Talk:Recorder (educational uses)

Please add postings to the bottom of the talk page and start new topics by clicking the "Add topic" tab

Striking the bell
"The recorder can also give an effect by striking the bell with the palm of the hand. he note varies according to the type of instrument. Although unfingered the note will be a soft version of the lowest note of the recorder."

Has anybody a tutorial for this? When I try to do this, I get the same sound, as blowing the flute completely unfingered. I have a normal Soprano recorder. --79.205.108.72 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Repetitive & Off-topic
This article has almost exactly the same information as the one on the recorder proper; most of the 'history' section has nothing to do with the recorder as an educational instrument, instead copying completely from the section on popular uses of the musical instrument in the page on recorders as mainline musical instruments. The only information about its use in schools has to do with different techniques used among children as 'toy' instruments, rather than any information on why recorders are used in schools or the prevalence of their use in musical instruction. Most of the information on this page is not relevant to the article's topic, and it could easily be merged into the Recorder (Musical Instrument) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.122.240 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's take your points in order:


 * The information here tends to be of a simpler form, more appropriate to junior school usage, that on the other page is more appropriate to an older audience. The history is meant to be a simple background; if you have reliable information on the development of educational use please feel free to improve either or both!
 * The use of parts of the recorder as a rhythm device (striking, whistling etc) was felt by several editors (see Talk:Recorder_%28musical_instrument%29 and the following section) to be inappropriate in the more musical piece. In the same way that you could use the back of a Strad as a drum but it's not normal violin playing.
 * I'm surprised you consider much of the information as "irrelevant", but again, feel free to improve it by reference to reliable authorities.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to confess I think that school-relevant material here should be merged back into the main article, so that repetition between this article and the main article can be avoided. -- Evertype·✆ 11:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge
Expanding on the previous discussion, I propose that parts of this article should be merged back to Recorder (musical instrument), and the rest moved to Recorder and/or Recorder (within wikibooks:Subject:Musical instruments).

jnestorius(talk) 12:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "The information here tends to be of a simpler form, more appropriate to junior school usage, that on the other page is more appropriate to an older audience." — Wikipedia is targeted at the "general reader", not children. Make technical articles understandable results in Category:Introductory articles like Introduction to quantum mechanics for advanced topics, but the recorder is not advanced enough to merit such treatment. If there are parts of the  Recorder (musical instrument) article that someone finds too difficult, they can either skip over them (and still benefit from the other parts that are easier to follow) or switch to the Simple English Wikipedia.
 * Is this article meant to help children wishing to learn to play the recorder? Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.
 * If there were a lot of information in this article about education uses, then it would be appropriate simply to rewrite it to concentrate on that, removing text that merely reiterates a WP:CONTENTFORK version of the parent article unrelated to education uses. However, there is very little such information
 * Sections not related to education: Name of the instrument, History, Types of recorders, Construction and operation,	Notation and pitch, Fingering, Dynamics
 * Sections related to education: Use in schools, Unconventional uses, Recorder ensembles. Merge these into Recorder (musical instrument).
 * Incidentally, the article name is nonstandard. It should have been Educational uses of the recorder. The format Foo (bar) is used to distinguish a subject named Foo from an unrelated subject which happens to share the name Foo; it is not used to distinguish an article about one aspect of Foo from the general article about Foo. We don't have The Beatles (cultural impact) or The Beatles (discography) but rather Cultural impact of the Beatles and The Beatles discography. See WP:TITLEFORMAT section "Do not create subsidiary articles".
 * I suspect User:Martin of Sheffield (who implemented the split and ought to have been notified), User:Just plain Bill, and User:Justlettersandnumbers, who all participated in an earlier discussion at Talk:Recorder (musical instrument)/Archive 1 might be interested in this proposal. I agree that this article duplicates an unnecessarily large part of Recorder (musical instrument), and trimming this article would probably improve it. Given how much friction certain parts of this article caused at the original article, I oppose the proposal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The original split was to stop edit-warring between two distinct camps. One one side there were those who believed recorders were serious musical instruments and on the other those who just saw them as a noise that school kids could play (I'm simplifying a tiny amount).  For this reason a consensus emerged that these were two entirely different uses and I implemented the split.  Since then things have been quiet and the "whistlers and bangers" are happy with one page, the musicians on the other.  As I said three years ago, it is akin to suggesting that a violin belly makes a good drum.  Well it may teach rhythm, but the fiddlers will be up in arms and IMHO rightly so.  I agree with the points raised by Michael and as such oppose the merger. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "The original split was to stop edit-warring between two distinct camps" -- seems like a textbook WP:POVFORK. If reliable sources say "the recorder is often used as a noisemaker" then that, properly cited, belongs in the Recorder (musical instrument) article, even if some people object. If reliable sources don't say it then it doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia, even if some people object. jnestorius(talk) 15:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read the discussion at Talk:Recorder_(musical_instrument)/Archive_1 and the following one? You might also care to review the editing records of the time and earlier, say from December 2013 onwards. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

,, , , correct me if I'm wrong; based on it seems to me that: In summary, this page is not intended to be useful to readers; it is intended as a diversion to keep a single (inactive?) crank/vandal from annoying Four Editors. It is an unused dead-end decoy page. jnestorius(talk) 22:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In late 2013 a single anonymous user in Germany persistently and disruptively added a single paragraph of unsourced minor information to the Recorder (musical instrument) page
 * 2) Four Editors repeatedly reverted this, got annoyed, and (Dec 2013) raised it on the Admin noticeboard
 * 3) the disruption was resolved when the anonymous German stopped editing the article in Dec
 * 4) Four Editors (Feb-Mar 2014) were worried the anonymous German might come back and decided to pre-empt any recidivism by creating a separate page for the particular type of minor information that he/she was interested in
 * 5) The separate page Recorder (educational uses) was  but trims and reorders some sections and includes the unsourced minor information
 * 6) Since March 2014 the separate page has

Before you start telling people what their intentions are (or were), you might like to examine your own. Just why are you stirring this up? If you would like others to assume good faith on your part try applying it yourself. Are you perchance a frustrated middle manager, it's the same sort of behaviour I see at work. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand the point of this article. You suggested I trawl through various various archived Talk pages from three-and-a-half years ago to gain some insight. I did so. I read how you yourself said "We can let the whistlers, dummers and others go off and say what they like [on Recorder (educational uses)] ... One would hope that an admin might then support us in trying to keep the page [Recorder (musical instrument)] on track". I tried to summarise my understanding of the Talk. I also said, "correct me if I'm wrong". So, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. jnestorius(talk) 08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Merged to Recorder (musical instrument)
I stumbled upon this article after looking up 'Recorder' and seeing the hatnote pointing here. I found it strange that this was a separate article when the two are clearly about the same subject, just with different POV. And the content of this one is based heavily on the other.

After reading the above discussion and looking into Wikipedia's policy, I have merged this article with Recorder (musical instrument) for the following reasons:
 * There is not enough content about educational uses of the recorder to warrant a distinct article, and much of this content is taken directly from the original article, and unrelated to music education.
 * This article would not make sense on the disambiguation page for Recorder, as it's talking about the exact same recorder as Recorder (musical instrument). There is no reason this content can't exist in that article instead. And in fact, it should be there, as it is information about the recorder instrument.
 * Some of this article's content either needs sources, or has problematic ones, such as iUniverse.
 * The article was split as a way to "stop edit-warring between two distinct camps." However, according to WP:POVFORK, "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion."
 * Although no consensus was reached in previous discussion, the arguments opposing a merge were based on worry over edit warring, and concerns of "friction" between editors, not based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

Instead of maintaining two redundant articles to prevent conflict, I think a better solution would be to use discussion to decide what content is worth including in the single article, and responding to disruptive edits by requesting protection. dylansan (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)