Talk:Dissonants

Requested move 13 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Reasonable arguments from both sides, votes roughly split. It seems like we have a lot of these stalemates, something needs to give – I'm not sure if opening a more general RfC about this issue is feasible, but it's something worth considering. Jenks24 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Dissonants → Dissonants (album) – this new forthcoming album stub creation has blocked up the search for dissonants (plural). The main use of "dissonants" in reliable sources is evidently dissonants. Please see search dissonants + consonants (1940-2015) before commenting on notability of album. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. In English, "dissonant" is usually an adjective. "Dissonant" as a noun is quite rare, and thus "dissonants" as a plural noun is a rarity as well. Look at this ngram - "dissonants" barely registers. Same with a Google Books search for "dissonants" - most of the results are in French, or from the 19th century, because it is a rarely used word in English. Plus, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. And I'm confused how a search for "dissonant" is "blocked up" - it's the first option in the drop down search box for me.... Dohn joe (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not useful. sst✈ 16:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seriously, shouldn't anyone inputting on titling discussions know how to exclude French results in a Google Book search? An even simpler way for those who don't know how to search English only would be to search for "dissonants are" to establish that the noun exists as common plural in English. Or another simple search dissonants + consonants (1940-2015) showing that dissonant is correctly pointing to the correct article. As for "blocking up search" try inputting "dissonant" into right hand top search box and search and see what happens now. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) It shows Dissonant as the first option. Dohn joe (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC) My bad, I obviously meant "dissonants" (plural) [corrected above]. Try inputting "dissonants" into right hand top seach box and searching by clicking the magnifying glass icon and see what happens now. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Um, it takes you to the article called Dissonants...? You realize that in the Consonance and dissonance article, the word "dissonants" does not appear. "Dissonant" is used as an adjective 28 times, and is used as a noun, well, zero times. It's just not a commonly used noun in English. Dohn joe (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC) So what? Wikipedia doesn't follow it's own tail. Your arguments here and at a dozen similar RMs you have forced are no different from your argument at Talk:Parachutes (album). Hopefully other editors will look at Google Books for themselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Of course. And hopefully they'll look at the ngram. Hopefully they'll consider all the evidence. This is seriously barely a word. In all of Wikipedia, "dissonants" appears four times - and three of those times refer to this album. Dohn joe (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Ngram of what??? this album doesn't register in any source how can it appear in an ngram? As for Wikipedia, Wikipedia is a pop entertainment blog - every word in Wikipedia refers to more pop enterainment subjects that the real (book) world. That's the who reason why we don't follow Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way about Wikipedia, truly. Dohn joe (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC) It's a fact - you already said yourself that Wikipedia already has more links to this album than all the Google Book references to "Dissonants" combined. Naturally - because Wikipedia requires that articles are not orphans, so a non-Britannica-notable entertainment subject immediately collects 3 or 4 links the moment a page is created. Wheras mainstream encyclopedic content requires non-entertainment article expansion. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC) I don't believe I said anything about links. This is simple usage of the word. If it weren't for this article, the word "dissonants" would appear one time in the text of the entire WP corpus. Once! Across 4.9 million articles, the word "dissonants" would appear one time. Dohn joe (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is SSTflyer that he/she gets to censor and box off editors replies to incorrect statements? Again search for "dissonants are" which will establish that the noun "dissonants" exists as common plural in English, and an upcoming Australian alternative album is not the main meaning. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move the parenthetical term does a better job of disambiguating the two topics: Dissonants vs dissonant/s.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support redirect the current title to the disambiguation page at dissonance and add an entry for this album -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  Why? Dohn joe (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe. Calidum 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, this RM will need relisting to get exposure to a wider group of editors who don't share the WP:DISAMBIGUATION by title (the guideline clearly says by content) view to participate. The above group of editors may wish to start an RFC to change what the guideline says if they don't agree with it. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe. There are no other topics that could conceivably be called "Dissonants". I'll add a hat note to serve the apparently small number of editors who come here looking for another topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Don Latarski An Introduction to Chord Theory 1982 p.4 "Two classes contain the consonants and one class the dissonants. 1. Perfect Consonants primes (unisons), 4th's, 5th's, octaves and 11th's 2. Imperfect Consonants 3rd's, Gth's, 10th's and 13th's 3. Dissonants 2nd's, 7th's and 9th's ..."

Steven Porter The Harmonization of the Chorale: A Comprehensive Workbook 1987 "Most of us who have studied intervals have been taught that they are classed in two camps: consonants and dissonants. However, these terms have somewhat ambiguous ..."

John Birchensha Writings on Music 2010 p.36 "In particular, he informs readers of rules that may be yet further, and are already, in part, contrived (drawn from the Mathematical Principles of Musick), by which, musical Consonants and Dissonants (artificially applied and disposed, ..."

Thomas Busby (composer) A General History of Music, from the Earliest Times 2013 - Page 180 "Proceeding on this ground of reasoning, Aristoxenus, in direct opposition to the Pythagoreans, persisted in relying on the ear, as the ultimate judge of the measure, both of the consonants and dissonants; and estimated both, not by ratios, but ..."

Francis Maes The Empire Resounds: Music in the Days of Charles V 1999 p10 "The distance between the notes, expressed as a number of scale steps and known as intervals, can be consonant or dissonant. The judgement of which intervals constitute consonants and which dissonants has changed somewhat over the course of time."

And those are just from the first page of the Google Book search for "dissonants" above In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.