Talk:Repetitive tuning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guitarists (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Music theory (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Creation[edit]

I created this article following a suggestion (7 September 2012, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for main page of Wikipedia[edit]

Did you know?[edit]

Major-thirds tuning repeats itself (at a higher octave) after three strings. Thus, chords can be shifted vertically on the same frets.  The shift of a C major chord (with notes C,E,G) is displayed.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis[edit]

This article appears to be created out of synthesis of sources; a category that has sprouted a head to become a topic. None of the references contain the term repetitive tuning. If something reliably published cannot be found to support the topic it should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied at DYK nomination: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Repetitive_tuning. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The article title itself does not have to be referenced explicitly. No policy says so. The title has to be a term by which the thing written about is known. That is, of course a paradox. The history of the location of the information in the article is not relevant. If the topic is a valid topic (whether known by this title or not) and the topic is borne out by the sources, then it is a valid topic, and a verifiable one. The only quibble can then be about the name, and whether the topic has sufficient inherent notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed the introductory paragraph after the lede, because it was based on synthesis. Given its utility for the reader and WP:IAR, the introductory paragraph may be restored by another editor with my blessing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Neologism?[edit]

This seems like an inappropriate template, and its placement seems at best premature (until the discussion of WP:Synthesis has finished).

There is no shortage of documentation that individual tunings repeat strings. There are several reliable sources comparing tunings, and mentioning repetition as an advantage. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A neologism is, generally, a word or set of words that create a understanding removed from the original words, or is a made up word or set of words. Often that word or set of words is created to promote an idea. One such is Paralympics, where the idea is a combination of two concepts and has come to be used to promote a sporting occasion. The phrase 'repetitive tuning' does not fall into that area. Instead, if it is a neologism at all, it is of the class the weekend is, where the words are used to describe a concept that was not, until its creation, readily described. I am removing the tag and referring the removal to the talk page here. If there is true consensus to reinstate it then it can be reinstated. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, okay.... :)
On the other hand, I have so much respect for Hyacinth's editing and knowledge that I have (recently on guitar chord) let his template stand until he removed it on his own accord.
The principle that we avoid OR even by synthesis is so important that I don't worry about changing the title, losing a DYK, or turning this article into a list, or moving the text back into the category, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of music. I am looking only at matters encyclopaedic, and then only to the limit of my skills. I could not tell you whether the article is OR, synthesised or otherwise. That is a discussion I will stay out of. I view it as valid as long as all aspects can be sourced properly and as long as those with the skill to judge do not see it as a synthesis. My judgment, such as it is, is that repetitive tuning is not a neologism, but is a descriptive title. That title may stay or change by consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this a list article? List of repetitive tunings? Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No. A list would not have the cogent propositions and inviting prose of this article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)