Talk:Hornbostel–Sachs

message: "A fifth top-level group, electrophones, instruments which make sound primarily by way of electrically driven oscillators, such as theremins or synthesizers, was added later."
Should Turntables (when used by DJs as "musical instruments") be added to this classifiation system and if so, which category sould they go in? Have any attempts been made to do this?203.214.75.1272005 (UTC)
* Tricky, but rightly I'd say a turntable is an ideophone (more precisely a lamellophone), since the vibrating element is the needle, which is (part of) its body.  But probably some spoilsport has decided it's an electrophone. Tom Duff 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turntable used by DJs as ideophone 

message: While I'm here, the link to The original system as published in 1914 (in German) is broken, but the Internet Archive has a copy.  I'm not sure what the party line is on Internet Archive links, so I haven't updated it. Tom Duff 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: Greetings! I made some changes to the discussion of chordophones and electronophones--please take a look. These are based on discussion in Tellef Kvifte's Instruments and the Electronic Age: Toward a Terminology for a Unified Description of Playing Technique (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1989). I haven't figured out yet how to add bibliographic information to an entry...when I do I'll get that in.Rikyu 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions on chordophones and electronophones 

message: I read that the AMIS and Galpin are considering a sixth top-level group: the "Hydrophone" or "Hydraphone".  This new grouping is supposed to include all water-based instruments, like the Japanese water zither.  Anyone else heard of this going on?  - NDCompuGeek 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure why they can't be included under the Aerophone group, with the classification reworked to include anything that uses a *fluid* (a term which encompasses gas, liquid, plasma, vapour, super-fine powder...) as its sounding medium instead of merely gas...? 193.63.174.115 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another top-level group 

message: There are a good number of Hornbostel-Sachs pages, such as List of idiophones by Hornbostel-Sachs number and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 11 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 111 and List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 111.1 and  List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number: 112 (there are more) and all the templates that those later pages use, like , , ,  (there are more).  Some of templates have had or are having their own individual WP:RfD, like .  Are all of these really necessary?  A search for all articles in the main Wikipedia space with the term "Hornbostel-Sachs" in the name returns 145 results.  Banaticus (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing some work on this list and I think you make a good point that there are too many search returns. I would like to simplify things a bit. I'll continue to make it better. Ninehouse (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, why is it necessary to have individual pages for each classification as well as a complete explanation of each classification on this page? Too much repetition and, I think, unnecessary detail. It would make more sense to me to have the complete explanation on one page, and build lists of relevant instruments (such as blown idiophones) through tagging. Rikyu (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a problem throughout Wikipedia. It results from the lack of an overall editorial board. Broad topics often have sub-topics with their own articles, sometimes 3–5 levels deep. Where an article has sub-topics with articles devoted to them, sections for those sub-topics should have just enough information about the sub-topic to give the reader an overview. The  template at the beginning of those sections should point readers to the article that has full coverage. Duplication of content doesn't help the reader, and makes maintaining the encyclopedia's quality and consistency more difficult.—Finell 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornbostel-Sachs lists and templates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hornbostel–Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616132940/http://www.wesleyan.edu/vim/svh.html to http://www.wesleyan.edu/vim/svh.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Check out this "new" (2015) revsion of the H-S System: The KNIGHT REVISION of HORNBOSTEL-SACHS or K-REV, by Roderic Knight, 2015. http://www.oberlin.edu/faculty/rknight/Organology/KNIGHTREVISION.html --SwA (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New" Revision: Knight Revision 2015 

message: May I ask, how does this system define a "plaque"?
:Kortoso  (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plaque? 

message: Hi 24.235.89.31, thanks for the additions you've been making to this article. As you may know, article content needs to be supported by reliable sources. Could you let me know where your information is coming from, please? We need to make sure that the new material is not infringing any existing copyright, and that it's not your original research.   If need be, I could perhaps help to add the required citations to the page, or you could do it yourself. Posting here as as you perhaps haven't looked at your talk page to see my message there.  All the best, MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Other IP editors (or perhaps the same editor under different addresses) have since contributed, adding content that must have come from somewhere.  Please bear in mind that correct sourcing is mandatory under the WP:UNSOURCED policy.  I'll revert the recent changes and hope we can encourage the editors to engage here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent unsourced additions 

message: After the lede, the article's main text needs to start with a precise definition of the system.
I.e. not an 'Idiophone'(?) section which immediately jumps into woffle like 311.xyz... It means nothing to me.92.28.16.199 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition???