Talk:Violotta

merge with Tenor violin

There is also a tenor violin article. Should they be merged?BassHistory (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should in my opinion. Contact Basemetal here 21:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<irony> Of course, and the article I Phone 4 and I Phone 5 should be merged with Smartphone </irony off>. Different instruments-sizes, philosophies, timbres. Each one has it's own history. Please provide better arguments, Basemetal.

No, the articles shouldn't be merged. Since may nobody seems to be interested in merging the articles; so please close this talk. 217.7.56.111 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting well after the fact, despite the sarcastic assertions of the anon above, these aren't different instruments at all. The violotta is just another name for the tenor violin, and despite the claims behind taking out a spurious patent in the late 1800s, there was nothing new about reviving a largely forgotten instrument that had been around centuries prior.

The same, and I mean the exact same, can be said of the viola profonda, another, more recent revival that also took out a patent that is dubious at best. It's just reinventing the same thing that already existed. Both this article and the viola profonda article should be merged into the tenor violin article. Especially the latter. Wikipedia isn't here for people to promote their products, especially when those products are not actually new, despite the promotional claims. oknazevad (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]