I agree, but trouble is, there are many piano parts that have several "accepted" names used by those who should be adhering to some standard nomenclature. What Yamaha calls a 'bottom frame' might be a 'kickboard' to Kawai. 'Regulating rail' was the proper term for what many techs now call the 'letoff rail.' And I suppose most of us are aware of the different terms used by factory techs that are not common among those who never worked in a piano factory, such as 'fly' for the jack, 'roller' for the knuckle, or maybe 'balancier' for the repetition lever. Even among those who know better, someone will insist on calling the plate the "harp" just because they think it's esoteric or cool or whatever. What used to commonly be called the "wrest plank" is now almost always referred to as the "pinblock." And names of some case parts -- 'stretcher' and 'fall(-board)' come to mind -- were inherited from the furniture industry and others, such as 'capstan,' from the shipbuilders. And of course many piano owners with older instruments are fairly certain that the "felts" or "pads" probably need attention. I doubt that nomenclature will ever be 100% standardized, or agreed upon. Just as with cars -- our "hood" is a "bonnet" to the Brits, and the "trunk" is the "boot." Our "wrench" is their "spanner," etc. Most of us think we know what a hubcap is, but it's really the wheel cover, and a true hubcap is only about two inches in diameter and can also be called a grease cup. Fifteen or more years ago, the Journal published an article about why 'wippen' is the correct spelling of that part, and not "whippen," but the latter persists. And, though I don't like it either, so will other doohickeythingamabobwidgets. --David Nereson, RPT <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Ron Nossaman <<a href="mailto:rnossaman@cox.net">rnossaman@cox.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> A plea for sanity, While it's still a long way from comprehensive, there is a standard reference in this country that would eliminate most of the characteristic recursive guesswork when someone asks a question making up parts names as they go along. For $20 and shipping, "Piano Parts and Their Functions" would often save considerably more than that in cumulative time spent just trying to understand the description. A lot of us were in the business long before the piano crisis hotline existed, and will likely still be when it ends, and so were forced to figure straightforward mechanical linkages (and a lot of other things) out for ourselves. Given the amazing luxury of an on line knowledge base willing to help, the consideration of using the most widely recognized and nominally standardized nomenclature gives the people trying to help something to work with, without making long Q&A translation not worth the effort. With a $20 book, we'd save 20 posts attempting clarification as everyone could look up the same common names, and start with the actual problem. I understand that it's an unreasonable expectation, but it remains what I consider a reasonable request to at least make some attempt to accurately name what we're talking about. Ron N </blockquote></div>