Talk:vibrophone
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This is a highly uncommon misspelling, not an alternative variant. A Google search revealed maybe only a handful of newspapers that made this error. (Either that or computer digitization confused "o" and "a".) I did find results for some completely different definitions. It may refer to an exceedingly minor medical instrument invented in 1894 [1] or a train whistle that was trademarked under that name in 1918 [2]. While the latter of those two is probably not worth a definition, the former might be. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I created this. I imagine I did some basic research at the time but I can't remember. But look at this interesting text, which suggests it might be a musical instrument, but something using an electric circuit, not a vibrAphone: 1895, The Journal of Electro-therapeutics (volume 13, page 47): "The main part of the vibrophone is simply the body of a violin, the power of which as a sounding board cannot be equaled." There are more but I won't bother right now. It certainly seems to be a word so let's not delete it without some peeking. Equinox ◑ 05:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the same device I linked above; it was used to treat ear problems. (Think something like ear trumpet; despite the name, it is a medical, not musical, instrument.) However, I think I figured it out after more digging, and will close this as a keep per an entry in this dictionary [3] and this [4]. It should point to vibrometer, not vibraphone. I added its second definition to vibrometer, too! Why? I Ask (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- All right. A bit more detail would be good (how does it treat deafness?) and is it really electronic rather than just electrical? Equinox ◑ 05:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't feel qualified to make a more detailed definition as sources are slim and it's fairly outside of my scope. Heck, the definitions I provided just say that the two devices have the same purpose, but I think they may be slightly different in function. So for now, I would support just blanket defining them by their purpose. (And yes, I believe it is electrical.) Why? I Ask (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- All right. A bit more detail would be good (how does it treat deafness?) and is it really electronic rather than just electrical? Equinox ◑ 05:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I created vibrophonist as an alternative form of vibraphonist in 2021 after seeing vibrophone. I noticed that Equinox changed the definition of vibrophone from an alternative form, thus perhaps vibrophonist should also be changed (is it a misspelling?). J3133 (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- @J3133: It's possible I made a mistake. I am not a musician. Please value the sources over the Equinox. Equinox ◑ 02:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Why? I Ask: Should vibrophonist be included in this RfD? J3133 (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- There are some publications that have made that typo, so maybe just emphasize that it is an uncommon misspelling. It is not an alternative form of vibraphonist, at the very least. Just a typo. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
RFD-resolved by others. I added a "not to be confused with..." usage note. This, that and the other (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)