Talk:The Gizmo: Difference between revisions

 

Line 74: Line 74:

:For context, I would like to offer you the example of “Mastercard”. The wiki page described that originally, “Mastercard” was introduced as “Interbank” in 1966 and later changed to “Master Charge” in 1969. It wasn’t until 1979 that the name was changed to “Mastercard”. If we were to follow your rationale, the wikipedia page for “Mastercard” would be named “Interbank” or “Master Change”. This would be absurd, as despite the success of the product under the “Interbank” or “Master Charge” names, this would not be the most common recognized name by the public or found in reliable independent sources for the product..

:For context, I would like to offer you the example of “Mastercard”. The wiki page described that originally, “Mastercard” was introduced as “Interbank” in 1966 and later changed to “Master Charge” in 1969. It wasn’t until 1979 that the name was changed to “Mastercard”. If we were to follow your rationale, the wikipedia page for “Mastercard” would be named “Interbank” or “Master Change”. This would be absurd, as despite the success of the product under the “Interbank” or “Master Charge” names, this would not be the most common recognized name by the public or found in reliable independent sources for the product..

:I would ask you to either produce sources that demonstrate that “The Gizmo” is the ”’most common name”’ found to describe this device, or acknowledge “Gizmotron” is in fact, the most common name recognized for the device. As your original desire was to make this page MOS compliant, I would appreciate it if you could maintain that spirit here. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-35228-74|~2025-35228-74]] ([[User talk:~2025-35228-74|talk]]) 15:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

:I would ask you to either produce sources that demonstrate that “The Gizmo” is the ”’most common name”’ found to describe this device, or acknowledge “Gizmotron” is in fact, the most common name recognized for the device. As your original desire was to make this page MOS compliant, I would appreciate it if you could maintain that spirit here. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-35228-74|~2025-35228-74]] ([[User talk:~2025-35228-74|talk]]) 15:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

::There is a world of difference between a global bank and an obscure failed musical effects pedal. [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]] and [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] apply. I’ve made may case clear, as have you – clearly neither of us is going to be swayed by the other, ergo as per the closer’s comments there has been no consensus to change. I accept your argument is strong, but no stronger than mine. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist This article is supported by Guitar equipment task force.

The correct name of this gadget is in fact Gizmotron. Godley and Creme let the Musitronics company (best known for their Mu-Tron phaser) manufacture the Gizmotron. ARP bought Musitronics and renamed it to Gizmo Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.43.5 (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s true beyond question, then the article should be moved to the name of Gizmotron with a redirect. I’ve just checked my copy of Consequences, where they refer to the device only as the gizmo. So … I dunno. There should be some definitive answer available somewhere. Grimhim 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m not mistaken, I believe the Gizmo was the device for a 6-string guitar, whereas the Gizmotron was designed for the 4 string bass-guitar.
M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.23 (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Church not only used the Gizmo but also made reference to it in the lyrics of their sardonic song “Grind” from Gold Afternoon Fix – “Line up the arrows, push off the top/This can cause sustain forever/And once it’s started up, it cannot be stopped/At least it’s holding us together”. Asat (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of the line “the sharp cut-off often experienced with an electronic synthesizer” ? Every synthesizer, even 70’s models like the Minimoog, has a knob marked “decay” or “release”, which controls how quickly or slowly the sound dies out after you lift your finger off the key. So a short release time is a choice of the musician, not an inherent feature of the synthesizer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.246.199 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article mentions that Gizmos were made with a plastic called “Durlin”. Is that actually Delrin?–NapoliRoma (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the device existing as a way to do bowed sounds etc. before other methods. Didn’t the Ebow exist around this time also?THX1136 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that refers to the Heet EBow, so that’d be “no, they’re not similar.” The EBow is monophonic, and drives one string at a time while the Gizmo can use up to all the instrument’s strings (so, six on a standard guitar). The EBow has a very slow attack, with the note “started off” by picking or hammer-on or pull-off; the Gizmo has a rapid natural attack. The EBow tone is quite pure, where the Gizmo emulates bowing by applying a physical rasp; therefore, an EBow can be used very extensively over a long period with little degradation, while the Gizmo requires regular maintenance and parts replacement. The EBow is handheld, so can be readily moved down the length of a string to emphasize desired harmonic characteristics, and can also be readily dropped while performing onstage; the Gizmotron is instrument-mounted and incapable of movement.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the prototype? Does Lol Creme still have it? 87.75.117.183 (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Gizmotron” was the trademarked name of the product and the only name used to identify and market the product by Musitronics and Gizmotron LLC. The product was only referred to as “The Gizmo” before its commercial release. The public was never offered or sold a “Musitronics Gizmo” or a “Gizmo 2.0”. 2600:4041:434C:8A00:A4FF:5C52:1EF5:2599 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources in the article support that? —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source #4 includes images of the original print ads for the device as “Gizmotron”. 2600:4041:434C:8A00:A4FF:5C52:1EF5:2599 (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the name “Gizmotron” is embossed on the plastic housing of both the Musitronics and Gizmotron LLC devices. 2600:4041:434C:8A00:A4FF:5C52:1EF5:2599 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should suggest that the article name is changed from “Gizmo” to “Gizmotron”, but at the moment, the product should match the article name which it doesn’t. Or rather, didn’t, as I’ve changed it again to be MOS compliant.

Note that I have no objection to you suggesting a name change, but given the current article title – “Gizmo” should be used, regardless. Chaheel Riens (talk)

PS: You say that this was cleared up in 2007 – The issue of the correct name of the device was already discussed and resolved on the talk page in 2007 – that doesn’t seem to be the case. If anything the talk page seems to support use of “Gizmo” as much as “Gizmotron” with no outcome. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have cleared this up today with the support of the article sources which identify all commerically released versions of the product as “Gizmotron”. Being that the original inventors initially referred to the prototype as “The Gizmo”, the article name is correct, as both “Gizmo” and “Gizmotron” can be used to identify the invention, with “Gizmo” being the name of the prototype and the commercially versions as “Gizmotron”. 2600:4041:434C:8A00:A4FF:5C52:1EF5:2599 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree for an article name change to “Gizmotron” as per the policy that the final product name and most widely recognized name for the product is preferred. 2600:4041:434C:8A00:A4FF:5C52:1EF5:2599 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose a change, but bear in mind you have now reverted four times on this article in clear breach of The three-revert rule. Remember – 3RR doesn’t care if you’re right or wrong, only that you’re edit warring.

The article is currently called The Gizmo, and – once again – as such the article should refer to the article subject as the Gizmo. It’s a simple as that. If you’re so convinced, just propose a change.

Hi all. I didn’t realise this had been closed – the notification from my watchlist passed me by, and it wasn’t until I got the talk page ping that I saw a limited conversation around this had begun on the closer’s talk page. Jeffrey34555 is correct – my stance has not changed, and although I recognise the proposer’s argument, my point is that I wish they’d made it straight away, rather than simply editwarring and reverting. That was the time wasted I commented upon.

In case it wasn’t clear – my rationale is as above that the device was invented as “The Gizmo”, and the initial usage and popularity it saw that then made it possible and viable to be a commerical product were all “The Gizmo”.

As the proposer was an IP Address that are now obfuscated, it’s hard to know that I’d be responding or pinging the correct user, so I’ll ping this user ~2025-34732-25 as well as reply here on the original article talk page.

(As an unrelated topic – I note that Twinkle still thinks that the user is an IP address, must bring that up as well.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you coming back to weigh in on this. I understand your rational. Yes, the prototype device was originally called “The Gizmo” and I agree that the invention was initially introduced to the public as “The Gizmo”. However, wikipedia’s policy does not care about the first “name” of a device, or how much that initial name affected its success. Wikipedia is concerned only with the most common name as found in reliable, independent sources.

For context, I would like to offer you the example of “Mastercard”. The wiki page described that originally, “Mastercard” was introduced as “Interbank” in 1966 and later changed to “Master Charge” in 1969. It wasn’t until 1979 that the name was changed to “Mastercard”. If we were to follow your rationale, the wikipedia page for “Mastercard” would be named “Interbank” or “Master Change”. This would be absurd, as despite the success of the product under the “Interbank” or “Master Charge” names, this would not be the most common recognized name by the public or found in reliable independent sources for the product..

I would ask you to either produce sources that demonstrate that “The Gizmo” is the most common name found to describe this device, or acknowledge “Gizmotron” is in fact, the most common name recognized for the device. As your original desire was to make this page MOS compliant, I would appreciate it if you could maintain that spirit here. Thank you. ~2025-35228-74 (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between a global bank and an obscure failed musical effects pedal. WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:OTHERSTUFF apply. I’ve made may case clear, as have you – clearly neither of us is going to be swayed by the other, ergo as per the closer’s comments there has been no consensus to change. I accept your argument is strong, but no stronger than mine. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]