Talk:Nashville Number System

Image
I think the image is incorrect, since that implies: C = 1, Dm = 2, Em = 3, F = 4, G = 5, Am = 6, Bdim = 7, instead of all Major chords. Or is that actually what the Nashville number system means? If so, then the text should change. Mysticyx (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor: "-", "m", or both?
The article gives the dash ('-') as the minor chord quality, but in my experience people use a lowercase 'm'. Lucas gonze (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Rename this?

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Nashville number system → Nashville Number System – Is it "Nashville Number System", like a brand name, or "Nashville number system", like a method? Do sources specify the capitalization, and, if not, do the majority of sources use nonstandard capitalization ("Nashville Number System") or standard capitalization ("Nashville number system")? Hyacinth (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Notice Dewey Decimal Classification. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk about my  contributions ) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:CAPS, since all sources that I can find do cap this (except one that has "Nashville Number system"). Nevertheless, I object to nom's malformed proposal; in a move proposal, he should be providing answers (based in sources and guidelines) not questions based on hunches.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support have nothing to add - agree with ^^ MaskedSinger (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2019 (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.

Malformed proposal
Dicklyon, I am sorry that I am not omniscient and omnibenevolent, and that I do not pretend to be. If this page should have been moved before my proposal, I wonder why did you not move it yourself. If I was supposed to tell you all what to do that is an order, not a proposal. I thank you for providing a link to MOS:CAPS, but you did not provide a link to the policies regarding correct formation or formulation of proposals. Maybe it's just me, but I find, in general, that it is much easier to convince people to act differently when you show them how, rather than just reprimanding them for their faults. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Nashville Notation or Nashville notation?
Is the correct capitalization "Nashiville notation" or "Nashville Notation"? Similarly, is the correct capitalization "Nashville Number(s)" or "Nashville number(s)"? The article should probably specify alternate names and their proper form, even if the alternates are incorrect but quite common. Hyacinth (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Nashville Number System
The font with the musical symbols is not supported (at least on my) mobile phone. I only recognize rectangles (  ). I propose to undo back the version 1057075596. Alternatively, someone could explicitly integrate the font by CSS so that the browser uses the right font. --Mjchael (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced it by wikitable and . The previous characters (font) was unreadable. --Mjchael (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sixth chord in example
The guitar realization of After You've Gone starts off with a C chord (played E2, G2, C3 and G3). However, the transcription below starts with 1$7$. I read that as a major triad with an added sixth (C,E,G,A), but it looks like it has two definitions on Sixth_chord, where one of them is indeed an inversion. However, is it still the same inversion with the added G3 on top? Honestly asking; I'm obviously no expert in the matter. Regardless, does that 6 bring more confusion than value? I vote for removing it, but someone who understand it should probably do it instead Bajsejohannes (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)