Talk:Tenor horn

Presentation of the Alto Horn by a British instrumentalist

Dear Colleagues,

Please take a look at this video, where a British instrumentalist presents the alto horn (in E-flat), and compare to the video below it, where another British instrumentalist presents the tenor horn and the baritone (both in B-flat, of course). These two presentations summarize the view of almost the entire musical world about the alto, tenor and baritone horns, including the British Regent's orchestra instrumentalists (at least), and makes strange the claim of some other British musicians that an alto horn should be called "a tenor horn in E-flat". No, there is no such thing, and if Wikipedia wants to clear its reputation, it should reflect the worldwide opinion on the alto and tenor horns, and not the limited, peculiar interpretation shared by some people on the isle. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a reflection of provincial, uncommon, and highly questionable views of some of its members, or is it supposed to be a reflection of what the vast majority of musicians around the world (including some British musicians) think? If it is the later, then the title Tenor Horn should be changed to Alto Horn, and everything will fall in place. No, it is not about the difference between British English and American English interpretation; it is about the difference between the musical world and a limited circle of British musicians. Compare to saxophones (except the Baritone Sax):

Alto sax is in E-flat, and Alto horn is in E-flat.

Tenor sax is in B-flat, and Tenor horn is in B-flat. I think that, originally, these instruments (saxes, tenor and alto horns) may have been invented or improved by the same maker (hence the name Saxhorns for the latter).

The British Regent's Band on Alto horn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4-pOZp78wA

The British Regent's Band on Tenor horn and baritone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78qCc9xk18Q

Mutaeditor, 13 September, 2021.Mutaeditor (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the same item above. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Versions of the alto horn

Hi, I was wondering if I should add some info on versions of the alto horn such as the double bell alto horn, Over the shoulder alto horn, and marching alto horn. The actinium is mentioned, but I wanted to see if this info would be notable enough to add to the page. Ryan56DCIfan (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 August 2024 and 17 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RMB0627 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by RMB0627 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tenor horn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs) 23:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Now that I'm feeling better, I am happy to do this GA review! I will ping you when I have completed my preliminary review. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

---

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Courtesy ping: Jonathanischoice I sincerely apologize for the delay, I have been spinning my wheels - but better late than never. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Chickenpox4dinner I've done some editing and left comments by each point below. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Solid prose. A nitpick is that the amount of links could be improved particularly in reference to some brass instrument parts (piston valve, rotary valve, etc) and the companies in Construction; and there's one or two WP:BLUESEAs e.g. 'transposing treble clef' in lede. Good linkage to music genres and composers.

    Done Eliminated two WP:BLUESEA instances

   Semi-done I have added some missing links, to e.g. bore, bell, etc. Are there others that you are concerned about?

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Good layout; notes are that the Mouthpiece section header is a little superfluous, could be struck and merged into Construction; and History could use a {{further|saxhorn}} hatnote.

    Done Added Saxhorn hatnote, good suggestion

   Maybe – I would like to leave the Mouthpiece heading in place, as I'd like to expand it in future, in light of the recent merge and future planned work on the horn article (including the article name; see discussion at Talk:German horn#Merge Proposal).

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All in order, consistent formatting -- really appreciate the Wikidata links.

   You're welcome! The {{Cite Q}} template is not universally appreciated, but I think it's awesome because the details are maintained once in one place, and update everywhere it's cited in real time

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Follows MOS for inline citations, using bibliography style; spotcheck in progress.

   Reliable book sources re: Oxford University Press, Cambridge University press, etc; the vast majority of the article relies on sources unavailable online, so I will be WP:AGF. There is use of some business content (Stewart, Villanueva); I don't believe this is WP:RSSELF, should be OK. #19's archive link broke; fixed. Use of e-commerce links in line with claims.

   C. It contains no original research:

   #26, the list of manufacturer links, does not support the claim that 'most' are produced by certain companies; I walked back the statement to avoid OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig pass; will double check manually during spotcheck.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This is excellent. The notation charts check out, the infobox is solid, and the article breadth is broad and encyclopedic. No notes.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The article overall does a really good job introducing niche information while maintaining summary style. That being said, I think the article does get confusing to read when it keeps using the era-appropriate names for the tenor horn. I understand that you're avoiding anachronism, but tenor horn should be used consistently as the name for the instrument for readability. Depending on how much it clutters the article, you can either put the era-appropriate name in parentheses, or else a 'name' section could be useful -- seems like this instrument has had a lot of monikers over the years, which could be worth being clear-cut about.

   Semi-done I have had a go at your suggestion, avoiding a name section, let me know what you think. I've introduced or expanded/corrected existing name sections in Euphonium#Name and Baritone horn#Name, but it's not always clear they really help to reduce confusion. The baritone article still needs some work regarding North American usage of the term "baritone" to mean euphonium, (British) baritone, the front-action, 3-valve, bell-forward marching baritone (which is somewhere in-between but closer to a narrow-bore euphonium), or even as a catch-all term for anything saxhorn-shaped in 9′ B♭ (This is also why I haven't nominated it for GA yet!)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Tone is encyclopedic, with particular credit to the worldwide coverage of the instrument.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All commons with CC fair use licensing.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think the current state of the article is solid and follows GA guidelines well, it just needs a final pass and polish for GA status.

   — Passed after reference check. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Please feel free to reply here if you have any questions or concerns. Once I hear back from you regarding an edit pass, I'll get cracking on 2B & 2C. Best, chickenpox4dinner (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the review; I have some IRL commitments for the next day or two but I'll go through the points after that. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the followup and apologies for the delay, I think the changes you made effectively address my notes. I will work to get the reference spot-check down in the next day or so. chickenpox4dinner (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.