthesiser.   Dinobass (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of general midi from the infobox 

message: I'm considering for the mbira article adding :File:TrebleKalimba.jpg to the infobox, to show that there is significant variety in this instrument category. Is there a way to have more than one image? Esn (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Can there be more than one image?

message: Please add a module= parameter to the infobox instrument template so listen templates and other modules can be cleanly added to the infobox such as here: balalaika (not cleanly added). Ping me back. Cheers!  {Talk} 08:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add module= parameter 

message: Is there a reason doesn't this template include a spot for a sound sample of the musical instrument? It seems more important than a picture. Hyacinth (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound sample

message: All the bottom fields are aligned to the left, which doesn't look good imo. It would probably be better to make hlist class for these fields, so that they would be centered like in  template. What do you think? Solidest (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center bottom fields?