text:
Talk:Vibrato systems for guitar

What What WHAT?
Someone please tell me who has ever called this a "waggle stick". Come on. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.78.94 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Waggle stick
See http://talk.mxtabs.net/index.php?showtopic=1626 for the best reference I could Google up... but I think you're right, the term waggle stick normally describes a particular piece of male anatomy. I guess both the poster to the mxtabs blog I just quoted and the anon who added the term to this article are just being funny. Most and possibly all other Google hits are either similar jokes, or nothing to do with guitars, or Wikipedia mirrors. So I've removed the term from the article, it doesn't seem to belong. Interested in any other views. Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tremolo or vibrato?
Tremolo is a variation in volume, not pitch? That's not how I understand tremolo. This is from the Wikipedia article on "Tremolo":

"Tremolo is a musical term with two meanings:

A rapid repetition of the same note, or an alternation between two or more notes. A rapid and repetitive variation in pitch for the duration of a note. This is more usually called vibrato."

I consider the above definitions to be accurate. I will deliberate on how best to edit this entry accordingly.

Michael 8:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time April 13, 2005

OK, I decided that it was simplest to delete the second paragraph. I don't think the word "tremolo" is used incorrectly in "tremolo arm." The tremolo arm can be used to bend a half step or greater, which is somewhat analogous to vocal tremolo but not vibrato.

Michael 8:54 A.M. EDT April 13, 2005

All my sources say that it was an erroneous name given by Leo Fender when he invented the synchronized trem; I've tried to be diplomatic in re-adding, but I don't think there's much dispute. Deltabeignet 17:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's an ongoing and natural discussion! IMO the dispute is by people who are either ignorant of guitar culture, or in some cases possibly don't regard the electric guitar as a musical instrument (-> anyway! See Talk:Vibrato unit, and also Vibrato unit. Andrewa 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been playing electric guitar for most of my life and consider it an instrument. Yet, calling the vibrato bar/arm a tremolo bar/arm is one of the silliest mistakes a person could perpetuate. A lot of material (guitar magazines, instruction books) correctly call a vibrato bar a vibrato bar. That's because a vibrato bar modulates pitch. If it modulated volume, it would be a tremolo bar, but it doesn't do that. "Whammy bar", even though it's slang, may be the best thing to call the device. Most guitar-like MIDI-controllers let you assign the whammy bar to any MIDI parameter. These could be tremolo arms. But they could also be vibrato arms or low-pass filter arms or resonance arms, etc. "Whammy bar" is generic and there is no ambiguity. If it didn't sound so silly, I would definitely prefer it. In my opinion, this article should be retitled. --Trweiss 00:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Leo Fender screwed up when he named it a tremelo arm, it should really be called a vibrato arm. Nothing is going to change the fact now. I don't think the name of the article should be changed for this reason, even though it was named incorrectly, that is what it's name is now. Jim

Please sign your posts on talk pages, Jim. Some very interesting stuff on this in the various articles now, particularly at Vibrato unit and in tremolo arm. Leo Fender did call the later Mustang trem a DYNAMIC VIBRATO, and stamped those two words on all the tailpieces in capital letters! Maybe this was to better compete with the Bigsby, from which the Mustang trem borrowed some design features. Andrewa 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Range of Strat-style trem
My experimentation would suggest about five half-steps down and one to two half-steps up, but, considering that this is clear original research, I can't think of how to include it. Deltabeignet 22:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * IMO it at least scrapes in as encyclopedic. Original research is sometimes a bit hard to delineate. We don't insist on citing a source for the information that the sky is blue!

 * My caution would be, how generally true is this? I'd specify the precise model and year of an example, and give its variation, in the article; That's encyclopedic and valuable information IMO. Choose an example you think typical, but I wouldn't try to justify the choice in the article; The information as to why you hold the opinion that this is a typical model is probably original research. I'd give the information as to all the guitars you tested (and I'd love to see it myself), but put it on this talk page, not in the article.

 * Commendable attitude, just BTW. Andrewa 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * From the playing about i've done with this type of trem, the range depends on the way you set it. For instance, if you unscrew the two screws holding the spring claw a couple of turns, the tail will hinge out further and allow more than two half-steps up.Cameron McCormack (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, exactly. And also the string gauge and the number of springs fitted... the standard strat claw and bridge and most imitations allow for up to five springs but only three are normally fitted. It works with anything from one to five, and perhaps with none at all (haven't tried that). With one spring you'll get almost no downbend at all, even with light strings, but lots of upbend range if you're carefull, and two or three quickly broken treble strings if you're not but some bands might like even that effect (cheaper than smashing the axe...). Two works well with ultra-light srings, or with standard lights gives some downbend but better up. Four and five springs are dive-bomb territory, lots of downbend range, especially if you fit Ernie Ball 2626 strings (.012 top E to to .056w bottom E) or similar, which also gives clarity and stability at the bottom of the dive.

 * And also, what range is musically useful? For surf sounds, you're only really able to use the range over which a three-string chord will stay in tune, which is where the Jag trem (properly set up, 30 mins each string change even if only one string) really shines. For shred, the only thing that seems to matter is if the strings stay intact most of the time, so bring on the 'stang trem.

 * Frankly, I'm not a great fan of the strat trem, it does everything reasonably well and for most working musos therefore probably the only real option, but for most styles there are better options.

 * The Bigsby is worse, the only reason for fitting one IMO is if your guitar won't take a better design, which many won't (semi-acoustics in particular... but check out Gibson Vibrola units, you may find one you like and there's a design to fit anything that any Bigsby will fit, or more modern designs by Stetsbar and Kahler who both make top-of-belly units). I'd prefer no trem to a Bigsby! Fortunately, you can block many Bigsby units simply by slackening the strings and removing the spring, no tools required (do a gentle upbend with the strings slack and it will generally just fall out on the floor, and then think hard about where you want the non-removable trem arm to end up so as not to stress and/or mark the guitar body or get in the way of either playing or putting the guitar away in the case, then tighten the strings up again without the spring in place and you're done), and put it back just as easily (so don't lose it, but most do). That's my POV, even worse then OR.

 * But step one is to get the facts sraight. Talk pages are a valid place to do this. Hope this helps. Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Locking tremolo, etc
Some very interesting contributions from an anon. Some very good stuff, but also a bit of bias and some outright errors.

I've removed the word 'sadlle' that they used to replace 'nut'. Nearly every trem (not all) I've ever seen has more than one saddle; The trem we're discussing in the section affected has six. It's the whole bridge that moves as a unit. Probably best just to say bridge in hindsight.

I've also removed (a development of Floyd Rose, see below) from the description of the Fender two-point synch trem. It's very interesting if true, but I'm skeptical. I've never heard this development attributed to Rose before. I'd think if it were true that Fender would be obliged to admit it on their web pages, or that Rose would claim it on theirs, and neither do as far as I can see. It sounds like folklore to me.

 * OHO! My guess, following some more anon contribs, is that some people confuse the Fender two-point synchronized tremolo with the Floyd Rose two-point locking tremolo. These are completely different concepts, but both based on the original strat trem and with similar names. I'll put something into the article to clarify this. Andrewa 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And the additions or more commonly, string nut from inside a wikilink (admittedly a red one) and or tuning keys are also gone. The terms head nut and machine heads are fairly standard, and I'm very skeptical that there's any Rose-equipped guitar in the world with plain tuning keys rather than machine heads.

Finally and most important IMO, I've done some rephrasing to the surviving additions to the Rose trem section. The point about the early units not having fine tuners, and being favoured by some guitarists, is a good one but IMO overstated. Most guitarists think the fine tuners are an improvement, as do Floyd Rose themselves! Similarly, the claim that most guitars are now available with Rose trems is just not true. No arch-top is AFAIK, nor are 12-strings, for example. It's an obvious overstatement by an enthusiast. But, my original phrase was probably too conservative. I've now gone for something in the middle. Andrewa 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More interesting additions by anons. Good stuff, but I suspect that some of this material would be better moved to the Floyd Rose article, rather than here. Andrewa 14:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On the unpopularity so far of the Speedloader system, the current article reads: Part of the reason for this may be the decline of the heavy vibrato effect in popular music. Hmmmm. IMO a much larger part is the need to buy special strings, limiting the choice, locking you in to one supplier, putting the guitar off the road in the case of any supply hitch and as a result making the instrument useless for any working muso of less than superstar status. But it may catch on, I've been wrong before. Andrewa 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In that no-one speaks, I've removed the sentence. Andrewa 00:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I've just stumbled onto this page and I know I'm talking about an extremely old comment here, but I think there might be some truth to this in general about Tremolo that may be worth mentioning.

 * Modern rock is often heavily based on power chords and other techniques that are pretty brutal to the strings. At least in my experience with the Fender system (and I'm a very less-than-stellar non-serious guitarist with an American Standard Stratocaster), playing hard, palm muting, and executing bends on one string while keeping others sounding at a steady pitch means the system gets in the way more often than I use it.  Either the bridge moves inadvertantly, or the strings go out of tune way more easily than they should.

 * Never mind the joy of trying to correctly tune a guitar where the bridge moves to lower all strings every time you tune one up. If you use a lot of Drop-D or Eb, it's a nightmare.  It's a balancing act that I don't think many musicians want to deal with when the positives are well outside of their stylistic tastes CSZero 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm a permanent beginner on the guitar, but I agree with your assessment completely. It's a headache with options on becoming a nightmare. Gzuckier 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * So, block your trem. Any reputable music shop or guitar tech or many advanced guitarists can do this for you. It makes the guitar play like a hard-tail. I recommend putting a machine screw in the trem arm socket so the trem arm can't even be fitted, otherwise you risk damage if someone borrows your guitar and fits the trem arm not knowing it's blocked, but not everyone does this.

 * Or, check out the tremsetter at http://store.hipshotproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=115 which is easily fitted (even easier than blocking) and gives the strat trem a lot more stability while leaving it usable. Andrewa (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Floyd Rose, who or what.
Floyd Rose, the person, is referenced with a link. the problem is that it is a link to the Floyd Rose, the object, artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.92.168 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

EVH's involvement in Floyd Rose fine tuners
I clearly recall reading a short article in some guitar magazine in which Floyd Rose himself confirmed that Eddie Van Halen had given him input on the range of the bridge end fine tuners. Van Halen indicated that it would be more practical for him if the fine tuners could accomodate tuning the low E string down a full step to D (or in Eddie's case, Db), enabling him to retune for songs such as Unchained without unlocking the nut. What I can't remember for the life of me is where I read this, so I suppose it's not entirely helpful. Hopefully someone else reading this might remember the article I'm thinking of.

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mustang trem
I've removed the phrase wrapped around. That's how I've mostly seen Mustang trems rigged, but it's been pointed out to me that in all the Fender catalogs the strings are simply passed through the bar, in a similar fashion to those on a conventional open tailpiece. Possibly wrapping them round Bigsby-fashion gives still more range, but the design seems to have them straight through. Andrewa 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And the mystery deepens... at http://www.warmoth.com/hardware/bridges/bridges.cfm?fuseaction=mustang_trem we read The strings load from the front and wrap around the height adjustable string mounting bar. Yeah, that's what I thought too! Watch this space... Andrewa 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming "controversy"?
I think "controversy" is the wrong word. Everyone agrees that Leo got it wrong and this invention is misnamed. I propose changing the name of this section to "Vibrato or tremolo?", which is what's used on the vibrato unit page. 64.171.68.130 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done
This article is very well done, someone should nominate it for WP:FA status. 128.158.145.51 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Guitar Riff is nice, but the single note doesn't really show the vibrato sound. I think this is mostly because the note fades too quickly.RSido 17:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Hi there! I'm quick-failing this article's Good Article nomination because it lacks any references at all. All Wikipedia articles need references to reliable sources in order to facilitate verifiability. See this page for a "how-to" on using citations and references in Wikipedia. Once that problem has been corrected, please feel free to renominate the article for a full review. If you have any questions, please contact me via my talk page. Cheers! Esrever 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Shields
I'm adding references to Kevin Shields, because it beggars belief that there has been no mention of him thus far. 85.134.144.6 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please fix this?
The first sentence in the second paragraph reads: "Since the regular appearance of mechanical tremolo arms in the 1950s, guitarists ranging from the gentle inflections of Chet Atkins to the buoyant effects of surf music aficionados like Duane Eddy to art rock innovator Frank Zappa." What? I would edit it myself except that I have no klew what it's trying to say. Terry Yager (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Done. You're right, the grammar was a mess. Not altogether happy with the result but it's a start... Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How many designs?
Current article reads

Almost all tremolo arms are based on one or more of Six basic designs:

Almost all tremolo arms are based on one or more of Six basic designs:

 * Stetsbar tremolo
 * Bigsby vibrato tailpiece
 * Fender synchronized tremolo
 * Fender floating tremolo
 * Floyd Rose locking tremolo
 * Kahler Tremolo System

I don't know about the Kahler and Stetsbar units, but the Floyd Rose is an improved Synchronised Tremolo aka strat trem (article reads using a blade edge pivot but otherwise based on the strat trem) just as the current Fender two-point is a (different) improvement, whle the 'stang trem (aka Dynamic Vibrato and not represented on this list) is a completely different design... it shares the floating bridge concept with the floating tremolo but the tailpiece is in many ways more like the Bigsby. I suspect that people have just been adding their favourite (eg Floyd Rose) to the list, and removing the ones they don't like (eg the 'stang). Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... and the Floyd Rose is a locking trem not floating, I'll fix that... Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... ready to do something about this.

First a quick look at the six designs listed already.

Existing list
with some comments Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stetsbar tremolo
See Stetsbar, a cam-driven system not closely based on any of the traditional designs. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigsby vibrato tailpiece
A very old venerable design, see Bigsby vibrato tailpiece, belongs on the list. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fender synchronized tremolo
AKA strat trem, also belongs on the ist of basic designs. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fender floating tremolo
The Jag trem, first of the two Fender floating bridge designs. But is the 'stang trem really based in this design? Either the 'stang trem should be on the list in its own right, or this entry should be broadened to cover all floating bridge designs. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Floyd Rose locking tremolo
See Floyd Rose, derived from the 'strat trem and very important as it waa the first mod to the venerated 'strat trem to gain significant acceptance. But no way is it a new basic design. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kahler Tremolo System
See Kahler Tremolo System, another cam-driven system, probably it and the Stetsbar are best seen as the same basic design. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then rationalise
Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So... the basic designs that have significant following are the Bigsby, the 'strat trem, the Fender floating bridge design(s) (Jag and 'stang... one design or two?) and the modern cam-driven systems based on pedal steel design, which was also largely developed, interestingly, by Paul Bigsby. So it seems as though he and Leo Fender continue to dominate the development of the trem arm to this day, it's all still based on their work. And rumour is that neither was much of a guitarist...! Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed out of the list above
Ibanez ZR and Ibanez Edge are both variations of the 'strat trem. The B-Bender is a bit like a trem, in particular like the cam-driven systems, and all are probably best seen as derived from pedal steel guitar technology. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are at least four and probably more designs of Gibson Vibrola, two long ones and two short... and that's not counting the Bigsby, which has also been called a vibrola when fitted to Gibson guitars, in both long and short form. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Micro-Frets Calibrato? Locking tremolo before Floyd Rose?
It seems to me (I'm a complete ignorant) that Micro-Frets had a locking tremolo system (which would transpose the chord, like a non-locking TransTrem, right?) already in the very early seventies. Examples: http://www.musurgia.com/products.asp?ProductID=4570. More: http://www.toneshed.com/documents/microfretspages.html

13:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeus Scrofa (talk • contribs)

Time to be bold
Let's have a go at replacing the list with something accurate... Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tremolo and Vibrato
See http://tunings.pbworks.com/about-Fender-and-names which is my own WP:OR but might help understand what is going on here! Andrewa (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Description under "Detail of the Strat-style tremolo" Picture
It states "there is provision for up to five springs. Only three are fitted here to allow for use of light strings, there being no other adjustment."

Another adjustment is possible - the two screws that connect the spring claw to the body can be screwed in or out to further tweak the angle that the tailpiece sits at.Cameron McCormack (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Loosening these woodscrews is certainly possible, but not adviseable. They'll eventually work loose and pull out of the wood, sooner if they're often adjusted and/or very loose and/or if the trem is regularly used. Andrewa (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whammy tapping
Removed text:

It may also be used outside its socket for different effects, as in Whammy Tapping.

Two problems here. Most important, the Whammy Tapping article was deleted as dubious and unsourced. I don't actually agree with that deletion, there was a ref to a Guitar Player article, not specific enough but I think it was fixable. But we should be consistent.

Less serious but the reason I removed it, it's oversimplified. You can't for example do this with a Bigsby, because there's no socket, the arm is permanently attached. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article title

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Whammy bar. harej 09:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tremolo arm → ? — Whether it is correct to call this device a tremolo arm or tremolo bar has been discussed at some length, both at Wikipedia and elsewhere.

If you wish to rename the article, WP:RM is the place to go. It's not an uncontroversial move to say the least. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The article title should reflect what an apparatus is rather than what it is called. As a second rationale for renaming, consider which of the terms is most commonly used on the web. Please check the number of results for each term in, for example, a Google search:

 * "vibrato arm" - About 94,200 results
 * "vibrato bar" - About 37,100 results
 * Total: About 131,000 results

 * "tremolo arm" - About 69,700 results
 * "tremolo bar" - About 49,900 results
 * Total: About 119,000 results

 * What are your thoughts?

 * InternetMeme (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Further to this discussion, it should be noted that the a Google search for the term "whammy bar" produces about 219,000 results. That would suggest that this term is the most popular and well-known term in use on the web.

 * As a tentative conclusion, I would suggest that if we want to use the most popular term, then the article title should be "Whammy bar". If we want to use the most accurate term, the title should be "Vibrato arm". InternetMeme (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * "Whammy bar" is the least ambiguous term, to my way of thinking, and in all likelihood the most commonly used. Deltabeignet (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 * That would seem true. As the term appears to be very popular on the web, and is at least neutral in meaning (as opposed to "tremolo arm" which is misleading), I agree that this is the best term to use.

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synchronised Tremolo "hidden knife edge"
In the article currently - "A bevel on the front underside of a steel top plate formed a wide, sharp edge that rested on the top of the guitar body." "These six screws are often mistakenly assumed to be the pivot point rather than the hidden knife edge."

I don't think this is quite correct. I've never seen any original or copy that was like this. Even looking at Leo's patent drawing next to the paragraph, the bevelled "knife edge" at the front of the base plate doesn't touch the guitar body normally. It will possibly touch the body only if the arm is fully depressed.

If talking about the angle formed between the bevel and the bottom of the base plate, that's about 150-160°, not a knife edge. That edge is usually in contact with the body, but it can come away from the body, depending on the adjustment of the screws and how far down the arm is pressed. There can be a bit of sliding of base plate on screws (as described in current article) and base plate on body.

Almost all the load is on the six screws, that's where most of the pivoting is going on. There's a good section about it in Dan Erlewine's book (don't have it with me). However from his website - http://www.stewmac.com/tsarchive/ts0061.html - "The traditional Strat tremolo, as used by Fender for many years, is a favorite of blues and surf players. It pivots on six mounting screws" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.188.183 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to confirm, this section of the article is totally wrong. Just inspected my own Stratocaster, the bridge does not touch the body at all except at the extremes of its range of motion. The pivoting does happen at the screws. If I can word it right I will re-write this section. Breadfreak (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge Tremstopper into this article, and cleanup
I recently came across the Tremstopper article, which is an orphan. Some references can be found regarding the Hipshot Tremsetter and the Tremol-No as two examples of designs that attempt to mitigate some of the issues related to tremolo bridges, and that could be used in the article. Even with those the Tremstopper article would probably be very small, and it's unclear whether the article would survive a deletion proposal. Instead of working on the Tremstopper article I am wanting to add a section here with explanation of what the issues are and how the designs attempt to conquer them. Given that the Tremsetter was available on some high-end Fender guitars in the nineties (I've got a book reference for that), and is still available from Fender, and that the Tremol-No has gotten some reviews, it should be a section which is relevant to the subject and has a fair number of references.

Looking at the article as it is now, it also appears that most of the content is subsections of the History section. It could perhaps instead be rewritten/rearranged so that it points out that the designs are listed chronologically by time of inventions, and then have sections for each of the main designs with subsections for explanations? Once I've got the Tremstopper article taken care of, I'll see what I can do. Nettrom (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Merge Tremstopper into this article.--Design (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we proceed with the merge now?--Design (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I've scheduled some time on my calendar to get this done over the coming week-end. Thanks for the support, and for reminding me about it!  Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 * And the merger has now been done. I took the liberty to remove the "History" section, move all relevant headings up one level, and make a sub-topic for the Fender designs. Having a specific section on history without actually having any content except all the other sections made it very difficult to find a place to add new content.  It also seemed that the Fender designs could be grouped together and provide a natural place for the "Other Fender designs" section.  Lastly I added a section called "Vibrato system additions" to handle tools/gadgets like the Tremol-No and D-tuna (and perhaps others, those were the two I know about) and added content to it.  There was very little useful content in the Tremstopper article, most likely due to its lack of references.

 * I also noticed that there appears to be some clean-up needed because there's lots of mentions of "tremolo" where "vibrato" or "bridge" could perhaps be more appropriate. I don't have time to look at it right now, though. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fender Synchronised Tremolo and Knife Edge
Fender synchronized tremolo Sketch of Fender synchronized tremolo from 1954 patent application . . . The basis of the synchronized tremolo is a rigid assembly that incorporates both the bridge and tailpiece, which pivots on the guitar belly. In the original design, this was based on the principle of the 'knife edge' balance.

"Knife edge balance" (in the original 'synchronized') as opposed to what? It continues but only talks about the 'knife edge' mechanism with the 'synchronized'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.110.169 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title again
Egad, they are right. Google   now firmly favours whammy bar, a term I have rarely heard in 35 years of owning, playing and even developing them (I built my own tremstopper before tremstopper had built a tremstopper, and possibly before the inventor was born).

When the term whammy bar was first introduced it was a pretentious attempt to rewrite history, but it seems to have been taken up by those of the public who write websites, blogs etc (although still not with the equipment suppliers), so I yield. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just come to this article now I would suggest renaming it Vibrato systems for guitar with redirects from "whammy bar", "vibrato bar", "tremelo arm" etc. I understand that the lever is the most visible part of the various vibrato systems, but think that it actually the various whole systems that are relevant and discussed here. The "tremelo" misnomer can be fully explained in its historical and cultural context. The term "vibrato" is the accurate one which is applicable across all musics and most of the world's instruments. Thank you.--Design (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Interesting suggestion.

 * The renaming to whammy bar does have a couple of outstanding problems.

 * Most notably, the article needs a rewrite to match its current name. You might think those who were so keen on renaming it would also have been keen on the article reflecting the rename, but evidently not.

 * More subtly, as I look at the usage I'm unconvinced that the term whammy bar is ever used to describe the Fender Floating Tremolo (the Jag trem). It seems to be used mainly for the Strat trem and its derivatives, and occasionally for the 'Stang trem. It's certainly not used to describe the early motorised Vib-rola units, so the current name is not an accurate one for the current article contents.

 * I think overall I'd strongly support your suggestion of Vibrato systems for guitar as the name. It seems to overcome all the problems associated with other names except the need for a subsequent rewrite, and a rewrite is currently needed anyway. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Agree 100%. This is a pretty good article with a pretty bad title. - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 * A move to Vibrato systems for guitar could be done without going to WP:RM, but it's probably good form to raise it there in view of past discussions. I'll be offline so far as Wikipedia is concerned for the first week of 2012 so I might leave it until I get back, meantime, further comments of course welcome. Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 * While "Vibrato systems for guitar" is a fairly long title, it seems to capture the subject well, and as mentioned earlier also allows the article to address various issues regarding variations, names, etc. So I support the move too (hopefully I can get some spare time to merge the tremstopper article then too).  Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

raised below. Feel free to add your votes to the there, some might say it's not strictly necessary as the closing admin should follow the link here and see your views anyway, but speaking from experience it's very helpful to them if your views are explicitly in the RM section, and it also helps those who may later be referring to the discussion once it has been archived. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thnak you. I have just returned from 2 weeks with no computer access and have found that the change to the article title have been made. The erticel needs some minor re-writes to match the new title. I'll start on that now. Please make your own changes.--Design (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Whammy bar → Vibrato systems for guitar — Current article title does not accurately describe the current topic. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Support as nominator. WP:AT reads in part The title serves to give an indication of what the article is about...; The current title does this poorly. The proposed descriptive title is more accurate, is recognisable, and avoids controversial issues. Andrewa (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The proposed title better encapsulates what the article is about, and does it in a way that should be more intuitive to the reader.  Terms that are in everyday use is easily handled through redirects.  Nettrom (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

This is the latest proposal in a long history of discussion, and has been supported so far, see above. The proposed move could be performed without use of admin powers, but in the light of previous discussions I thought it best to raise it formally.

The main previous issues have been over whether the term tremolo should appear in the title, those in favour of this citing common usage and those against citing technical accuracy, and whether the term whammy should appear in the title, those in favour of this citing common usage as it currently appears on the web and those against citing historical accuracy. This proposal makes both of these issues irrelevant so far as the article title is concerned.

However the main merit of this proposal is its accurately reflecting the current article scope. Some of the important early designs didn't have a bar or arm at all; The section on these has been greatly expanded since the last rename. Other designs, notably the unit developed for the Fender Jazzmaster and Fender Jaguar, are rarely if ever described as whammy bars, most probably because the heyday of genres such as surf music in which they are still favoured was before the popularity of the term. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation
Is it tre-MOLO or TREMO-lo? Can someone add a pronunciation guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.190.109 (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 * well, I actually pronounce it more like trem-a-lo, with the "a" being what my grade school teacher called a "short a". Don't think I've every heard the middle vowel pronounced with an "oh" sound. 69.29.206.62 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Likewise. The second syllable is an indefinite vowel in Australian English at least. Andrewa (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

edit from article July 2012
Ihave removed the following text from the article as it is worded in such a way as to be more appropriate for this talk page --Design (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Patent filed for the Fender Tremolo Device for Stringed Instruments on August 30, 1954 decribes the bar as Tremolo Control Bar (line 1-21), and this patent uses the same term throughout it's contents. The term Tremolo Bar was used throughout the 50's and 60's, and everyone knew what you were talking about! But now it is wrong term? Using Google search we find that in it's Dictionary, Tremolo is defined as Trem·o·lo a noun /ˈtreməˌlō/, 1. A wavering effect in a musical tone, typically produced by rapid reiteration of a note, or sometimes by rapid repeated variation in the pitch of a note or by sounding two notes of slightly different pitches to produce prominent overtones 2. A mechanism in an organ producing such an effect 3. A lever on an electric guitar, used to produce such an effect So, using a Tremolo Bar causes changes in pitch, and the orginal use of Tremolo to describe the purpose of the bar is correct!"
 * "The reader should also note;

Caution still required
Article currently reads (just for example) ''Still another design was used on the student model Fender Bronco, released mid-1967. This was simply known as the Fender vibrato tailpiece, or sometimes the Fender steel vibrato. It was again designed by Leo Fender although he had sold the company by the time it appeared. Basically a synchronized tremolo simplified to reduce cost, it had little popularity, and as of 2005 was the only Leo Fender vibrato arm design not available on any current Fender model.'' (my emphasis)

Huh? The four Leo Fender designs are never referred to collectively as vibrato arms, and with reason. In 1967, they would have all been called tremolo arms... even the two officially called vibrato. The Fender floating tremolo is a tremolo arm to this day, see for example http://www.fender.com/guitars/jaguar/johnny-marr-jaguar-rosewood-fingerboard-olympic-white/ retrieved just seconds ago: Jaguar bridge with Mustang® saddles, nylon bridge post inserts for improved stability, chrome cover and vintage-style floating tremolo tailpiece; and "taller" tremolo arm with arm-sleeve nylon insert to prevent arm swing. (my emphasis)

I know, the pedants would like to rewrite history and say that tremolo arm was always a misnomer (which it was and is) and that therefore the term should never be used, even in the context of history (which is not a valid conclusion unfortunately). And on their own web pages, they are free to do this. But Wikipedia is not like that. We have rules. We report accurately. We even report the quirks of English accurately. French toast is neither French nor toast. We still call it that.

Vibrato arm does have some current usage according to Google. About 1/10 the ghits of tremolo arm, but neither it nor whammy bar are complete neologisms. They're just not the right terms to describe the historical Leo Fender designs. If and when the campaign to rewrite the history of the trem design succeeds, then we should follow it, to the extent that it succeeds. No less and no more.

I'm sceptical that it will ever fully succeed. I think that those writing about the Surfaris, the Ventures and even the Easybeats will always call the trem what the players called it, as will those buying, restoring, playing and (unfortunately) just displaying vintage guitars, and those buying the new retro models fitted with floating tremolos and 'stang trems (or perhaps someday even bronco trems). I could be wrong.

But for now at least, the term for the four Leo Fender designs {strat trem, floating trem, 'stang trem and bronco trem) considered together is tremolo arm.

I admit to a POV on this. I was there and probably still suffer from 1970speak in relation to electric guitars. The first decent solid body guitar I ever played was a '68 Jag. So I need to be careful too, and so I'm not going to make the changes I think necessary to de-POV the article for the moment.

For now I'll just post this heads-up. Comments welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 * - It is worth remembering that this is an encyclopedia and can include all the relevant facts. The name of the article is "Vibrato systems" as each of mechanisms described comprises more than the lever or "arm". The vibrato systems designed for the Fender Mustang and the Fender Bronco were both named VIBRATO, as outlined in this article, but later colloquially termed "trem". And that the Kauffman Vibrola and Bigsby Vibrato both pre-date any Fender "trem".Design (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also worth remembering that this particular encyclopedia has policies and guidelines as to what is correct, and (unlike many others) we follow English usage rather than the POVs of authorities. Andrewa (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, we used to call it the whang bar. I have evidence, like here and here and here.

I was once engaged to a violinist — she refused to let me get away with referring to pitch change as "tremolo."

Fender could have named the Strat mechanism the Sliced Bologna system. That is not a justification for subsequently referring to ALL vibrato systems as "bologna."

The validity of continuing to misidentify is that it's easier (amongst guitarists) to refer to "the trem" than "the vibrato." In that context, it's useful jargon. In a WP article, it's (at best) inappropriate folksiness, and rightfully policed. Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read correct. Correcting inappropriate folksiness sounds dangerously soapy.
 * But you do have a point. Your comments on my off-thiswiki essay would be appreciated. Bear in kind that Wikipedia talk pages are for improving Wikipedia (rather than critiquing my essay per se), but I think this is relevant here as it discusses much of what you have raised here.
 * I do sympathise with your violinist! I had a classical guitar teacher who was similarly adamant. And my singing coach just scratched her head and muttered something under her breath about the general incompetence of rock musicians. Andrewa (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 * My opinion in this instance is that it should be policed — as in watched due to potential for misuse and further confusion — not removed entirely. We are kinda stuck with the confusion (check Vibrato unit); when writing for a guitarist audience I'll often call a spring bridge a "trem." But as WP is intended for a general audience, care should be taken to avoid growing the meme. Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that policed is exactly what we want to avoid. It's the opposite of working towards consensus, and as I understand it that's not negotiable. (But is often misunderstood.)
 * Similarly, we should avoid the attempt to avoid growing the meme. We neither avoid it nor support it. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Electronic the only means of tremolo?
(a rapidly repeated note—or, in electronic effects, automatically fluctuating volume) There are numerous mechanical/acoustic means of creating tremolo. Pipe organs used a rotating shaft fitted with lengthwise vanes placed in front of the mouth of the pipes. Vibraphones used a similar arrangement between the tone bars and the resonators. Both created timbre variation as well, probably contributing to the confusion between "tremolo" and "vibrato". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8420:DF20:9CCB:46EE:300B:E578 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, electronic is the only way to put tremolo on a guitar, even if it's something so simple as a potentiometer (on the instrument or in a foot pedal).

 * If a guitar produced its tones via a collection of resonant individually tuned tubes, then a method similar to vibraphones might be used, though likely few guitarists would enjoy carrying about the motor, drive belts, and power cable. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Interesting... I don't doubt that some pipe organs may have used the device you describe, but I've never heard of it. Tremulant is however a very standard effect on many styles of pipe organ. But that's a different mechanism entirely. Andrewa (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The "flap" method as employed in the vibraphone has some commonality with the Leslie speaker, though not so aurally large. The rotating elements induce the Doppler effect, so while the result (from a distance or in a recording) may come across as a rhythmic volume change (vibrato), at the source it's really a pitch "wobble" (tremolo). (I've worked with both, and it's quite visceral.) Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True about the Leslie and the vibraphone (I have also worked with both... more often with the Leslie than with a vibes player I admit), but of course a Leslie is used with electric and electronic instruments.
 * But my query is, where has this "flap" method been used with pipe organs? I've done some research and can find no mention of it elsewhere. Is it perhaps that someone has confused tremulant with the swell box? Andrewa (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dunno about pipe organs, other than Tremulant, which says
 * The most simple kind of tremulant is a weighted electric motor affixed to the top of the reservoir for the division. When activated, the spinning of the motor causes the reservoir to shake, altering the wind pressure. This type of tremolo appeared first in the twentieth century, when the electric motor became available.
 * and
 * Many tremulants are variable, allowing for the speed and depth of tremolo to be controlled by the organist.
 * and
 * The Austin tremulant consists of a large blade that spans the length of the windchest above the pipes. When the tremulant is activated, the blade turns on its longitudinal axis, disturbing the air over the sounding pipes and creating a tremulant effect.
 * The electromech stuff was repurposed to church organs after appearing with the rise of the theatre organ.

prove your notables
Almost all the Notable tracks subsection should be removed, and kept gone. While I too have the fanboy urge (James Mankey), this is not enough for WP. If this article doesn't cite a credible source, then such MUST be offered in the article for the guitarist or band. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The note at the top of that section has been there for almost eight years, so yeah, might as well trim that section. Wasn't immediately obvious where to find something to cite for it, although I found this Warmoth blog post to be interesting. There's probably a "10 essential whammy bar songs" or something like that in one of the guitar magazines? Either way, I find that section to be overly long, so I support trimming it down. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree that they should be removed, and kept gone. This would not improve the encyclopedia. I note that the section is a subsection of Examples, and most of the tracks concerned have articles (and possibly all should!). They're all notable, and there seems no doubt that they do use trem (remembering that primary sources are not completely banned, just so long as there's no interpretation of them).
 * If you can find sources that cite the particular use of the trem on a particular track, by all means add them. In particular, sources that cite exactly what trem mechanism was used would be great. Hendrix' use of the strat trem as claimed may not be 100% accurate IMO... it's a commonly believed myth that he always used a strat, but many youtubes of those songs show him using a Flying V with its short-form Maestro. Andrewa (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hendrix likely played a Danelectro in his early days, and definitely played an SG for a couple of tunes on his Cavett appearance, but almost always stuck with a Strat, in part probably because of the trem (which I wouldn't say as it's OR, and citing someone else's guess really wouldn't be any better).
 * Anyway, though I see the "not all primary sources are bad" viewpoint, this is readily countered by merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (No original research) I offer "source it or lose it" as a compromise between these extremes.
 * My intent is NOT to "critique your essay" but to help ensure that the work you've done doesn't get all stretched out of shape in the long term. This is primarily an article about a device. The device's usage is a matter that is somewhat loosely attached, and perhaps fodder for a separate article (where it risks running into WP:NOTHOWTO). One or two highly credible examples is likely cool, but an ever-expanding list heads toward the WP:NOTCASE wall; if someone is "a notable user," then that would properly be addressed in THAT article, merely noted here. Most people will go to their graves having never played a guitar much less wrestled a trem arm, so detail risks running right past the everyday reader defined as the Wikipedia target audience. I try to err on the side of caution. Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misinterpreted this post of mine regarding critiquing my essay. The page I linked to is in my own Onine Encyclopedia of Tunings website, not Wikipedia. It's borderline at best as reliable sources go, but I thought you might find it interesting, and might save us reinventing the wheel here, as it already makes some of the points that you have since made. But there's no need to even read it if you don't want to, we can go through it all here instead.
 * Erring on the side of caution is good. Suggest you be more cautious who you believe about pipe organs. The more I look at it the more I think that your idea of the flap may be complete rubbish. I could still be wrong.
 * And the idea that Hendrix almost always stuck with a Strat, in part probably because of the trem deserves a closer look too. Pete Townshend was another serial strat player, but he has since been upfront about why... it was because he was smashing them onstage, and the strat is almost modular, it can be separated into neck, body, trem and electrics in minutes and reassembled almost as quickly. So Townshend was able to put the good bits of several smashed strats back together fairly easily! Hendrix and The Who had a long-standing association, so that possibility deserves a look IMO.
 * Lots more could be said. Thanks for discussing. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please reread, slowly: In the previous thread, I wrote The "flap" method as employed in the vibraphone which you then mischaracterize by asking where has this "flap" method been used with pipe organs? I pointed you toward Tremulant which seems to say the system was used with the modern (relatively) theatre organ if not with the classic pipe organ — so now that's TWICE that you have accused me of making specious claims, when it looks like you should be off fixing the actual burr under your saddle. In brief, it's not "my idea" & if it's incorrect then (1) provide a source for your guesswork & (2) go fix it. The "rubbish" crack is entirely unwarranted; why do you need to turn a mostly-civil exchange of (easily verifiable) data into an insult you feel obliged to attack? Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry this has turned personal. Not good.
 * OK, I've been over it (and will do more) and agree that my rubbish claim was over the top... but I will point out that you provided no evidence to back up the vibraphone-like claim, which I had previously challenged, and that while, according to our tremulant article (to which I referred you but obviously without re-reading it myself, my bad) one company has used a vibraphone-like (and reed organ-like) tremulant on their pipe organs, the wind-chest based systems with which I am familiar are the normal mechanism for pipe organs. And when I first challenged this I did say I could be wrong but you still provided no evidence.
 * And I'm still sceptical that the term flap is used by others in the way you are using it... but again a reference would be good if you have one. (And primary sources are fine on talk pages, in articles we avoid them but it's useful to be a bit more tolerant of them in talk pages if the facts are in dispute, IMO.) It seems to bundle together two very different mechanisms, one using the flap to regulate the wind supply, the other using it (although I would call it a moving baffle in this sense, and our article calls it a blade) to deflect the sound after its production (one of the two methods used in Leslie systems, the other being to move the loudspeakers themselves).
 * In the case of the Austin Organs and reed organ systems, probably this also affects the sound production. But yes, I admit that's OR, we have no source to say (as our tremulant article implies, disturbing the air it says, rather than deflecting the sound which I suspect would be more accurate) that the effect is primarily on the sound production. It seems unlikely to me, despite the company calling it a Universal windchest. A reference would be good, either way... but I have a sinking feeling that the phrase may come from their sales literature, which would not be an ideal source. Still far better than none. Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

many gaps remain
For starters: Such detail would put this halfway to being a properly encyclopedic article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * explicit mention MUST be made of the B-Bender, if only to attempt explaining how it's somehow not a "vibrato system for guitar."
 * if it's subsequently included here, then mention must be made of Marty Stuart's virtuoso use of Clarence White's prototype.
 * the simplest vibrato is two steel plates clamped across the strings between bridge & tailpiece with a lever attached to the end; this kludge was glossed over in the (wholly unsubstantiated & highly deletable) blues and jazz guitarists … manipulating the tailpiece guess. The impression is created that the device didn't exist AT ALL until Doc wandered in.
 * I've seen this up to the '60s on cheap Japanese guitars. The cheapest Gibson "Vibrola" has more in common with that primitive design than with the actual Kauffman Vib-rol-a.
 * the Kauffman-style design may be unique in that it could readily be adapted to other fretted instruments, including flat-top, mandolin, banjo, & some console steel guitars, without even drilling a hole.
 * though the pedal steel guitar is heavily associated with "old-timey" country-Western music, it's of very recent invention, not becoming at all commercially viable until ~1940 and only reaching maturity after 1948 when Paul Bigsby started selling his hand-built instruments. It's been conjectured that the whangbar inspired Bigsby to improve the (then primitive) pedal steel, and also that both innovations were independent expressions of a cultural desire for more "fluid" musical sounds.
 * whangbars have appeared on electric basses for years: Jethro Tull bassist Glenn Cornick played one, as shown on the jacket of Benefit (released 1970). Per a VG article, it's used by "Les Claypool, Stanley Clarke, Tony Levin, Jonas Hellborg, Dave LaRue, and Victor Wooten" (overlooking Entwistle). "Burns developed a…vibrato-equipped Vista-Sonic…bass in 1962.… The ’80s saw Alembic modify Bigsby guitar vibratos for bass, Kahler introduced several models, and Steinberger offered a bass version of their TransTrem in 1987."
 * Hipshot has since ~2005 offered their Bass Tremolo, and there are other current designs.
 * entirely overlooked are complex designs such as the Bigsby Palm Pedal that was available with up to six levers allowing the player to change pitch on one or more strings to preset intervals. Here are photos of a four-arm BP-15. Though not strictly "a vibrato system," it clearly belongs in this article seeing as the case is made (largely through original research) in the article that the "vibrato" is used for so many more tasks than mere vibrato, so both or neither.
 * Mainly good suggestions. Now you and I and others can hopefully do the work on improving the article.
 * But the most interesting issue it (sigh) raises again is the article scope and name. The tremolo arm by whatever name is a good topic and should have an article, not just be part of this broader and relatively vague Wikipediaism. That's what I set out to write, and it's a shame that the purists have hijacked it to promote their own pet theories. Andrewa (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Weeb Dingle, I welcome your suggestions and look forward to the additions and citations. Design (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Weeb Dingle, I welcome your suggestions and look forward to the additions and citations. Design (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A good edit
I was surprised but this edit by an IP with no other contributions seems right on the money. The question now is, how did the error occur? Possible under-the-radar vandalism? Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Split
I think we should split the current article. As points out above, the current article does not cover Vibrato systems for guitar at all well. And there's obviously demand for such a broad article, and people willing to write it.

But it seems to me that it's far more important to get a good article on the tremolo arm or whammy bar or whatever we decide to call it. A majority of the solid-body guitars sold both today and historically have one, and possibly even a majority of all electric guitars. Its use is an important part of electric guitar technique, while the other systems are rare and/or historic only.

Vibrato systems for guitar is a broader topic. I get 7,270 ghitd for it (same for singular or plural), some of which appear to be citogenesis. On the other hand tremolo arm (just one of the possible more specific article names) gets 1.18 million.

For the article name any of the common names will do! Redirects are cheap. Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that redirects are already in place to this article for common names. I don’t see the point of a split, myself. “Vibrato system” is an accurate descriptor, as the lever (arm) is the controlling component only.  Regardless of whether the above assertion is correct (that the majority of electric guitars sold have a vibrato system fitted), which I doubt, this article is worthy one. Design (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the redirects are good. Perhaps if they pointed to sections of the article, that would be better. And I'm still of two minds on this! I actually proposed the RM which gave the article its current name. But the results have not been good. See below. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As Design mentions, there are plenty of redirects from common terms in place (here's the list). Looking quickly through the article, I get the sense that it could do with copyediting to tighten up the writing, it seems verbose. If we are considering splitting, then I think one place to start could be to look at which of the main designs are notable enough to have their own articles, meaning that the sections for them get cut down considerably in this article. The current proposal to split is too vague for me to support, I'd prefer to see a proposal with suggestions for what parts would be split out and where they would go. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I get the impression it's a disaster! The trem (call it what you will) is more often used as a string bend device in contemporary playing... using it as a vibrato system still occurs in surf music and other restricted genres, but mainstream since Hendrix has been more spectacular effects, which are no more accurately called vibrato than they are tremolo. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to recap... the reasons for suggesting a split are: A refactor to create a top level (two =s in wikitext) section specifically on whammy bars would be quite acceptable. It could then link to articles on the strat trem, floating bridge (I'd lump the 'stang trem and Jaguar/Jazzmaster/BassVI units together under that name, as do Fender) etc..
 * Probably most important, these days to call a whammy bar (by whatever name) a vibrato device is just as wrong as calling it a tremolo device... probably even more so. Its usage is far more general than that, and notably includes effects similar to string bend such as dive bombs. A possible term might be portemento, but it's certainly not vibrato.
 * Whammy bar by whatever name (I still call it a trem but I'm a 65yo and it probably shows) is a suitable topic for an article.
 * The article is plenty long enough as is, but as is pointed out by others, there are still many significant systems omitted entirely.

And I guess we'd then need to deal with what the purists wanted to call that section! Just so long as the various redirects all point there it's not all that important.

Personally I agree with their objections to using tremolo in this sense, see 'about Fender and names'. But Wikipedia is not the place to fix common usage, however irritating we may find it. We just document it. Andrewa (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A disappointing source
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.5039846 looks so promising but is disappointing.

''ABSTRACT: String instruments such as electric guitars are often equipped with a vibrato system, which allows varying the pitch of all strings as a musical effect. It is usually based on a mobile bridge that is kept in balance by the strings and a coiled spring...'' What rubbish. The most common trem is the strat trem, with three to six springs. No Gibson Vibrola has ever had a mobile bridge AFAIK, nor has any Bigsby. Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote says “spring” instead of “springs”, but it is the short introductory abstract to a scientific paper. Does the author discuss multiple springs in the full text? Apart from that, the quote seems accurate to me. Design (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The full text is behind a paywall. I'd be very interested to see it but not $30 worth of interested.
 * Yes, the quote says spring and should say spring or springs. There is no way a scientific paper should have such an error in its abstract... it's like saying a trailer is a vehicle supported by a wheel and towed by another vehicle (yes, single-wheeled trailers do exist, but most trailers...). My guess is, the author of the abstract had only examined one guitar in any detail. And that's fair enough but they should reflect that in the abstract, and don't, just the opposite, they imply that they've done a survey of guitars, and they obviously haven't.
 * The matter of moving bridges is more serious. Have you ever played a trem-equipped Gibson or Gretsch? Did the bridge move, even a tiny bit? Ever wonder why people fit roller bridges (aka roller saddles)? Mine is by Schaller. There is a whole world out there, and we don't all play Fenders and Fender copies.
 * I'm not saying that the whole paper is rubbish. Just that we need to be very careful on this subject. Many people seem to think they know a lot more than they do, at all levels of scholarship. (And I need to be careful too, perhaps that goes without saying.)
 * And the trick is, cite our sources. We can start with the myth that we are perpetuating that tremolo arm is incorrect, see below. That's the POV of some Wikipedians and I'm sure of some authorities too. But this is a controversial clam, so we either cite the authorities, or say nothing on the subject. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

More on accuracy POV and sources
Article currently reads in part alternately referred to as a whammy bar, vibrato bar, or incorrectly as a tremolo arm (my emphasis) with no source given for the claim that the term tremolo arm is incorrect.

OK, I'm hereby challenging that claim, so it needs a supporting reference. IMO it already did as likely to be challenged (several policies and guidelines) but that is now academic.

If we said instead some authorities dislike the use of the historically common name on the grounds that the device cannot technically produce tremolo that would be OK, but even then, we should cite at least one of these authorities, to also verify exactly why they dislike the name. But most important, just to repeat what we do, uncritically and without citation, is both OR and POV.

Linguistically, it's a perfectly good and accurate English name, just as French toast is an accurate name for something that is neither French nor toast. It may not be the best name for the article on the whammy bar (or may be), but that's not the issue I raise here.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all: thanks for starting the work on improving this article! It's great to see it get some attention, looking forward to keep working on this.
 * Having searched a bit looking for sources I prefer your second approach (or some variation of it), because it became clear to me that the terms are used interchangeably in the industry. I think the lede can make three claims:
 * It's technically not a tremolo. Potential sources: an article in Guitar World claiming this, Fender points it out themselves, a physics paper in PLoS ONE (PLoS ONE is peer reviewed, so that should carry some additional weight). I also found a couple of book sources through Google: Guitar: A Complete Guide for the Player by Nigel Osborne (p. 58), and Guitar All-in-One For Dummies by Consumer Dummies (p. 179).
 * The term is used interchangeably in the industry. Potential sources: the previous Fender post about these terms, an article in Guitar Player using the phrase "commonly referred to", and the book Teach Yourself Guitar Repair and Maintenance by John Carruthers uses "tremolo" and points to the misnaming on page 57.
 * Fender's incorrect usage might be to blame. Potential sources: this blog post points to Fender's patent application calling it a "tremolo", the Guitar Player article above mentions Fender's usage, and here's another Guitar Player article talking about Fender's confusing usage of the terms.
 * I don't have time to draft it right now, but I think this might be a good start? Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a total rewrite of the article is in order... maybe in draft namespace? I don't want to create an inappropriate content fork and/or go forum shopping, this needs to be done properly.
 * But an essential part of this is the scope of the article. A whammy bar is no longer primarily a vibrato device (if it ever was). It should certainly be mentioned in this article, but I really can't see how we can avoid having an article on the whammy bar (by whatever name) as a topic of its own. Nor see what the objection can be to having one! Does it fail the GNG? No way!
 * That Guitar Player article is an excellent find... I don't know how I missed it in my many Googles of recent days. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Tremolo
... but the GP page doesn't (currently at least) make any mention of the terms tremolo arm and tremolo bar being incorrect as our article claims. That's why I have now flagged it as failed verification.

IMO to say it is incorrect is purism. But common purism. I'm sure we can find reliable sources that say exactly that. It will be interesting to see exactly what they say.

When the first few decades of guitar catalogs used the terms tremolo arm and tremolo bar to describe the early whammy bar designs, it's simplistic to say that the terms are incorrect. Worse, it's part of a campaign to reform English on this matter. We need to very carefully source the claims and evidence either way.

For my POV, see here. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As per the current article, the Kauffman Vibrola predates the Fender Synchronised Tremolo by over 20 years, so I think your statement “the first few decades of guitar catalogs used the terms “tremolo arm”…” is incorrect. Also I think using the term “vibrato system”, emphasis on “system” is more accurate than focussing primarily on the lever or “arm”. Design (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Vib-Rola_rear.jpg
 * Although the Kauffman Vibrola does indeed predate the Fender Synchronised Tremolo, as per the current article some of these systems were not tremolo arms. They were other vibrato systems. So I think your statement needs more research.
 * The photo of such a mechanism provided in the article is indeed interesting. I'd be very interested in knowing when this particular mechanism was produced. We have no provenance for it.
 * So you may be right. Or otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrewa hello! I'm no expert on guitars by any means so I can't really weigh in on the incorrect vs correct debate, but maybe something like "whammy bar, vibrato bar, or tremolo arm" could work, with a short note explaining the controversy over the name "tremolo arm". I don't do loads of content editing so there's a chance I've formatted that incorrectly or that it wouldn't work, if so I apologise. Hope you have a good day! – DirkJandeGeer щи  14:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC) – DirkJandeGeer щи  14:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, the common name over the years has just been tremolo arm, and that term has no other meaning.
 * The only possible challenge to it could be on the basis of wp:namechanges. We prefer recent sources. But I'm sceptical even then, and no case has been made, ever.
 * There is no doubt that some keen enthusiasts deplore the term tremolo arm as the device produces many effects these days but cannot produce tremolo. But that is not a reason for our avoiding the term, unless they have succeeded in their campaign.
 * We should certainly note the other popular names in the article lead, and have redirects from them, and describe the naming controversy in the article text with appropriate references and footnotes. Andrewa (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Designs section
I don't really see any point to this as it's written, as the information is almost entirely duplicated below. maybe it could be used to illustrate how there are designs involving springs to alter tension with a fulcrum or using flexible metal, or just general overview of how different mechanisms achieve the pitch bending and returning to tune. -MJ (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vibrato systems for guitar


text:
User:Haider

I am not Strangerer anymore, Seriously.

Pakhair Raghley

Assalam-u-Allaikum and Hello to every one, I am Haider Khan, history and politics are my favourite subjects esp taking great interest in the history of Pashtuns. I've been a Wikipedian since july 2004. If you'd like to leave me a message, please do so on my talk page. Khdai pa amaan.

A Pashto proverb: Jranda ka de plaar da - Kho pa war da. Good contributions For your work on Pashtun. Zak 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Haider


text:
User:Jammydodger/New Nation/Grace Tyler

The Right Honourable Grace Tyler is a Britannican politician and the first female Prime Minister of Britannica. She headed the most successful Conservative government in Britanican history with two successive victories, both with a strong lead. Despite eventaully loosing to a former defected cabinet minister, Robert Fawcett, she returned in 1982, only a year later, with a large majority. She was eventually toppled by a new intake of centrist-conservative MPs, in favour of her Defence Secretary, Edmund Carlosse.

Environment Secretary and Opposition
Tyler started her career as Environment Secretary on 1970 under Lawrence Slade. During her 5 years in office she improved her standing in the party and gained a reputation of being a no-nonsense thatcherite. When the Tories lost the election on the 3 August, 1975, it allowed a ladership election. Tyler won with a reasonable majority and begun making devastating attacks against the Royalists, calling them inexperienced and innefective. Eventually, on 26 December, 1976, an election was called and the Conservatives won an amazing lead of 17%.

Premiership
Tyler quickly began to reform the economy. She started a boom and bust economy, creating a lot of jobs but raising inflation. As war was very close, she made herself Chancellor of the Exchequer and Home Secretary at the same time, so she could keep control of the situation. Her control of the cabinet was more or less strong, and she had gained a huge amount of support from the whole country.

War with Carldenbrug
1978 saw a huge war with Carldenburg. Eventual European dominance destroyed Carldenburg and the victory was mainly attributed ot the Conservative Party and King James I. The victory in the war would make certain the result of the 25 March 1979 General Election.

Robert Fawcett and her second term 1979-1981
Robert Fawcett was a rising star in the Conservative party. He was Defence Secretary during the war with Carldneburg and ater teh re-election of Ms Tyler, was moved to the office of Home Secretary. Two months later he was sacked due to pressure on the prime minister from right-wing members. He felt snubbed and defected to the Liberals. He eventually took over the leadership of the Liberals and began attacking Tyler on the poverty campaign, which was rife in Britannica at the time.

First Cabinet, 1976-1979

 * Grace Tyler — Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for the Home Department
 * Victoria Kettering — Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
 * Robert Fawcett — Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
 * Edmund Carlosse — Secretary of State for Education and Culture
 * Katherine Weeks — Secretary of State for Work and Employment
 * Antony Brandiston — Secretary of State for Transport
 * George Edwards — Secretary of State for Industry and the Environment
 * Charles Gray — Lord Chancellor

Positions

 * 1970–1975: Secretary of State for the Environment
 * 1975–1984: Leader of the Conservative Party
 * 1976–1981: Prime Minister
 * 1976–1979: Chancellor of the Exchequer
 * 1976–1979: Home Secretary
 * 1982–1984: Prime Minister

title: User:Jammydodger/New Nation/Grace Tyler


text:
Talk:John Falstaff

Fictional??
Balzac seems to think he was real:

 * Falstaff is, in England, a type of the ridiculous; his very name provokes laughter; he is the king of clowns. Now, instead of being enormously pot-bellied, absurdly amorous, vain, drunken, old, and corrupted, Falstaff was one of the most distinguished men of his time, a Knight of the Garter, holding a high command in the army. At the accession of Henry V. Sir John Falstaff was only thirty-four years old. This general, who distinguished himself at the battle of Agincourt, and there took prisoner the Duc d'Alencon, captured, in 1420, the town of Montereau, which was vigorously defended. Moreover, under Henry VI. he defeated ten thousand French troops with fifteen hundred weary and famished men.

 * Balzac tended to get carried away with odd theories ( in his COUSIN PONS he puts in a long, silly section about how fortune-tellers can really see the future).  In this case he was probably confusing Falstaff and Fastolfe, due to lack of familiarity with English 2601:C2:201:4612:38B2:2C67:4ED0:FBF2 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The Real Falstaff is a book by Michael Jones about the real John Falstaff

 * The book is a life and times of the man behind the Shakespearean character, the professional soldier Sir John Fastolf. Fastolf is the best-documented soldier of the late medieval period and the author draws upon a quite exceptional personal archive. As a result, Sir John emerges in a very different light from his Shakespearean counterpart.

so much for wikipedia...

 * Reply: Shakespeare's Falstaff isn't based on Fastolf; WS merely borrowed the man's name, swapped some letters and completely changed his character. So it's a bit odd to call Fastolf 'the real Falstaff'. Jones's book is, incidentally, a novel, not a biography. The Singing Badger 19:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technical Character
"Also appears in Titus Andronicus as a technical character." - What does "technical character" mean in this context? I find no mention of Falstaff in a quick search of the text of T.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.235.135 (talk • contribs)
 * You're right, it's nonsense. I've removed it. I can't be bothered to go through the history but my guess is maybe someone vandalised a reference to Fastolfe in Henry SIXTH part 1. AndyJones 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
"But the one play he has the main part in is Murder on the Highway, a play containing various charactors from various Shakaspeare plays." A grade school student getting back at Wikipedia? Removed. Eivanec 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could be. Certainly isn't appropriate. I've reverted back a little further than you did. AndyJones 15:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Boars Head Tavern
No mention here of Falstaff's notorious drinking place: The Boars Head Tavern in Eastcheap. Colin4C 09:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare's second largest character after Hamlet?
It says in the article that Falstaff has the second most amount of lines after Hamlet, but I don't think this is true: with the lines he has in Henry V combined with those he has in 1HIV and 2HIV, surely Prince Hal has more? I don't have an edition where I can check this is the case, but I'm almost 100% sure... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.216.224 (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Characters In More Than One Play
It doesn't make sense to count appearances in more than one play towards size of part! You are not comparing like with like. It will also be difficult to compare Falstaff's lines with Hamlet's, as one speaks mainly in prose and the other mainly in verse. Counting prose lines will vary much more between editions. Re the article, surely there is no question that the Hostess in "Henry V" is Mistress Quickly? I don't see why there should be. Her husband calls her "the quondam (former) Quickly" in Act 2, Scene 1.

82.10.145.63 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Simon Russell Beale at the Globe?
I am not aware - and am sure I would be - that SRB has played Falstaff at Shakespeare's Globe. Only filmed the part for TV. The Globe Falstaffs I am aware of are Christopher Benjamin and Roger Allam. Could be checked with the theatre.

Rogersansom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Composite (of Models for Falstaff) section--Removed
This section violated NOR, as it synthesized a conclusion based on many sources, but not a part of ANY of the sources. Tapered (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture section
What's in the popular culture section is the most worthless trivia and ephemera. 82.26.127.248 (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "Print" section: is it possible that the Isaac Asimov character of Fastolfe, who appears several times in the Robot Trilogy (Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, The Robots of Dawn), be based on this Shakespearian character? 00-nero (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Asimov may have borrowed the name ( the full name is Han Fastolfe) but not the personality.  Asimov's character is a brilliant scientist and statesman.   2601:C2:201:4612:38B2:2C67:4ED0:FBF2 (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Falstaff is pretty clearly the inspiration for the Marvel Comics character "Volstagg" (just look at the spelling), a supporting character in the Thor comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.33.17 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Appearances
The article starts by saying "Sir John Falstaff is a fictional character who is mentioned in five plays by William Shakespeare and appears on stage in three of them."

I have Appearances: Henry IV pt 1, Henry IV pt 2 and The Merry Wives of Windsor

and one mention: Henry V (his death)

Is there another mention? I can't find one. I don't want to edit the text and then be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.28.115 (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that comes from someone who has confused one of the screen adaptations of Richard II with the play itself. So far as I know, there are no references to Falstaff in that play. Please do correct the number in this article's lead. --Xover (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 * He's probably counting "Fastolfe"'s mention in Henry VI as #5.  But that's wrong, because Falstaff's death was reported in Henry V and "Fastolfe" is somebody else.  2601:C2:201:4612:38B2:2C67:4ED0:FBF2 (talk)

title: Talk:John Falstaff


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Middleton 1

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 21:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kate Middleton
Girlfriends of princes are not encyclopedic, delete--nixie 12:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Prince William. Zscout370 13:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Prince William José San Martin 13:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. "Like the prince, with whom she shares an apartment..." Not long ago, this would have been unthinkable. She could be considered the common-law wife to the almost assured future King of Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. Precedent has established that a baby who died shortly after birth but happened to be heir to a throne is encyclopedic and should be kept; this is a grown woman about whom more can be said. Even if her relationship with Prince William of Wales doesn't last, she is sure to be noted in the future and of interest to royal historians. Finally, Camilla Parker Bowles was until just recently only notable as the girlfriend of a prince - and was created all the way back in 2002, and productively edited hundreds of times since. Samaritan 15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Samaritan's assessment of the article. Mgm|(talk) 17:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. ElBenevolente 18:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Zscout370 18:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Samaritan. Paradiso 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * weak keep even though I think she's only worth a para. or so in willie's article, that argument will just lead to the "wiki is not paper" response.
 * Keep, notable with the potential to be more so. Megan1967 07:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Significant others" of royalty, especially a royal family with as much media exposure at Britain's, are inherently notable.23skidoo 13:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Their relationship may or may not last, but to be co-habiting with the future monarch is in itself notable.  Many people meet their future spouses at university, and if this is the case, she could be a future Queen!  If the situation changes in the future (i.e. the relationship ends), we could re-assess this, but for the moment, she certainly deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Cal T 14:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If/when they split up, this page should be considered for deletion (and notes appended to the Prince's page), but the significant other of the future monarch is herself encyclopedic. Eliot
 * Keep Plenty of people who have never met her and don't expect to might want to look her up. Therefore she is notable. Oliver Chettle 23:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:Ecoloog~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 12:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ecoloog. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ecoloog~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ecoloog~enwiki


text:
User:Sunayana

Sunayana traslates literally to "good eyes" in Sanskrit. Of course it is used as a metaphor having several other meanings, not least of which meaning "good POV" or one who sees the good in everyone and everything.

Sunayana is of course a pseudonym and I'll let my Wikipedia edits speak more about me than myself.

title: User:Sunayana


text:
Lake Washington Floating Bridge

Lake Washington Floating Bridge may refer to the following crossings of Lake Washington between Seattle and its eastern suburbs:

 * Lacey V. Murrow Memorial Bridge (opened 1940, rebuilt 1993), carries eastbound lanes of Interstate 90
 * Homer M. Hadley Memorial Bridge (opened 1989), carries westbound lanes of Interstate 90
 * Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (opened 2016), carries Washington State Route 520
 * Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (1963) (opened 1963, closed 2016), the original Washington State Route 520 crossing

title: Lake Washington Floating Bridge