Talk:Soprillo

Good articleSoprillo has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 26, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 2, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the soprillo saxophone (example pictured) is about half the length of a soprano saxophone and pitched one octave higher?


Name

Does anyone really call this instrument anything other than either the "soprillo", or the "piccolo saxophone"? I've had a lot of trouble tracking down where the term "sopranissimo" came from in this context, that isn't connected to this Wikipedia article (renamed in 2009), and saxophonists I know who know of its existence (here in NZ) call it the soprillo. Eppelsheim is still its only maker as far as I am aware. Happy to be disproven/enlightened, but I think we should rename this article appropriately. — Jon (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that "Soprillo" is Eppelsheim's brand name for this instrument. A name that would be consistent with other instrument names would be "Sopranissimo". - Special-T (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Special-T asserting what it ought to be called is beside the point: nobody actually calls it the sopranissimo, all evidence I can find is that somebody just asserted that name here 15-20 years ago and it stuck. It's either a soprillo or a piccolo saxophone. Piccolo is also just as consistent, if not more, c.f. piccolo (flute), piccolo trumpet, piccolo trombone, piccolo oboe, etc. — Jon (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I'm not advocating for "sopranissimo", just pointing out why there might be some legitimacy to that designation. "Piccolo" would be (AFAIK) equally tradition-consistent. Plus, "tradition-consistent" might not be that important (although I think it's helpful for clarity's sake). - Special-T (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since April 2023, I have not been able to find any reliable sources that refer to this instrument as sopranissimo, that aren't also WP:CIRCULAR references that point here, where it was arbitrarily renamed from soprillo in 2009. In what little material I can find, it is either simply called the soprillo or occasionally piccolo saxophone. Eppelsheim on his website calls it a B♭-Piccolo-Saxophon, which is wikt:straight from the horse's mouth; CD liner notes by Nigel Wood (Soprillogy) and Vinny Golia (and Cook & Morton's 2006 Penguin Guide entry on the same) call it the soprillo. There is not (yet) any mention of the soprillo, or more generally the piccolo-size of saxophone (or even the word "sopranissimo") in the Grove Dictionary of Instruments (2014), or anywhere else in Grove/OMO, or even the German language MGG Online. Cottrell does not mention the tubax or soprillo in The Saxophone (Yale Instruments series, 2012), which is a curious omission. Of the 11 Wikipedia articles in other languages linked to the Q163026 Wikidata item, Czech uses "sopranissimový saxofon", Italian uses "sassofono sopranissimo", French uses "saxophone piccolo", the rest use "soprillo". In light of this, and unless there's something obvious I've missed, I think we should consider a move proposal to move this article either back to soprillo, or perhaps piccolo saxophone if we want to capture the more general idea of a ninth teeny-tiny size/class of saxophone. — Jon (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I found one printed source, Music: The Definitive Visual History (DK, 2013) which uses the term sopranissimo. On the other, I've done some more reading of guidelines (particularly WP:CRITERIA, WP:NCM) and it's clear the article title needs to be the most common name for the thing (which is pretty clearly "Soprillo") with categorised redirects for synonyms (piccolo saxophone and sopranissimo saxophone). I suppose once someone else starts manufacturing one, and calls it something else, we can burn that bridge when we get to it and figure out what the size class of saxophone is really called then (although we already have Eppelsheim calling it a piccolo saxophone). — Jon (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also relevant XKCD — Jon (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions and a query

Hi, interesting article, as a layperson I learnt a lot about saxophones. It seems the soprillo has some other unique/notable features that could be mentioned in the lead, so perhaps:

The soprillo, also known as the sopranissimo or piccolo, is the highest in pitch and smallest saxophone. It is pitched in B♭ and is 33 cm (13 in) long, including the mouthpiece.
The soprillo was developed by German instrument maker Benedikt Eppelsheim in the late 1990s to extend the range of the saxophone family. Its small mouthpiece and reed require professional-level technique from players. Compared to other saxophones, little music has been composed for the soprillo due to its extreme pitch and short history. Eppelsheim remains the only manufacturer of piccolo-sized saxophones.

As the article is quite short, I'd be inclined not to repeat Wikilinks. Happy to make changes if there's agreement. Also, I wasn't clear why types of saxophone are in italics but only in the History section? Arnhemcr (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, only just saw your edits. For words in italics, see MOS:WAW. I nominated it for GA and only then discovered the origin of the use of sopranissimo for a saxophone (a term which almost nobody uses, even for recorders or ukuleles, preferring piccolo or some other term; certainly no saxophonists I know call it that). So I need to add a bit in the lead about that. The original tiny B♭ size, that qualifies as a fully working instrument, was a hand-made prototype from 1960. The Eppelsheim model was later, in the 1990s. — Jon (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype from 1960

Vanlinthout's instrument was reported stolen in 1981.[1] It is mentioned the Woodwind Forum, but I don't know if the instrument was ever recovered, or if there was possibly more than one made.[2] — Jon (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Stolen Instrument" (PDF). FOMRHI Quarterly (23): 3. April 1981.
  2. ^ "How 'Bout the OTHER Bb Sopranissimos?". The Woodwind Forum. 5 July 2010. Retrieved 21 March 2025.

GA review

Passed. Marshelec (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Soprillo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 22:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 08:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to undertake the GA review of this article.Marshelec (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jonathanischoice: The Earwig tool shows that there are a couple of sections of content that appear a bit too close to the source at nigelwoodmusic.com/soprillo. While the basic facts about the Soprillo have to be stated in a logical order, such as at that website, please review the drafting in the article to see if the level of similarity can be reduced._Marshelec (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, try that - I've also reworked the lead to be slightly less klunky. — Jon (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jonathanischoice: I am unclear about the provenance of the image in the infobox, and seek clarification. What appears to be the same image is on Flickr.com, under the username of the Museum of Making Music. The licence conditions for this image at Flickr are All rights reserved. (See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/museumofmakingmusic/7142444253 ). The image on Commons has a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license that was apparently granted by Museum of Making Music, but you uploaded it ? Is there a trail of evidence showing that the copyright owner granted the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence ?
    This is the 2012-13 exhibit from which all the images uploaded by "Museum of Making Music" came from; my involvement was straightening File:Eppelsheim Soprillo Saxophone 2000s.jpg to make it vertical. According to Flickr the image has been "All rights reserved" since it was uploaded in 2012. It doesn't look like the Commons uploader did the usual Flickr release, but that process didn't exist in 2012 anyway, so who knows? There's always File:Soprillo Saxophone.jpg but it's not as good. Jon (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, it seems the image was uploaded to Wikipedia, and then ported to Commons later. Examination of User:Museum of Making Music contributions between 2007 and 2015 appear to be largely good faith. Let me know what you think I should do. Perhaps I could try contacting the museum to see if they would sanction releasing their sax photos on Flickr as CC-BY? — Jon (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonathanischoice:Perhaps it is best to ask a Commons administrator to review and give a determination. Things like this will have occurred previously. To me, it seems highly relevant that the museum account originally uploaded the image, but this is not my area of experience. I hope this question can be resolved without going back to the museum._Marshelec (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure I know what to do either, but I found a Flickrreview template which I could plonk on the relevant images, but I suspect they will just get speedily deleted without looking into it much. Cloud @Giantflightlessbirds have helpful suggestions? — Jon (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marshelec: Hi, it's been a week, and I've reverted to an older image used everywhere, rather than hold everything up for ages. Thoughts? — Jon (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonathanischoice. Sorry this slipped off my to do list. This evening I have gone back to the image that you originally had in the article, plus the version of the image before you straightened it, and thought about this further. I have changed my mind. I now think that the declaration and GNU licence granted when the first version was uploaded by the author on 13 May 2013 should be relied upon. The licence of what appears to be the same image in Flickr is not relevant. So I have no objections to that image being re-instated - it is clearly superior to the replacement._Marshelec (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marshelec ok, cheers, I reinstated the image. Jon (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonathanischoice Reading over the article again, a couple of further things occurred to me: (1) The sentence The Eppelsheim soprillo is the only piccolo-sized saxophone manufactured. should perhaps have As of 2025 at the beginning. (2) Do you have copies of References [2] and [3] just in case anyone raises a question ?._Marshelec (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marshelec: done, and the Saxophone Journal is in the Vic library. — Jon (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bunnypranav talk 04:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soprillo (piccolo saxophone in B♭) by Benedikt Eppelsheim
Soprillo (piccolo saxophone in B♭) by Benedikt Eppelsheim
  • ... that the soprillo (pictured) is the smallest saxophone, half the length of the soprano saxophone and pitched one octave higher?
  • Source: Cohen, Paul (September 2000). "Redefining the saxophone, Soprillo and Tubax: new saxophones for a new millennium". Saxophone Journal. 25 (1). Needham: Dorn Publications: 8–10. ISSN 0276-4768.
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Jonathanischoice (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Jon (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

DYK can get backed up from time to time, it happens. A nominated article of mine from around this time is still awaiting approval. Maximilian775 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor credit untrue in several ways

1. We've listed the inventor as Eppelsheim, despite the fact that this instrument existed before he was born.

2. Worse than that: the soprillo saxophone was never invented at all. It's a saxophone, and the saxophone was invented by Adolphe Sax in the 1840s. The "invention of the soprillo saxophone" process went exactly as follows: "What if we made an even smaller saxophone?" "It would probably require slight modifications to make it play well." "Let's test one and see." That's not inventing.

If anyone besides Adolphe Sax is the inventor of the soprillo saxophone, then I am the inventor of the small sandwich. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great argument! Do you have any sources? Why? I Ask (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1974 programme from IVe CONGRÈS MONDIAL DE SAXOPHONE (see Septour de Saxophone de Bruxelles, p. 10) lists Robert "Valinthout" as playing the "sopranino" (Robert van Linthout is credited in the text of our article for making first playable piccolo instrument). According to our article on Eppelsheim, he was born in 1967. Whilst this probably falls under WP:OR, it does indicate that the purported inventor was very precocious indeed. As the objection seems to be with the infobox parameter giving credit to Eppelsheim as the "Inventor", why not just remove that? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - just remove the Inventor parameter from the Infobox._Marshelec (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to "inventors", the template {{Infobox saxophone}} (which uses {{Infobox instrument}}) should also support the parameters "developed" and "builders" – if either of those is more accurate and if for whatever reason it is appropriate that Eppelsheim appear in the infobox. (Not my field of expertise. Just passing by via recent DYK.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue here is that there can be different interpretations of "inventor". See:Invention. While the Soprillo could be considered as just a very small saxophone, the development has no doubt required significant design, and there are design adaptations such as the upper octave key being part of the mouthpiece. An important point is that the original patents by Adolphe Sax only covered contrabass to sopranino. Based on the content in Invention, I think it can be justified to state that Eppelsheim is the inventor of the Soprillo. However, perhaps the Inventor parameter in the Infobox is not essential, since the description in the text is clear ?._Marshelec (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is to include all three (Eppelsheim, van Linthout, and Sax). I've just popped this in to see if it suits everyone. Feel free to revert if not. We could even add dates if that makes it better (using this method seems to have quelled an on-going minor edit skirmish here). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight, Robert van Linthout playing a sopranino in a concert at a 1974 conference is irrelevant, since the sopranino saxophone (in E♭) is a different, larger instrument. Early saxophone method writers (e.g. Kastner) envisaged the B♭ (and even C!) piccolo sur agiu size in the 1840s, but Sax, and in particular his patent describing the family of saxophones, does not mention it, only going as high as the sopranino agiu in E♭ (and F, which has probably never been built; certainly there are no extant instruments). So did Sax invent the piccolo saxophone size? No. Incidentally, the van Linthout B♭ sopranissimo instrument was stolen (like a lot of things in Paris, it seems) in 1981, and nobody has seen or heard it since. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Record well and truly set straight! Not sure if any of that belongs in the actual article text, but it is very interesting. Thanks.
In you view, is it be preferable to remove the "Inventor(s)" from the infobox all together per above; revert back to just Eppelsheim; or leave it as is? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what inventing is. By your logic, Halary didn't invent the ophicleide since it's just a big keyed bugle, Sax didn't invent the saxophone since it's just an ophicleide with a bass clarinet mouthpiece, Wieprecht didn't invent the tuba since it's just a big valved bugle, and so on. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soprillo