Temperament naming: Difference between revisions

Line 21:

Most important of the above points are those on: not being NSFW/inappropriate, lack of ambiguity, compliance with existing naming conventions, and consensus.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that good reasons for renaming commas/temperaments ~~almost perfectly~~ mirror conventions for naming them:

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that good reasons for renaming commas/temperaments mostly mirror conventions for naming them:

Strong reasons for renaming a comma and/or temperament are:

Line 29:

* The name change proposal has a fair amount of consensus (e.g. several people in favour versus 2 against). This is not to be interpreted as iron democratic rule but rather as a significant indicator of a good name, along with other reasons detailed.

~~Those are the most important.~~ Weaker but still good and standard reasons for renaming a comma and/or temperament include:

Weaker but still good and standard reasons for renaming a comma and/or temperament include:

* The name is simpler but not so simple as to be absurd and implicatory of many alternate candidates (an example of the latter is "[[commatic]]" temperament).

* The name has reasoning behind it that identifies it as appropriate at least insofar as it identifies the comma as unique within reason.

* The previous name is fairly new (within the last year).

* The previous name has not received much usage (considering usage by people other than the inventor/proposer of the name as more significant).

Therefore, if one finds oneself at an impasse, refer to this work in progress section and see how many bullet points are in favour of a name or rename.

~~Once~~ a rename has ~~been proposed~~ and ~~accepted~~, previous names may stay on the wiki for historical purposes~~, especially if external references exist~~, but should be moved out of the "spotlights" (lead section, infobox, etc.) to avoid the potential interpretation that these names are equally common/standard. It is important to note however that ''if'' there is nothing particularly wrong with the old name, then it is ''standard and common'' to let the old name coexist with the new name with the spirit that people can use whatever name they prefer.

Importantly, if there is not at least one strong reason in favor of a rename, then the previous name absolutely must not have received much usage (considering usage by people other than the inventor/proposer of the name as more significant) for a rename to be considered; if it has received enough usage that a rename would be inconvenient and confusing but there are strong reasons for it, the new name can become the new standard and the previous name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning of the page for clarity/to avoid confusion and for historical purposes.

If there are external references (outside of the wiki) beyond the mere proposal of the name, previous names may stay on the wiki for historical purposes, but should be moved out of the "spotlights" (lead section, infobox, etc.) to avoid the potential interpretation that these names are equally common/standard. It is important to note however that ''if'' there is nothing particularly wrong with the old name, then it is ''standard and common'' to let the old name coexist with the new name with the spirit that people can use whatever name they prefer.

In other words, whether the old name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning or is moved out of the spotlights depends on whether the old name has received enough usage that it could cause significant confusion.

This summary of conventions aims to be comprehensive but not exhaustive. Minor reasons may be included if they are abstract in nature rather than overly specific in application.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Most important of the above points are those on: not being NSFW/inappropriate, lack of ambiguity, compliance with existing naming conventions, and consensus.
-It should not come as a surprise to anyone that good reasons for renaming commas/temperaments almost perfectly mirror conventions for naming them:
+It should not come as a surprise to anyone that good reasons for renaming commas/temperaments mostly mirror conventions for naming them:
 Strong reasons for renaming a comma and/or temperament are:
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 * The name change proposal has a fair amount of consensus (e.g. several people in favour versus 2 against). This is not to be interpreted as iron democratic rule but rather as a significant indicator of a good name, along with other reasons detailed.
-Those are the most important. Weaker but still good and standard reasons for renaming a comma and/or temperament include:
+Weaker but still good and standard reasons for renaming a comma and/or temperament include:
 * The name is simpler but not so simple as to be absurd and implicatory of many alternate candidates (an example of the latter is "[[commatic]]" temperament).
 * The name has reasoning behind it that identifies it as appropriate at least insofar as it identifies the comma as unique within reason.
 * The previous name is fairly new (within the last year).
-* The previous name has not received much usage (considering usage by people other than the inventor/proposer of the name as more significant).
 Therefore, if one finds oneself at an impasse, refer to this work in progress section and see how many bullet points are in favour of a name or rename.
-Once a rename has been proposed and accepted, previous names may stay on the wiki for historical purposes, especially if external references exist, but should be moved out of the "spotlights" (lead section, infobox, etc.) to avoid the potential interpretation that these names are equally common/standard. It is important to note however that ''if'' there is nothing particularly wrong with the old name, then it is ''standard and common'' to let the old name coexist with the new name with the spirit that people can use whatever name they prefer.
+Importantly, if there is not at least one strong reason in favor of a rename, then the previous name absolutely must not have received much usage (considering usage by people other than the inventor/proposer of the name as more significant) for a rename to be considered; if it has received enough usage that a rename would be inconvenient and confusing but there are strong reasons for it, the new name can become the new standard and the previous name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning of the page for clarity/to avoid confusion and for historical purposes.
+If there are external references (outside of the wiki) beyond the mere proposal of the name, previous names may stay on the wiki for historical purposes, but should be moved out of the "spotlights" (lead section, infobox, etc.) to avoid the potential interpretation that these names are equally common/standard. It is important to note however that ''if'' there is nothing particularly wrong with the old name, then it is ''standard and common'' to let the old name coexist with the new name with the spirit that people can use whatever name they prefer.
+In other words, whether the old name should be mentioned in passing towards the beginning or is moved out of the spotlights depends on whether the old name has received enough usage that it could cause significant confusion.
 This summary of conventions aims to be comprehensive but not exhaustive. Minor reasons may be included if they are abstract in nature rather than overly specific in application.