Talk:String section

"invariably consists of these four"? Is it meant that there is alway some subset of the 4, as in Brahms serenades & the Symphony of Psalms, both standard repertory wo/vlns? A more serious problem with the article is a complete lack of historical context for the evolution of some norm. For example we know Purcell's orch. never included a 16' bass, that Charpentier used 3 sizes of violin... Sparafucil 05:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Explain revert

Hello, sorry if this is taken to be rude, but I don't think the last edit was an improvement. In particular:

• It put a digression into the opening paragraph, where digressions definitely do not belong. People can learn more about instrument families, if they want, simply by following the links.

• It also removed a passage that was crucial for one purpose of this article. Specifically, this article is meant, in part, to provide the meaning of the term "string section". Several articles on particular works link to this article. They rely on it to define the content of the string section, so when they list the instrumentation, they can simply end with "and strings. So it's important that the wording of the article tell the reader "This is what we mean when we say, 'and strings'." The changed wording obscured this point.

The remainder of the edit discussed sizes and seating arrangements. I think this would be a fine idea to include, as the final section of this article. But the material contributed came out of the editor's head, which is a WP no-no; for claimed facts you have to use a reference source and cite it. Yours sincerely, Opus33 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course you get the benefit of the doubt in any seeming rudeness. Your 1st reversion cited objections to abreviations (in the edit summary) and this time there seem two other things to address:

• "Bowed strings" alone seems incorrect to me. Er-hu and Viola d'amore can be featured in orchestral writting w/o being considered part of the string section. The inclusion of CB in the violin family is explained in that article but seem to warant a brief note, or if you prefer, a footnote.
• I'm not sure what was removed or obscured; "When a description of a musical work specifies the instrumentation as "strings", it is this quintet that is normally called for." I notice btw that "orchestra" doesnt yet link here.

• I dont clain to be a WP expert, but I would expect the citing of specific scores as examples to count as references. It does seem to be common practice to add this tag rather than revert everything.

If you're not too attached to the original, why not try a rewrite? btw, is it Op33a or 33b?  ;-) Sparafucil 00:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I think that priority number one should be "don't confuse the reader". If we started talking about the er-hu or the viola d'amore in the first paragraph, many readers would think, "Hey, what's the point of all this?" Likewise, "quintet" is potentially confusing, since a quintet is normally a chamber group. Re. , I think it's much safer just never to put anything into the encyclopedia without a source, rather than trying to fix things later.

I've tried to avoid the charge of hypocrisy by doing a bit of sourcing and tagging on the article.

P.S. your first revertor wasn't me, it was User:ILike2BeAnonymous. Opus33 18:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)