Talk:Repetitive tuning
Add topicLatest comment: 13 years ago by Kiefer.Wolfowitz in topic Neologism?
 | A fact from Repetitive tuning appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 September 2012. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Creation
[edit]I created this article following a suggestion (7 September 2012, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion).
- ... that major-thirds guitar-tuning is a repetitive tuning in which chords are raised an octave by shifting all notes by three strings (illustrated)?
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)
- 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)
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)
- Is this a list article? List of repetitive tunings? Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)