User:Sintel/Temperament survey: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 16:

== Discussion ==

After reading the comments ~~in the~~ some further discussions, here are some interpretations. Some names listed here weren't in the original survey, but I hope you can forgive me for extrapolating a bit.

After reading the comments and some further discussions, here are some of my interpretations. Some names listed here weren't in the original survey, but I hope you can forgive me for extrapolating a bit.

=== Reasons for disliking a name ===

Line 25:

: Skwares-squares, porkypine-porky-porcupine, mabila-mavila

* Complicated compound names:

: Meannadecal, hemiwurschmidt, sesquiquartififths~~, etc.~~

: Meannadecal, hemiwurschmidt, sesquiquartififths

* Brand names, cultural references, bad puns:

: Heinz, beatles, a-team, jamesbond, pontiac, slender, gorgo

: Orwell is an exception here.

* Nonsensical names:

: Vavoom, waage, bunya, gorgo ~~...~~

: Vavoom, waage, bunya, gorgo

* Names that are easily confused with existing terminology:

: Flat, sharp, neutral, ampersand, commatic

Line 36:

: Blacksmith (= blackwood), ampersand (= miracle), cynder/mothra (both are disliked), orson (= orwell), hanson/kleismic, godzilla (= semaphore)

* Bad taste:

: ~~catcall~~, dominatrix,

: Catcall, dominatrix

=== What makes a good name? ===

Good names are harder to categorize. Some names are already used so commonly that nobody really objects to ~~the use~~. Although there are still some that are disliked heavily despite this. It seems like the best names are either fun and easy to remember words (e.g. porcupine, bug, machine, magic), or allude to the structure somehow (e.g. dicot, superpyth, semaphore).

Good names are harder to categorize. Some names are already used so commonly that nobody really objects to them. Although there are still some that are disliked heavily despite this. It seems like the best names are either fun and easy to remember words (e.g. porcupine, bug, machine, magic), or allude to the structure somehow (e.g. dicot, superpyth, semaphore).

Most people also agree to have a single name regardless of the subgroup, as long as there is an agreed 'canonical' extension.

Since a rank-2 temperament on a subgroup with 3 primes can be identified by a single comma, ideally it would be called after that comma (e.g. hanson can be kleismic).

The other extensions would preferably be named so that makes the connection clear ~~but they are not~~ confused too easily. Flattone and hedgehog are good examples here.

The other extensions would preferably be named in a way that makes the connection clear without being confused too easily. Flattone and hedgehog are good examples here.

== Appendix ==

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 == Discussion ==
-After reading the comments in the some further discussions, here are some interpretations. Some names listed here weren't in the original survey, but I hope you can forgive me for extrapolating a bit.
+After reading the comments and some further discussions, here are some of my interpretations. Some names listed here weren't in the original survey, but I hope you can forgive me for extrapolating a bit.
 === Reasons for disliking a name ===
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 : Skwares-squares, porkypine-porky-porcupine, mabila-mavila
 * Complicated compound names:
-: Meannadecal, hemiwurschmidt, sesquiquartififths,  etc.
+: Meannadecal, hemiwurschmidt, sesquiquartififths
 * Brand names, cultural references, bad puns:
 : Heinz, beatles, a-team, jamesbond, pontiac, slender, gorgo
 : Orwell is an exception here.
 * Nonsensical names:
-: Vavoom, waage, bunya, gorgo ...
+: Vavoom, waage, bunya, gorgo
 * Names that are easily confused with existing terminology:
 : Flat, sharp, neutral, ampersand, commatic
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 : Blacksmith (= blackwood), ampersand (= miracle), cynder/mothra (both are disliked), orson (= orwell), hanson/kleismic, godzilla (= semaphore)
 * Bad taste:
-: catcall, dominatrix,
+: Catcall, dominatrix
 === What makes a good name? ===
-Good names are harder to categorize. Some names are already used so commonly that nobody really objects to the use. Although there are still some that are disliked heavily despite this. It seems like the best names are either fun and easy to remember words (e.g. porcupine, bug, machine, magic), or allude to the structure somehow (e.g. dicot, superpyth, semaphore).
+Good names are harder to categorize. Some names are already used so commonly that nobody really objects to them. Although there are still some that are disliked heavily despite this. It seems like the best names are either fun and easy to remember words (e.g. porcupine, bug, machine, magic), or allude to the structure somehow (e.g. dicot, superpyth, semaphore).
 Most people also agree to have a single name regardless of the subgroup, as long as there is an agreed 'canonical' extension.
 Since a rank-2 temperament on a subgroup with 3 primes can be identified by a single comma, ideally it would be called after that comma (e.g. hanson can be kleismic).
-The other extensions would preferably be named so that makes the connection clear but they are not confused too easily. Flattone and hedgehog are good examples here.
+The other extensions would preferably be named in a way that makes the connection clear without being confused too easily. Flattone and hedgehog are good examples here.
 == Appendix ==