Talk:Fingering (music)

Comment
Nice link for this subject. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/fluteacoustics.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.110.242 (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2006‎

Redirect to disambiguation?
I've never heard of this musical use of the term "fingering". Admittedly, I've never studied music, but nevertheless I think the sexual practice is the one more widely recognised under the term. I suggest moving this article to Fingering (musical) or similar, and having Fingering used as the disambiguation page, linking to all the uses. -Erolos 14:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia is based upon sources, rather than "I've heard of it.". Looking at sources one finds that fingering is the proper formal name for a musical concept that one will find discussed in books about playing, such as Fingering Practice for Beginning Bands (ISBN 082512574X), The Art of the Violin (ISBN 0810107538), and The Flute Book: A Complete Guide for Students and Performers (ISBN 0195105028).  The sexual practice is, in contrast, at best a colloquialism for what is actually known in the literature as "digital penetration of the vagina" or simply "digital penetration" (with sufficient context).  Having the colloquialism be given equal weight to the formal term, especially when many current dictionaries don't even include the sexual practice as a meaning of "fingering" in the first place, wouldn't be right. Uncle G 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Uncle G, it is correct within Wikipedia to direct to formal names over colloquial terms. Additionally, if this article were to be moved to Fingering (musical) and Fingering (Sexual Act) be redirected to this page, some documented evidence suggesting that the sexual practice is "more widely recognised under the term." would helpful.


 * However, considering the lengths, and the amount of user interest and contribution to the two articles in question, having Fingering as a disambiguation page is also a possibility which probably shouldn't be ruled out. Jason McConnell-Leech 12:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a disambiguation link, or at least there should be some kind of link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscous_fingering I was reading a paper that was talking about fingering, and Wikipedia couldn't help me. It wasn't till I did several google searches that I realized the paper was talking about 'viscous fingering'. I was mad when I saw Wikipedia had an article, but it didn't come up when fingering was searched. Leftynm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leftynm (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all very fine, but why on earth does Finger-ring redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.118.127 (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Now it redirects to Ring (jewellery). __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Paired Fingering
I think it would be worth including a section on paired fingering in this article as it is (at least from a historical perspective) an important component of fingering. Jason McConnell-Leech 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparent conflict of interest
From my talk page:
 * If it looks like promotion then rearrange it differently. This is not a reason to deny this vital information. You can't change the facts though, the book is out/published and it is a major book - the first in 300 years of its scope on the subject. Check it out for yourself. TY, RB Barniv (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the diff. The main problem, as I see it, is the self-published source cited as a reference. Wikipedia requires third-party sources to show that this book is notable. It also appears that Barniv has a connection with the author of the book, which looks like a conflict of interest. These issues must be resolved before this new book can be mentioned in the encyclopedia. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed: Images
The above images where removed as excess. Hyacinth (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2015

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguated. Although the votes do not provide a clear numerical consensus, the role of a closing administrator is not merely to count votes, but to weigh the arguments in light of policy. There are six votes apparently in opposition to any move, four votes supporting the proposed move, and three votes favoring disambiguating the title. It is clear that the primary topic going by Google Books searches alone would be the musical topic, and going by Google hits and page views alone would be the sexual topic. It is worth noting that sexual topics are not inherently unencyclopedic. As Cúchullain notes, the sex act is probably universal among human beings. The article on the sex act is well developed and references reputable scholarly writing on the topic. This is not an obscure act or a puerile term. There is also a missing slang sense of "fingering" as making an accusation against someone, usually in a criminal context. Although not a formal term of art, it is widely used and well known. In light of the discussion and the split evidence of primacy, we have an absence of a clear primary topic, and a resulting need to disambiguate the term. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

– If I said the word 'fingering' to anyone, I seriously doubt they would think I was referring to the music action. Maybe it's just dirty-mindedness, but it's the truth. Unreal7 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fingering → Fingering (music)
 * Fingering (sexual act) → Fingering
 * Oppose books suggest the only competitor is Fingering (disambiguation) for baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What would Beavis and Butthead think of Homo? H. Humbert (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and WP:NWFCTM. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NWFCTM also states "Of course, coming first to mind does not preclude primary topic.", and I recently expressed an issue with that section since "what first comes to your mind" is commonly and validly used in move discussions when applying it to the general public...without systemic bias being an issue. Like Unreal7, I don't feel that the average person thinks of the musical aspect of fingering when hearing or seeing the word fingering; I feel that, generally, they think of the sexual aspect. But there needs to be a strong indication of that -- some sort of proof -- before this article is moved in such a way. And having read the section above years ago, it was correct that the more reliable sourcing for "fingering" was about the musical aspect. And that still appears to be the case on Google Books. By contrast, for page 1, regular Google begins with articles and posts mostly focusing on the sexual aspect. For page 2 and onward, it's the musical aspect that has most of the focus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not the slightest chance of the sexual act becoming primary topic. But FWIW, the sex act gets 13 times as much traffic as the musical one. H. Humbert (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support and oppose: move the music article, but move the disambiguation page to the base name instead. Fingering is also to identify a subject, such as done when becoming a stool pigeon, which should be added to the dab page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Maybe you all thought it was obvious, but I haven't seen a reason given why the sexual meaning shouldn't be the primary topic. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 17:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * GrammarFascist, how is what I stated above not a reason? What valid reason do you have that we should treat the sexual meaning as the primary topic? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What valid reason? How about, as stated above, that "the sex act gets 13 times as much traffic as the musical one"? If that's what most people reading about fingering on Wikipedia are here to read about, then it sure seems like that's the primary topic. As for the Google books results, that looks to me like a consequence of systemic bias, in that until very recently it was almost impossible to get books about sexual topics published, whereas there were no such constraints on publishing about musical topics. What happens when you look just at books published after, say, 1990? — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 03:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * GrammarFascist (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this talk page is currently on your WP:Watchlist), WP:Primary topic is not based solely on something like "the sex act gets 13 times as much traffic as the musical one." That people are more interested in sex topics is not a surprise. Like I stated at Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report, "Our most popular anatomy articles, as shown at WikiProject Anatomy/Popular pages and as acknowledged by this Slate source, are some of the sexual anatomy articles. This is not surprising, at least to me, given the provocative nature and power of sexuality." I also disagree that "until very recently it was almost impossible to get books about sexual topics published"; by that, I mean, how are you defining "recently"? You will also notice that there are books on various sexual topics, but "sexual fingering" books are lacking, partly because "fingering" is so much of a slang term for "manual sexual stimulation of the genitals," and partly because society is far more concerned with penis-in-vagina sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Primary topic specifically says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." If thirteen times as many people are reading the sexual fingering article than are reading the musical fingering article, how do you think any of them got to either article other than by searching for the topic they wanted to read about? But, at this point I don't think either of us is likely to convince the other, so I probably will not respond here again. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 03:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It indeed states that, and it also states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." In my view, the musical aspect fits that second criterion; this is due to its coverage in reliable sources. WP:Primary topic also lists ways to try to determine the primary topic. It is my opinion that despite me personally feeling that people will be looking for the sexual aspect of fingering more than they will be looking for the musical aspect, the sexual aspect has not been solidly demonstrated to be the primary topic. No matter what the topic is, the sexual aspect will always get more views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh...huhh-huhhh. Support. Beavis and Butt-head. —  AjaxSmack  03:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: Most of people may not even know that "fingering" is related to music. Most of top google search results for "fingering" are related to sexual act. Fingering is obvious primary topic for sexual act. On first page of result there was one link of BBC radio, I thought at least this link will be related to music but that link is also related to sexual act. -- Human 3015   TALK   04:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Human3015, regarding your Google search argument, see where I stated, "And having read the section above years ago, it was correct that the more reliable sourcing for 'fingering' was about the musical aspect. And that still appears to be the case on Google Books. By contrast, for page 1, regular Google begins with articles and posts mostly focusing on the sexual aspect. For page 2 and onward, it's the musical aspect that has most of the focus."


 * I'm going to alert editors at the WP:Disambiguation talk page to this discussion, since they have crafted the WP:Primary topic guideline, and have been over various discussions regarding it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alerted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Seconding 's Support and oppose, i.e. (let's call this Option 2):
 * Fingering → Fingering (music)
 * Fingering (disambiguation) → Fingering
 * I see some others above that probably could live with this.
 * Reasons:
 * Judging from Google books' first pages when searching for "fingering" the musical connotation maybe seems somewhat more prevalent, but neither is this sure for further search result pages, nor is there an overwhelming prevalence; for comparison: Wikipedia's internal links from main namespace link to the sexual meaning more often (which also indicates there is no overwhelming prevalence one way or another)
 * Wikipedia has erroneous internal linking, for instance a link from the Bondage (BDSM) page currently goes to the musical meaning. Re. "If I said the word 'fingering' to anyone, I seriously doubt anyone would think I was referring to the music action": this probably says more about the OP than about what this WP:RM is about, meaning: if the OP were a music teacher probably the opposite would be true. Also, when a score edition has "with fingering" on its cover nobody would be ashamed to show such score to minors, etc... It's just the context. As the other context may not always be apparent for the one typing double square brackets around the word in an article (which happened to me not so long ago on a talk page, Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach), and linking to the "wrong" meaning should in this case probably even more carefully be avoided than usual (notwithstanding Wikipedia's disclaimers), I think linking to the disambiguation page when not adding a parenthetical disambiguator is by far the most preferable option.
 * Any other support for Option 2? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because we can't make them both articles primary, we must inconvenience everyone? Surely it is better to streamline navigation for some readers than for none. As for gbooks, the top results are books with the search term in the title. It is not like web search where the results are ranked according to reader interest. H. Humbert (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, keep as is, a.k.a. opposing both proposed moves. Note: gbook searches are valid for article titling discussions, general web searches are not, per policy. WP:AT that is, if you were wondering which policy I meant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, you are looking at the wrong policy. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the guideline that explains how to determine a primary topic. It recommends "Google web, news, scholar, or book searches," i.e. web search is listed first. Producing a useful page of web search results is Google's primier product, what they do best. H. Humbert (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Didn't you read the first five words of the sentence, here emphasised for you: "Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, ..." Here's a news flash for you: everything about sex on the internet is not what according to Wikipedia's rules counts as a reliable source, so, indeed the google books search, google books customarily being largely composed of reliable sources (in the Wikipedia rules logic), shows a precedence to the musical variant. How are you going to prove for this topic that you're using "reliable sources" for this comparison when doing a general web search? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support for Option 2 - it's almost as Astonishing as seeing Musical note under Note. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose the move as first proposed. I've no objection to placing the disambiguation page at the base name. older ≠ wiser 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the originally proposed move, but I am not opposed to what's being called option 2 (making the dab page the primary); if consensus continues to move in that direction, I don't want my !vote to be taken as going against that consensus and lead to the status quo being maintained. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 10:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you go by the guidelines, it is hard to imagine a more clear cut case of primary topic than this. One topic is commonly included in school curricula and is obviously educational. Search on gbooks and a dozen textbooks about it will pop up. "It has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term," as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC puts it. The other topic is not remotely educational. Its popularity as a vulgarism dates back only about ten years or so. In fact, after looking at the article's references my sense it that there is very little serious research or writing about it and that the entire topic is only marginally encyclopedic. H. Humbert (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, really, this is not "going by the guidelines"... and on top of that: policy trumps guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would nice if you could read what I write before making sarcastic comments about it. I have consistently supported the musical topic as primary. As I read the guideline, either the musical topic or the sexual topic could reasonably be selected primary. Making the DAB primary would be a cop out. If you choose not to decide, you still have make a choice. H. Humbert (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me,, that if as you say "either the musical topic or the sexual topic could reasonably be selected primary", then making the dab page primary is not a "cop-out" but rather the very compromise suggested by policy. Also, I don't know how old you are, but I can assure you that "fingering" has been the predominant colloquial term for digital penetration of the vagina or anus for the purpose of sexual stimulation for a lot longer than "only about ten years or so." I would also point out that discussion of (sexual) fingering absolutely has a role in education about safer sex practices, which is properly part of comprehensive sex ed. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 14:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you found something in any guideline to support the idea that the DAB should be treated as a default when editors have difficulty deciding a primary topic? Editors always seem to puzzle over this guideline, so a rule like this would essentially negate the entire primary topic guideline. As I have written before, realistically, the sexual topic has no chance of becoming primary. Making the musical topic primary makes it easier for readers interested in that topic to find what they are looking for, and how is that a bad thing? If we put the sexual topic in a hat note, it is one click in either set up. Add With the barbarians at the gates, I thought I'd look up the history of "educational value" and find out why it was added to the guideline in the first place. (See here.) At that time, editors were concerned that movies like Titanic and Avatar would displace educational subjects. Titanic the ship and avatar the Hindu whatever are both of extremely modest educational value compared to musical fingering. Gbooks has Natural Fingering: A Topographical Approach to Pianism (2012), Fingering Practice for Beginning Bands (1994), Alfred's Chord Fingering Dictionary (1964), The Fingering Logic and Performing of Woodwind Instruments (2011), Basic Fingering Charts (2012), Six Essential Fingerings for the Jazz Guitarist (2010), Trombone Fingering Charts (2007), etc., etc. H. Humbert (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Evidence given for the sexual act being primary is borderline at best (the nom gave no evidence at all). There is however some evidence above that the musical topic is primary. Perhaps a case can be made that there is no primary topic, but it hasn't been made yet. And definitely no case for the move as proposed. Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave no evidence because I didn't think I needed to; it seemed so blatantly obvious. However, in any case, Cuchallain gives evidence below. Unreal7 (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. The sex act received 107,806 page views in the last 90 days, compared to only 7108 for the musical concept, despite the fact that the latter is at the base name. The other entries on the dab page are partial title matches, meaning this is effectively a WP:TWODABS situation where one topic receives over 15x the views of the other (and also many times the page views of all potentially ambiguous topics combined). The musical concept isn't primary by any measure.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cúchullain, like GrammarFascist, you suggested page views as the proof. If you haven't already, see what I stated above to GrammarFascist about a sexual topic of an aspect always getting more views because sexual topics are far more provocative to people, and where I pointed to the second listing of what determines a primary topic (H. Humbert has also pointed to that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable point, but I don't think it matters why people are looking at an encyclopedic topic. Our goal is to get readers to the information they're looking for. I rather expect that more people read about sexual topics because they affect virtually every human being, especially topics as basic as this one. As per the second condition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I just don't see that musical fingering has more "long-term significance" or "enduring educational value" than a probably universal sexual act. The bottom line is, both topics are encyclopedic and have serious long-term significance, but one of them is sought by our readers 15 times more than the other.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support readers are more likely to think of the sexual act than the musical concept. I also second Cuchullain's statement. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOT until the merger of Wikipedia with the Urban Dictionary. —  AjaxSmack   00:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOT, per the principle of least surprise, and per the educational mission of the encyclopedia. Musicians, music teachers, and music students have enough difficulties in this life already-- they should not have to put up with insults from the largest Internet encyclopedia!


 * PS The concept of "fingering" will typically come up well before age 12 when children are taking music lessons to learn to play a keyboard, wind, or stringed instrument. I am sorry to hear so few people reading this had the opportunity to take music lessons as kids-- but as someone who has learned several instruments as an adult, let me tell you that when it comes to learning to play music, it's never too late to start, and it can be a lot of fun! --Djembayz (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So is that the first thing you think of when you hear the word "fingering"? Unreal7 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Have you considered the possibility that some people are just looking something up after their piano lesson? --Djembayz (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now, but I do believe it's just "some", rather than the majority. Unreal7 (talk) 09:06, 10 November 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Cut fingering" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut_fingering&redirect=no Cut fingering] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"Half-holing" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half-holing&redirect=no Half-holing] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"Strike fingering" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strike_fingering&redirect=no Strike fingering] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)