Talk:Flautist

Notability

It's a pity that Martin Linde, Grafenauer and Morris have been removed. In the fullness of time this list will maybe need pruning, but at the present it needs expansion, and some more detail fleshing out for the entries which are in the lists.

I'll leave this for the moment, but may come back to it later.

David Martland 08:44, 27 April 2003 (UTC)

I watch the page, but for some reason this got by me when it happened; the removals were by an anon user with no explanation, so I just restored to the previous version. Stan 12:56, 27 April 2003 (UTC)

Spelling

Flutist or flautist? Danny

I have never heard of a "flutist", yet I see that Google (admittedly, not a reliable guide) gives it more hits than "flautist". I guess it must be American usage. Tannin

---

We've had this discussion before - most people around the world actually use the word flutist, but in Britain the term flautist is the only one used.

Now that there is a longer section for jazz musicians who play the flute, I hope that there will be more updating and improvement of this page.

David Martland 08:26, 28 April 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm: It's certainly not just Britain. If a student wrote "flutist" in a paper here in Australia, it would get red ink through it. Always "flautist" here. Tannin

I suspect "flutist" is purely American English, and "flautist" is British/Commonwealth usage. "Flautist" in the US tends of connote pretentiousness, such as by non-players trying to sound knowledgeable. Stan 19:18, 28 April 2003 (UTC)

Ahh, thankyou, Stan. Over here, if I said "flutist" people would look at me funny and politely not mention my speech impediment. Obviously a US/International English thing then, in which case it should stay as is, under the "first use" rule. Tannin

Being an amateur American musician, I feel obligated to comment...;) I don't think I've ever seen "flutist", just "flautist" and perhaps "flute player" and "player of the flute" (both "flutist" and "flautist" sounding awkward to some). I remember one episode of The Golden Girls where one character referred to someone as a "flautist" and a second party said, "Oh, she plays the flute", and the first responded sarcastically, "No, she plays the flaut. It's like a tuba but with hair on the bottom!" :)

I would suggest "flautist" is the correct usage in every English-speaking region, but "flutist" is a more common incorrect back-formation from flute. Just like more people say "just desserts" (thinking wrongly it is a metaphor) than "just deserts" (where "deserts" is pronounced as "desserts" and refers directly to punishment).

--Furrykef 23:14, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I take you haven't read Nancy Toff's book then - pages xiv-xv discuss this very point, for instance observing that "flutist" is the original and "flautist" came into use centuries later; she concludes by favoring "flutist". Google search also shows 108,000 hits for "flutist" vs 44,000 for "flautist" (and a suggestion to try "flutist"!). So exactly how did you manage to miss those 108,000 web pages? :-) Stan 00:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Whatever the original spelling/pronunciation was, though, "flautist" appears to have become the correct form for some reason. But, of course, whether it is or isn't, it's certainly incorrect to suggest "flutist" is an Americanism. Just because an American misspells something doesn't mean it's the way we all spell it. After all, most of us don't know how to spell. ;)

--Furrykef 05:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Flutist dates to 1595-1605. Flautist entered English from Italian around 1855-1860. Pretension and a British accent complement one another, so why not use some ritzy Continental word instead of the proper English one. Even more amusing, Nathaniel Hawthorne is cited by the OED as using "flautist" first, meaning the British have opted for an American neologism while Americans stuck with an older term (but not oldest, at least in print) 24.47.23.189 04:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to insist that UK/Commonwealth usage is the standard, then we should all pronounce vitamin with the so-called "short" i sound, and the "u" should be restored to favor and color, gray should be spelled grey, etc. At this point, neither is "correct." Both are used, they are regionalisms. Please note that in every other language the term for a player of the instrument is simply the word for "flute" + a modifer that indicates "player of," eg, flûte/flûtiste. Dmhulbert 03:25, 25 June 2009‎ (UTC)

Delete blurbs from list?

I noticed that some of the flutists have descriptions by them, but many don't. I'm not wild about explaining who Boehm, Frederick the Great, and Quantz were, but not giving Rampal a blurb. Would anyone object if I just took out all of the summaries? Or should we add summaries to the rest of them? I don't really care; I just think it's silly how it is now. Starwiz 01:28, 11 February 2005 (UTC)

Should be "flautist" if we're going to be consistent

...since the article itself says "flautist" is the standard English term. Either move, or remove that note. ··gracefool |☺ 10:51, 16 June 2005 (UTC)

Indeed.

James F. (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it, because the category was also changed to "flautist". ··gracefool |☺ 13:09, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

saying Flutist or Flautist

i'm a flutist or flautist(flutist sounds better) it's amazing how many ways people will pronounce Flutist. i've been called a fluterist, flutist(pronounce the u as in flut), and many people call me "Flute Dude". it's funny to see people try figure out what a flute player is called:) BoOkWoRm 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

...but everyone knows what a "flute player" is! --Blouis79 00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

IPA?

I know that it might seem a bit unnecessary, but as there's no agreed spelling for the topic, maybe we should include IPA pronunciations for "flautist" vs. "flutist"... just to make it clear. I figure we'd live without one, but it'd be nice. T. S. Rice 21:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.

The article contradicts my understanding of the origins of the term, a Victorian affectation that derived from an admiration for things German; the pronunciation is supposed to be "flotist" and not "flaow-tist" as so many Americans render it.

Frankly, I think this entire article ought to be reduced to this text:

Alternative term for "flutist"

with a link to the main article for flutist. We don't, after all, refer to bassoon players as "faggoti" do we? Truddick 03:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And from an my Australian flautist's perspective flutist sounds odd. The title is far less important than the content which seems to explain the different origins adequately. I do note, however, that flutist gets far more webhits but if the term is used uniformly in the US then this is only to be expected. The consise Oxford English Dictionary lists flautist as the name with flutist as an American alternative and my Websters lists both flutist and flautist with no expressed preference - Peripitus (Talk) 12:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmph. So who gets to determine what "English" is anymore--is it the nation with the most people who claim to speak the tongue? :-) Or should we just call it "English", "Aussie", "Murcan", and "Yorkie" and acknowledge linguistic drift (perhaps too late now that the internet is eliminating regional isolation).

But look above. OED, probably the definitive source, holds that "flutist" is the older term and "flautist"--as confirmed by etymologists--is a Victorian era affectation.

C'mon mate, I expect you Aussies to brook little nonsense like non-standardization of the language! The way to indicate someone who practices something is to add "ist" and not to change the spelling of the original: therapist, linguist, theorist, impressionist--and clarinetist, pianist, percussionist, oboist, violinist, 'cellist, bassist, guitarist, organist, harpist, trombonist, ad nauseum.

If you really, really want to cleave to a Victorian affectation, why not pick up one that actually advances the development of the language by simplifying its verb forms? Like "ain't".

Flutists Cited In This Article

It seems to me that there is a need for some serious re-thinking about who is on this list. The list should include people who are or have been famous and influtential flutists, not famous people who just happen to play the flute. The list should include those who have had some influence on flute construction, flute techniques, or flute uses. Georges Barrere needs to be on the list ASAP. Gary Schocker, the world’s most published living composer of music for the flute, belongs on the list. Peter Gabriel simply doens't belong there. An agency like the "National Flute Association" [1] should weigh in on this. Weyandt 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And it appears that neither 'flautist' nor 'flutist' is the eldest

Please see my added para to the controversy section, respectfully submitted. Cryptonymius 18:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Flaherty

I deleted Michelle Flaherty's name from the list. I don't think she warrants being mentioned here. If anyone thinks she should be on the list, please give your reasons here before readding her name.--Tabun1015 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody added a *fictional* flute-playing high-schooler? Geez, sometimes it seems like we've got a bunch of freaks editing WP. In any case, the removal is totally correct. Stan 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Video

What's up with the giant video on this page? It's ugly, takes up a lot of space, and slows down the page load. Why is it even here? I've never even seen videos like this on Wikipedia. --Colinbartlett 22:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Added "flutist" to first sentence

I added flutist to the existing terms flautist and flute-player in the first sentence. I hope this isn't objectionable, as I didn't remove the terms that were already there but only acknowledged, in addition, the widespread and completely accepted use of flutist in the US. Stan really hit the nail on the head when he remarked: "Flautist in the US tends [to] connote pretentiousness, such as by non-players trying to sound knowledgeable." I've been a professional musician in the US for decades, and I've heard flautist plenty of times, but hardly ever from the mouth of a professional colleague (especially one who plays flute). I respectfully disagree with Furrykef's suggestion that "flautist is the correct usage in every English-speaking region." Emoll 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading a combination of controversy, history and modern usage, "Flute player" seems to me the preferred and historically correct and neutral term.--Blouis79 23:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2007

There were many options discussed here (including treating the article more like a list) but there doesn't seem to be a consensus in favour of any of them. I should note for the benefit of any future discussion that the argument about regional varieties of English is a very, very old debate here, and generally speaking unless a term has a strong connection with any particular variety, it tends to be "first come, first served" in terms of spelling. --bainer (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Provencal

I believe the word "flautist" derives ultimately from Provencal, not Italian. This should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 22:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this be an article?

First, let me state, I'm not proposing deletion. My goal is just to generate some discussion.

The article currently [3] has three sections.

1. A one-sentence definition.
2. A section about the naming controversy.
3. A list of notable flautists.

This is a really old article (going back to 15 Nov. 2002). From then till now, there has not been enough content added to warrant an article. The list should really be moved to List of flautists. The definition is only important because of the rest of the article. Otherwise a disambig. page with a Wiktionary link will do. So what you're left with is "Naming controversy". That's it. The whole article. And that's fine, but then the article should be renamed to Naming controversy involving "flautists" or something like that. Rocket000 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Fetzer

I don't know who she is, but she is certainly not "of the rock group Jethro Tull". A google search on "jennifer fetzer" + flute came up with five results, four of which simply quoted this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.192.231 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Need serious re-editing for NPOV

"Also one of the finest people you'll ever meet! And my personal favorite." -- enough said. Pasi (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just edit these out when you see them please - this page seems to be a magnet for people adding friends and other non-notables. Stan (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

This is silly, the following were all removed from the article page:

Notable (???) flautists

• Bob Armer (central Oregon sass flautist)
• Avi Piamenta Rock, Jazz, fusion (of The Piamenta Band)
• Samuel Baron
• Georges Barrère
• Jean-Louis Beaumadier - Removed from list by Nigosh (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• William Bennett - removed from list - Nigosh (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Bonita Boyd
• Leone Buyse
• Christine Nield-Capote
• Ian Clarke - added back to page - Nigosh (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Rebecca Marie Conneely
• Patricia Creighton
• Roberto Fabbriciani
• Jill Felber
• Andrea Griminelli
• Kelly Nicole Jahn
• Naveen Kumar - From South India (Chennai). Recently released an instrumental album Fluid
• Joseph Mariano
• Roberta Michel - removed from list - Nigosh (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Cheryl Pederson - flutist and vocalist for the blues band The Hard Miles Band
• Nina Perlove - removed from list - Nigosh (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Amanda Pratt
• Elizabeth Mann
• Mao Xia
• Charles Nicholson - flutist
• Aurèle Nicolet
• Prapancham Sita Ram
• Alexa Still Added back to page - Nigosh (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sheridan Stokes
• David Weiss
• Henrik Wiese
• Keith Underwood
• John Wummer
• Yang Wong

Jazz flute players

• Samantha Arola (Flute and Trumpet player for SHS Band)
• Leslie Burrs
• Wayman Carver - Added back to page - Nigosh (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Raghunath Seth
• Chris Vadala (Chuck Mangione Quartet)

Notable innovators/Contemporary composers

• Michael Colquhoun
• Rhonda Larson

Notable progressive rock players include:

• Avi Piamenta - The Piamenta Band

- Nigosh (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

flautist vs. flutist & Nancy Toff

Is it true that in The Flute Book Toff says the term "flautist" has negative connotations?:

"In Nancy Toff's essential The Flute Book, she explains that the term flautist is associated with the negative connotations derived from the Latin verb, flaut which means to jeer or mock, which 'apparently derives its meaning from the practice of playing a flute to ridicule.' " --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, middle of page xiv. Stan (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Really don't like this part of the article. "The American player and writer Nancy Toff" tells us she prefers "flutist". Firstly... who she? Secondly though she might feel this reveals a 'modest lack of pretension' (how modest of her to say) the article doesn't have to agree. You know some say that simplified spelling generally originates in a cultural blind spot, not on the moral high ground, and that rationalisation comes after the fact. Hakluyt bean (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, looking at it again, imo the whole naming controversy section is pretty unnecessary, given over as it apparently is to reassuring American users of the term 'flutist' that they needn't feel bad and in fact maybe everyone else should feel bad for using 'flautist' according to some selected opinions. It's just cultural self-promotion. I've never heard of 'flutist' before so to me it's not really a 'controversy', just a variant. English spelling varies for generally accidental reasons, sometimes cultural ones. 'Flutist' differentiates Americans from Europeans is about all one needs to say. Hakluyt bean (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't feel "bad" about it, we just think that people who interpolate an unnecessary "a" into "flutist" are idiots. Vidor (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

French jazz musicians

Given the fact that Paris is the "jazz capital" of Europe, there is no reason why a largely recognized French musician such as fr:Magic Malik shouldn't be included. 87.69.131.103 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with including Malik. The problem is with linking to an article in French Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. Create an an English article on Malik, then link that. Ward3001 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but there seems to be no WP policy that can back you up. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 87.69.131.103 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trim the 'Notable people who play the flute (flute players)' section

This section is out of control. What are the criteria for being placed on this list? --Onorem♠Dil 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous link in 'Notable people who play the flute (flute players)' section

William Kincaid's name is linked to an article for an artist, not the flutist mentioned here. Can I correct this error, or is someone else responsible? Thanks! COflutist (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Flutist or flautist (My two lira worth)

Though I have long heard the pronunciation; I had been led to believe that 'flutist' was incorrect. After having read the Wikipedia info, I continue to prefer flautist.. I believe that in musical academia this preference is also shared. Not only is this because of my experience; it is due to the prolific use of the Italian language as musical terminology. Of course this principle doesn't apply to all the musical instruments; but the bastardization of English by Americans often robs the language of its color. In the languages of art disciplines; I feel that the flowery options are often more appealing;and thus, often more appropriate. Fredbarr3519 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Fred Barr

First, please, let me speak for the United States of America and all speakers of American English when I say that you are [expletive deleted]. Secondly, categorizing the spelling "flutist" as a bastardization is deeply stupid, since, as the article notes, it is the older spelling. Vidor (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD merger

I have merged "Flutist" and "List of flautists"; selected "flutist" over "flautist" as it is the older term, and the one preferred by the cited musicians in "Flautist". There were a number of additional (small) improvements, mainly to style an picture & TOC placement.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK with me, but correctly renaming the Category will require more work, so that "Category:Flutists" will inherit all the members of the old "Category:Flautists". (We should merge the content of the article Talk pages, too.)

In particular, note that dozens and dozens of carefully organized Subcategories are all spelled "Flautists", which together contain hundreds of articles on individual musicians. I have to wonder if it's worth the trouble to change all of these to be spelled "Flutist". According to WP:MOVE#How to move a category, the process can be very problematic. If we keep the 3-way merger of the articles Flutist, Flautist, and List of flautists, could you live with spelling this new article as "Flautist", to stay consistent with all the existing Categories? —Patrug (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст: I'm a fan of being bold to improve articles, but this needs two separate discussions first and was incorrectly executed as a rename.

• To rename we move rather than copy/paste content because that way we retain the edit history (very important given the technical and organizational nature of Wikipedia). Sometimes that requires getting an admin involved to delete the destination page (often a redirect) to make way for the move. Copy/paste makes things very messy. As much as I don't like copy/pasting talk page comments, the only solution here seemed to be to copy those couple comments from Talk:Flutist which were made after the copy/paste and then request that page be deleted so as not to duplicate the text.
• Per WP:LISTS and WP:SAL lists that become too large within an article are typically either pruned or spun off to a stand-alone article. The primary idea is that a list should not dominate an article, but the list itself can be an encyclopedic topic. It doesn't make sense to take an already large stand-alone list and add it to an article in which it would then dominate.

I have no opinion at all about flautist vs. flutist, but please propose a move formally. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Another thing I just noticed: using "move" on a category page only moves the category page (i.e. in most cases it does almost nothing). If you want to change the name of a category, you have to change the categorization of every page which uses that category (i.e. a page tagged with Category:Flautists will only ever appear in that category unless its page is altered to include Category:Flutists). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I realize I don't WP:OWN the article, but it didn't look particularly active or attractive, and I figured it'd take forever waiting for people to trickle in to discuss mergers and moves. So, I went ahead and did it, and for a second there I thought it looked really nice.

The article at present (reverted/unmerged) constitutes wholly of an extended rant in the form of various notable quotations disliking "flautist", while the material I figured the average user would be really looking for was shunted off into a list article. In short, the article's only content at present strongly argues against the name Wikipedia has chosen for it.

Propose: Merger/move substantially along the lines I previously BRD'd (though, if musician preference is truly near universal, then get rid of the long rant section, leaving just the Etymology paragraph between the one-sentence lead and the lists. The Manet artwork is an attractive addition. Regards the inconvenience of adjusting other articles and classifications linking "flautist", I would do it.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Раціональне анархіст, open a new section at the bottom of this page and paste the following:

{{subst:requested move|Flutist|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Remove the nowiki tags and everything after the "reason=". Replace that with your explanation as to why it should be moved. The full explanation is at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст: No worries re:WP:OWN. Bold edits are good. And it's kind of expected that people making bold moves to improve the encyclopedia may accidentally do things incorrectly. It's all good. Let's just do it the slower way now :) So you're proposing two things: rename Flautist to Flutist and merging List of flautists into Flutist, right? I do think these should still be dealt with separately, and there are specific procedures for each. See WP:RM#CM for proposing the rename and Wikipedia:Merging for merging. From my own perspective, I would oppose the merge categorically as it just doesn't make sense to move a big list about a notable subject into a parent article. I have no opinion on the rename. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

TOC placement

Regarding this, I thought I'd link a picture demonstrating the "huge white square" problem.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've created a section on the MOS/lead TP to search for solutions.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think your alternative affects only "a very small minority of users". I don't think we should expect quick replies during Christmas week. And I don't think the "huge white square" looks "garishly ugly" at all. For now, I would just leave it alone — there's no deadline! —Patrug (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 25 December 2014

Flautist → Flutist – At present, the Flautist article is wholly given over to quotations as to why various notables dislike "flautist" (the current article name) and prefer "flutist" (presently redirecting to the former). Subsequent to a successful move, a merger will be initiated to incorporate material presently residing on List of flautists. The resulting Flutist would then approximate the format of Pianist (essentially an umbrella list article without "List of..." in the title). Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: For better or worse, the British "flautist" spelling has anchored many years of en:Wikipedia development. I personally prefer the American "flutist" spelling, but it would be inconsistent with dozens of carefully organized Categories that are all spelled "Flautists". Together these contain hundreds of articles on individual musicians, and it's hard to believe that anyone will manually edit these dozens of categories and hundreds of articles with 100% accuracy. (As we've just seen, it's easy to make mistakes with even the simpler first steps of the process.)

To quote from WP:MOVE#How to move a category:

"Pages in the category namespace can be moved but in a non-automated way which requires considerable post-move cleanup. This is a time-consuming process and should only be done if there is a very good reason to do so. In addition to gaining consensus for a category move, the move should be investigated and planned out before it is initiated... After the category page is moved, all pages in the original category must be updated to the new category. Do not begin to move a category if you are not sure you can complete this process."

And to quote from WP:RETAIN:

"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change. When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default... An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another."

The full scope of your proposal — merging 3 articles and their Talk pages & Edit histories, renaming dozens of Categories, manually editing hundreds of individual articles, and then finding & fixing all of the inevitable errors — would just be too much disruption for the sake of British versus American spelling variants. (Life is short.) Archived above, the very similar "Requested move 3 November 2007" discussion affirmed that Wikipedia is generally "first come, first served" in terms of spelling.

I could support a much simpler flutist/flautist suggestion from the 2007 discussion, as an

Alternative proposal: For now, leave Leave all the Flautist categories & lists as they are; re-direct both Flutist & Flautist to Flute; and summarize put the "Flutist versus Flautist" material there within the Etymology as a new section. —Patrug (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC) 10:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support the alternative proposal of User:Patrug above. The current article is not about flautists or flutists; it is about the two terms. This information would fit perfectly in the etymology section of the flute article, an article that is not particularly long. —  AjaxSmack  18:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: While I am not terribly adverse to Patrug's suggestion (it's a small improvement), I don't think (paraphrasing/condensing the utilitarian argument of) "Wikipedia's earliest decision should stand because it's too much work to fix it all, even though the great majority of us, as well as the working professionals, don't seem to like it" is a viable excuse, particularly over a long term. While somewhat tedious, I don't think it's that much work to move pages and fix links - and I did offer to do it all. (The only reason I stopped previously was because I had already done all the ones I knew about.) Second point: a section topic of flutist vs. flautist doesn't really belong in Flute because that article is about the instruments, not over what those who play them are called. My original idea (had nothing been reverted) was to eventually trim or eliminate that section, leaving only the etymology paragraph from the merged-in List of flautists article. --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I oppose merging into flute; these articles need to be separate for the reason piano and pianist are separate.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As Ajax wrote above, that material is not about the subject of flautists or flutists, so there's really no need to keep it there as a separate article. Раціональне анархіст, I agree with you (& others below) that the "Flutist vs. Flautist" material should be trimmed and shouldn't require a new section topic, so I've tweaked my Alternative proposal accordingly. The generous spirit of your large-scale editing offer is commendable, but the procedural and spelling errors in your original steps show that you cannot reliably "do it all." Other editors had to spend significant time finding & fixing numerous errors that you overlooked, in just your first few flute-related edits. So, you should understand if the rest of us are less than enthusiastic about your offer to "do it all" for roughly 100 Categories and 1,000 articles, in just your second month as a registered user. Over the long term, Wikipedia will surely come up with an automated way to modify Category names, and then we'll be able to tackle minor improvements like spelling variants with little effort or risk of human error. With current technology, changing all the spellings would simply require too much time from too many people, with too many inevitable errors, for too minor an improvement — and this is why all the commenters and the guidelines WP:MOVE, WP:RETAIN, WP:TITLE agree that it's not a productive way to improve Wikipedia at this time. —Patrug (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming - Haven't seen any particularly compelling reason to rename. It looks like they're both perfectly accurate and, anecdotal evidence aside, the difference today is largely one of regional preference, as far as I can tell. Per WP:RETAIN, we do in fact retain the existing usage unless there's a very good reason to change (e.g. if there were strong national ties to the subject). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support merging Flautist selectively into Flute (the alternative proposal) - This article is a dictionary definition. WP articles aren't around words and their usage (WP:DICDEF). Once the material about the word is discounted, there's nothing at all here. The section certainly shouldn't just be copy/pasted into the Flute article, though, but rather summarized in Flute#Etymology. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming – per Patrug's position above. However, I heartily support the merge proposal. In fact, the "Flute" article's lede has already got all of the essential information, though it is peppered with a bunch of ugly and distracting little blue numbers, which are only there because there is no corresponding material in the article itself (the lede is only supposed to summarize what is already in the article). If an appropriate place is found within "Flute" for (some of) the content of the present article, then those reference footnotes can be moved into the main body of the article. To Раціональне анархіст, I would point out that this article as it stands is not about players of flutes, either, but rather is an inefficient etymology of the term "flautist". The item that comes closest to being an article on flautists is the List of flautists, which is probably about as far as it should go. It provides an index to the biography articles on individual flautists, where more detailed information can be found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Any discussion of historical terminology needs to take account of the meaning of flute! Prior to the 18thC a "flute" was more likely to be what today we call a recorder. In most European languages except English recorders are still called flutes; distinguished as required as flûte à bec (French) or Blockflöte (German). See Recorder (musical instrument)#Name of the instrument. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: Given that the western concert flute (if we're going to distinguish) did not exist until the 19th century's industrial revolution brought advances in metallurgy as well as metal supplies, I don't see this as relevant -- unless an argument is being advanced that "flautist" predominantly applies to western classical flute players (in which case we would then need TWO list articles for flautists (western concert flute players) and flutists (everyone else).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  That's an interesting distinction you make. I was referring though to an earlier one: transverse vs fipple. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  For these early Western flutes I just edited two Categories, "Recorder players" and "Baroque-flute players", to make them subcategories of "Flautists", and I'll add any unlisted performers from these subcategories to List of recorder players and/or List of flautists#Western Classical. I've also emptied the redundant 4-person Category "Recorder flute players" and have requested will request speedy deletion since it stayed untouched if it stays empty for the required 4 days. —Patrug (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 09:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  More progress: Today, admin Menchi deleted the redundant Category for us. Thanks! —Patrug (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Observation: The first page of article history indicates that editor consensus over the last several years has been to have a large Flautist vs Flutist section in which all of the cited notable personages venturing an opinion indicate they prefer flutist. It occurs to me that the section then exists solely to placate those mystified by the choice of flautist...which apparently nobody likes too much, either as a notable or as an editor searching for a notable's supportive reference). The most clearly enunciated objections to changing so far have been that doing so would be a procedural PITA.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGVAR. In the UK at least, "flautist" is the common word for a flute-player. Indeed, you almost never see "flutist", despite what Sir James Galway may prefer (although note that he doesn't say he prefers "flutist"!). It probably should be merged to flute and List of flautists though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: As an aside to the issue of UK vs US usage, I am an American and was taught that the usual term is "flautist", though I also frequently hear "flutist" and "flute player". The division between the UK and US usage therefore is far from absolute, if this has any real bearing on the discussion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: The problem as I see it is that we really don't know. Has a survey ever been taken of professionals to ascertain their preference? What is the pronunciation? Is the "a" silent, or does it become "flawtist"? (I suppose as long as it's not flatulentist...).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  No, it's not silent. It's prononounced "flawtist". And professionals' preference is irrelevance. What's relevant is common usage, modified if necessary by WP:ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger of this article and "Lists..."

From Patrug's 09:33, 29 December 2014 reply in the preceding section, I'm ceding that it is unlikely that the present article will be renamed. However, I do still feel strongly that the article serves no purpose other than as a repository for the unattractive "vs." ramble, and is thus decidedly unencyclopedic compared to, say, Pianist. Therefore, without unduly annoying everyone with another garish template, I'd like to gauge support for merging the List article into this one, and greatly trimming (or removing entirely) "vs.", with the result being approximately similar to Pianist.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as multiple times above. Look at the size of List of flautists, compare it to the list at the bottom of Pianist, then consider that much of this article (Flautist) will be or should be removed as WP:DICDEF and what results is a little bit of text and a giant list. The lead at the list could be expanded a little bit, but it still makes most sense to merge this to Flute. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: Please bear with me as I'm having difficulty understanding the rationale. A "little bit of text and a giant list" is what Pianist and Guitarist both are. Would we agree or disagree that those are attractive articles? If you think they're bad, then your objection becomes much more clear to me. As for the size of the List of flautists, that's mainly because they're not broken down into subsection articles themselves, as are the other two. As a point of note, I actually prefer the List of flautists approach of a multi-columned single article rather than separate regional & sub-genre articles; provided page length remains manageable, scrolling is superior to clicking - and especially so going forward as mouseless "swipe" devices continue taking market-share from traditional PCs.

  What I am essentially proposing with the "merger" is moving List of flautists into Flautist, and trimming (or eliminating) the "vs." discussion. The result isn't appreciably, or any, longer than the existent List of article. Right now, the situation for an interested browser is this: he types "flutist" (apparently the more popular term, though industry preference is debatable) into the search bar. He is redirected to Flautist, presently a bland, pictureless article containing nothing of use to him (assuming he was not interested in the vs. topic at the outset). After paging-down, he encounters the See also section and, finally, List of flautists - where he'll discover what he was likely looking for in the first place. Meanwhile, a user searching "pianist" or "guitarist" is taken straight to categorized lists of musicians.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: You've asked an excellent question. I actually don't think Flautist should follow the example of Pianist and Guitarist. These articles have substantial musical content and haven't become unattractive with giant lists, but they've made it very cumbersome for anyone trying to locate individual performers who've been relegated to a swarm of separate sublist articles with overlapping nebulous definitions (gospel, blues, pop/rock, jazz, new age, etc). In the discussion above, everybody who offered an opinion (including you, for awhile!) seemed to favor the Alternative proposal: merging Flutist/Flautist into Flute#Etymology. I just added a List of flautists link to the prominent "About" paragraph at the very beginning of Flute, so people won't have to page-down to find it among all the links at the bottom. Assuming the consensus holds, I'd be happy to make the Alternative revisions myself next week. —Patrug (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the List of flautists approach of a multi-columned single article rather than separate regional & sub-genre articles (so we agree on that). I don't like the name "List of flautists", however. We don't have "List of pianists", etc. I argue there should be naming conformity. Therefore, Flautists shouldn't be redirected to another article while the job it would be doing if it were a different instrument is instead handled by a List article.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good thing to have naming conformity, all else equal. Pianists are one of the few current exceptions. List of flautists already conforms with the titles of dozens of similar list articles, as a quick glance at Lists of musicians#Instrument will confirm. —Patrug (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is quite a close call, though, isn't it? I count only fifty-five "Lists of" articles, vs. "Pianist" and, erm, well, there seems to be just the one. But there are an awful lot of piano players, aren't there? ;-) —Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there an official encyclopedia preference? (I know that disambiguation pages are, if it can be helped, not called "...(disambiguation page)" anymore, and that many "List of X" articles just go by "X" now.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question again. At Lists of musicians#Instrument, it seems those dozens of "List of Xs" are all basically conforming to the Manual of Style guideline WP:LISTNAME:

"Standard practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___ (for example list of Xs)."

It's not an absolute rule, but in practice it comes pretty close. For the question of listing our esteemed flute players, if I can trust Google Translate, I think we're better-off staying "Раціональне" about the title, rather than "анархіст" ;-)

—Patrug (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Condensing "Flautist vs. Flutist" for merger

Assuming we go ahead and merge this woe-begotten Flautist stub into Flute#Etymology, here's a first attempt at distilling the "long rant" into a simple paragraph:

Today, a musician who plays any instrument in the flute family can be called a flutist (pronounced "FLEW-tist", most common in the US), or flautist (pronounced "FLAW-tist", most common in the UK), or simply a flute player (more neutrally). Flutist dates back to at least 1603, the earliest quote cited by the Oxford English Dictionary. Flautist was used in 1860 by Nathaniel Hawthorne in The Marble Faun, after being adopted during the 18th century from Italy (flautista, itself from flauto), like many musical terms in England since the Italian Renaissance. Other English terms, now virtually obsolete, are fluter (15th–19th centuries) and flutenist (17th–18th centuries). Other English terms were The current English terms were preceded by flutenist (c.1700) and even earlier by fluter (c.1400).

What do people think — too short? too long? Further edits welcome, along with improved citations. —Patrug (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment – A couple minor points, though I'll defer to others as to what's most important:

• "The current English terms were preceded by flutenist (c.1700)" -- but the earliest date for "flutist" is given as 1603.
• No need for the leading "Today" as it can be presumed for lack of preceding historical context. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rhod, I missed the 1700 vs. 1603 timing. The revision above should be better. The leading "Today" will clarify the transition from the first paragraph of Flute#Etymology, which mostly deals with the Middle Ages. —Patrug (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment – One further problem is that this implies that the term "fluter" is even more archaic than "flutenist". Compare the corresponding section in the lede of the current version of Flute, where it is clear that "fluter", though uncommon, is still in current use (or at least, was up to 1913). Frankly, I don't see what is wrong with the wording in the current Flute article, though I have no problem with the rest of the expanded form given here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome. I was indeed planning to keep the current lede material in Flute (perhaps compressed to one sentence with no citations, ending: "... less commonly, a fluter or flutenist."), and use the Etymology section to insert the more-detailed paragraph above (which I've tweaked again to incorporate your Comment and the key dictionary links relocated from the lede). Hope this helps. —Patrug (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I oppose the merger of Flautist into Flute#Etymology in preference to the alternative described in the previous section (the Vs. section can be merged away, while the List article is merged into this article, which remains). Pax 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Patrug: Maybe propose this as a standard merger proposal at Talk:Flute (the discussion usually takes place at the destination page). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion: After more than two weeks of discussion above, it's clear that we have a consensus on all the key points. All the relevant comments (starting with Stan in 2007, and now Patrug, Ajax, Rhod, Jerome, Necro) and all the relevant guidelines (WP:MOVE, WP:RETAIN, WP:TITLE, WP:LISTNAME, collectively representing hundreds of experienced editors & admins) support the 12/29/2014 Alternative proposal above, rather than the disruptive 12/22/2014 edits and 12/25/2014 proposal and 12/29/2014 variant (all from Pax = Раціональне анархіст = Rational Anarchist) that would empty List of flautists. When Pax appealed for "naming conformity" with Pianists, we produced dozens of counter-examples comprising "Lists of" virtually every other important instrument. When Pax ignored this and appealed instead for "an official encyclopedia preference", we found the unambiguous "List of" guideline from WP:LISTNAME. It shouldn't require an outside admin to confirm the uncontroversial & unanimous consensus against Pax's endless arguments. Enough already. I've just implemented the consensus solution, following WP:MERGETEXT, and we can continue fine-tuning the dictionary summaries in the lede & Etymology sections of Flute. Sincere thanks to all contributors. —Patrug (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)