Talk:Tuning

Guitar tuning
This sentence is incorrect:


 * The strings of a guitar are normally tuned to fourths, as are the strings of the bass guitar...

A guitar is normally tuned to EADGBE. The GB interval is a major third, all the others are fourths. To accomodate this, without fussing over it and detracting from the point being made, I changed the word "normally" to "generally".


 * There are actually some people who tune their guitars EADGCF, as chords moving up and down the strings retain their "shape". The major third was added to make commonly used chords (eg. E major and E minor) easier to play

move "car tuning" elsewhere
I think that the "car tuning" section at the bottom should be removed, and if it is to be kept somewhere, which I'm not convinced of, perhaps moved somewhere in the "engine tuning" article (if you were looking for "car tuning", you would end up there following the "automotive tuning" hint at the top of this page). Note that "Car tuning" is already a redirect to that page, which makes sense since most people really mean "engine tuning" when they say "car tuning"... Patrick Bernier 01:52, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)


 * Actually the term Tuning would best do if it had a short disamb page clearly splitting the automotive (or car) tuning from the musical meaning. The link to engine tuning in the foreword is definitely insufficient, since automotive tuning is a whole lot more than just egine tuning. In fact the engine tuning is just one of many sub-categories. There's the looks-only tuning, suspension tuning, car audio system tuning. I'll do it some time myself, if someone's not faster.

Which is the more common use of the word: car tuning or pitch tuning? See: Disambiguation. Hyacinth 03:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Google shows it's almost on par, something like 15 pct more for the musical term. Anyway, we need a usual No.2 disamb page here.

If car tuning is staying, it should be given its own section... there are car tuning external links that serve no purpose until you read what's under it. I am in favor of turning tuning into a disambig. --Kevin McManus 21:56, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Musical tuning, disambiguate?
Shouldn't this content be merged into Musical tuning, and then have this become a disambiguation page? The two articles right now discuss different topics, but both are "musical tuning", and the separation is rather confusing. Some rewriting would need to be done to accomplish a merge properly. Does anyone think this is a good idea, or should we prefer to keep these pages separate? Rainwarrior 03:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly. However, the intention was to have tuning be about the act of tuning (such as tuning the strings of a cello), with musical tuning being about systems of tuning (such as just intonation). Both are music and they are different but closely related topics. Hyacinth 09:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have composed a draft of a proposed merged page at User:Rainwarrior/TuningMerge. "Tuning", I think it has already been said, is not a topic that belongs only to music, and neither "Musical Tuning" nor "Tuning" is more or less appropriate for either topic which appears at those pages. If the intention is to have them on separate pages something such as "Musical tuning (systems)" and "Musical tuning (practice)" would make things much clearer. This, however, would involve a second layer of disambiguation. For that reason I'd rather see them merged into Musical tuning. Take a look at my draft at User:Rainwarrior/TuningMerge, and decide whether or not they can coexist. Is there some way to vote on this? Rainwarrior 20:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good one Rainwarrior, the merge draft looks excellent. Andeggs 10:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done the merge. I updated my draft to reflect the more recent changes to both pages as well. I've changed Tuning into a redirect to musical tuning, which is where its information has gone. Rainwarrior 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a very bad idea. These are two different concepts, and cause problems with the interwiki's. I propose to undo the merger. &mdash; Zanaq (?) 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)