Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

Line 29:

- [[User:Sintel|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel|talk]]) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

: This seems reasonable enough to me. If a comma/interval/temperament name is established elsewhere by multiple people other than yourself, I suppose you couldn't be faulted for adding the name to the wiki as a fact. But if you're just making it up yourself on the spot, a more considerate thing to do would be to solicit input from the community.

: My sense is that our culture leans toward collective ownership of these ideas, and that the majority of contributors here do ''not'' believe that the first person to describe the value of a given comma/interval/temperament thereby has earned an exclusive right to name it.

: I also see that many of us recognize how the proliferation of somewhat crazy comma/interval/temperament names has negatively impacted us. I am not innocent of contributing to this problem myself (sorry about that).

: I note that some systematic comma/interval/temperament naming schemes exist, such as the one for color notation or for Sagittal, and so to large extent every one of them ''does'' already have at least one name. The goals of such systems may include obviating the need for individually naming these commas/intervals/temperaments. But I don't think it's realistic to expect that we'll achieve the threshold of buy-in to any one of these systems, so we'll always need the non-systematic names. And so every comma/interval/temperament is going to end up with multiple names. So it goes.

: I think you could add your proposed name to the main page, so long as you disclaim it as merely your proposal, not as established fact. Then it would be good to also start discussion on the corresponding Talk page as Sintel suggests. The ultimate goal would be working toward establishing a name as fact, whether by something close to democracy, or at least by something close to oligarchy. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 - [[User:Sintel|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel|talk]]) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
+: This seems reasonable enough to me. If a comma/interval/temperament name is established elsewhere by multiple people other than yourself, I suppose you couldn't be faulted for adding the name to the wiki as a fact. But if you're just making it up yourself on the spot, a more considerate thing to do would be to solicit input from the community.
+: My sense is that our culture leans toward collective ownership of these ideas, and that the majority of contributors here do ''not'' believe that the first person to describe the value of a given comma/interval/temperament thereby has earned an exclusive right to name it.
+: I also see that many of us recognize how the proliferation of somewhat crazy comma/interval/temperament names has negatively impacted us. I am not innocent of contributing to this problem myself (sorry about that).
+: I note that some systematic comma/interval/temperament naming schemes exist, such as the one for color notation or for Sagittal, and so to large extent every one of them ''does'' already have at least one name. The goals of such systems may include obviating the need for individually naming these commas/intervals/temperaments. But I don't think it's realistic to expect that we'll achieve the threshold of buy-in to any one of these systems, so we'll always need the non-systematic names. And so every comma/interval/temperament is going to end up with multiple names. So it goes.
+: I think you could add your proposed name to the main page, so long as you disclaim it as merely your proposal, not as established fact. Then it would be good to also start discussion on the corresponding Talk page as Sintel suggests. The ultimate goal would be working toward establishing a name as fact, whether by something close to democracy, or at least by something close to oligarchy. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)