Jump to content

Talk:List of pipe organs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Quality" organs

[edit]

I hesitate to revert so quickly, in case the contributor intends significant additions and modifications to this new section. Nonetheless, this isn't the Sandbox, so I think I will. To single out this one organ (which just coincidentally happens to be associated with the church to which the contributor said he belonged) among scores of fine instruments of its size is patently absurd and unworthy of any encyclopedia article. I'd suggest that this section is best left out entirely, since it is largely subjective. If it should return, let's at least try for some citations. Rivertorch 16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in this article specifies it is a list and brief description of notable pipe organs. I'm sure many MANY would agree that the Mormon Tabernacle Organ is more than notable. Would it have been better for this article to come from a non mormon? It is a fact that it is regarded as one of the finest, if not the finest in the world acoustically and tonally. References are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is to include subjective ("Quality", "acoustically excellent") as well as objective (old, big, "notable construction methods") examples, it will have to be a pretty long list. In any case, introducing a new, subjective section does represent a major shift in the focus of the article. The Tabernacle Organ is indeed a notable instrument; my point was that this article didn't seem like a good place to note it. If we now have consensus otherwise, then how about some relevant external links? A site describing the organ itself would be nice. A description of the general acoustic properties of the Tabernacle which makes no reference whatsoever to the organ is useless, as is a bibliography page. To answer your question: no, it just seemed partisan. Perhaps I was mistaken about that, but I'm not mistaken that the Tabernacle Organ is one in a long list of world-renowned, acoustically excellent organs. Rivertorch 15:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Rivertorch. Even with the references cited by Carterdriggs, the text pertaining to the Tabernacle organ is inappropriately presented. I've added a WP:PEACOCK tag until this is rectified. JGHowes talk - 23:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that while the Salt Lake Tabernacle Organ is a notable organ it is of no more importance or significance than many others that could also be included. I too suggest that it is best left for an article of its own should the contributor have suitable independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.13.124 (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Albert Hall Organ

[edit]

The organ at the Royal Albert Hall is again second largest in the UK scince an addition has been made to the organ at Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, which is again the largest in the U.K.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.49 (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Please provide a source. Rivertorch (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Eric B 09:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbateson (talk • contribs)

The "Large" section needs far more specific details, with references, such as numbers of pipes, years of manufacture, modes of operation, etc. Simply saying it is or was the most of something, without citing what makes/made it so isn't enough, violates the references policy, and can descend into mere puffery (which seems to have happened already). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Welcome to Wikipedia. Why don't you go out and find the references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.152.37.241 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

[edit]

I'm a little unclear on what the inclusion criteria is for this article. There are several well known organs that have Wikipedia articles that are not on the list (e.g. Salt Lake Tabernacle organ & Schoenstein Organ at the Conference Center). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues...

[edit]

1. This must be a typo, but I don't know what it should say:

Recordings of the organ (by titular organist Armando Salarza, Guy Bovet, Hans and Martin Haselböck, L.Ferdinando Tagliavini exist and) ...

2. If the Sanfilippo organ is the world's largest theater organ, why isn't it in the list of largest organs? – AndyFielding (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of pipe organs. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of prose poor

[edit]

Throughout, the content of the first section is plagued by missing punctuation, run-on sentences, and poor grouping of information. It would benefit from a proofreading and corrections, and a light degree of rewriting. MultiScrivner (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+Old Saleem organ +No factual content changed. Cronology of historical events jumped back and forth. Rearranged several paragraphs and sentences. Run-on sentences: added commas, reformed 2 sentences. Added a conjunction and the word "undertaking" for clarity. MultiScrivner (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Educated myself and learned that these edit summaries should have been placed in the Edit Summary box prior to publishing. Please remove this and the previous comment if possible. MultiScrivner (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_pipe_organs&oldid=1203341481"