Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F-flat


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

F-flat

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An obscure musical note. Does it deserve a Wikipedia article?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, or otherwise Merge to E (musical note). I've played piano since I was 4, and I know I've seen an F-flat pop up now and then (usually as part of a D-flat diminished chord). I'm not certain that there's enough content here for a separate page, so, as I said, it could be merged to E instead. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The D-flat diminished chord would have to contain an A double flat as well, and I doubt any 4-year-old knows about double flats. Georgia guy (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was four when I saw the sharps and flats (more like 16, when I started playing keyboard in church). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the enharmonic equivilent of E (musical note). Does occasionally pop up, and is notable enough to merit a reference but probably not enough for its own article. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into E (musical note). Unlike C-flat (which is really B), F-flat doesn't have its own key signature. Sean MD80 talk 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep -Very well, I am conviced. I do play keyboard, but apparently I'm not worth my salt. Sean MD80 talk 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although seldom used now it's historically significant and the fact that it's the only note without a key makes it significant. I'm sure more could be written about this. Nick mallory (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can tell who are the keyboard players here. &#9786;  Yes, F-flat does have its own key signature.  It involves eight flats with a double flat of B.  It is only on the chromatic scale that a flattened note is equivalent to the semitone below.  In other scales, F flat is lower in pitch than E natural.  F-flat is a diminished fourth above C, whereas E natural is a major third above C.  The 1823 Encyclopaedia Britannica has a detailed explanation of this in its entry for "Music", if you want to learn more.  So the question that you should be asking yourselves is: Are we aiming for Wikipedia to be at least as informative as the 1823 Britannica?  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - F-flat is a pretty standard tone in even intermediate-level music theory. That it's not commonly used is like arguing we should delete Thulium because it's rare and relatively useless compared to Oxygen.  F-flat is a different theoretical creature than E-natural, and in spite of being enharmonic, substituting E-natural for F-flat (or vice versa) in a tonal composition is simply wrong. Torc2 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Well, I am neutral! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep could do with a little work, but undoubtedly valid (if unusual). Guy (Help!) 16:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is standard WP:OSTRICH fare. I respectfully ask that this nom be withdrawn.  RFerreira (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully dissagree with the proposal by user RFerreira to withdraw this nomination and I ask that this please follow it's due process. --CyclePat (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect: (this should be merged into the article fa. There is no need to have an article for every harmonic alteration. What next G tripple flat. (It exists! Along with the millions of other permutation... this sound like a similar case that is happening at Time and how we could have an article for virtually every magnitude. --CyclePat (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Fa is a dis-ambiguation page. Georgia guy (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The dis-ambiguation Fa, as you state is a dissambiguation which however makes reference of the term Fa, under music, and links to the article "Note". I believe this is good. The article F (musical note) is an anaemic article and a content fork. I propose it, including the content of F♯, F-flat and any other article related to Fa be merged. That includes this article ("F-flat major") which should be merged into the article Note as a subparagraph of a sections called scales. Notice the difference between this article which is nominated for deletion and that it is called F flat major. What next, "F flat enharmonic minor" and "F flat ascending Phrygian and descending Mixolydian minor mode"? (These are scales permutations similar to any permutation which could be compared to a chemical compound or a magnitude of time Again, please merge this article... including Fb (or F flat) (even if Fb it is not created yet!) and other fa derivatives related to music. I remcomend: Fa (music) and/or Note. Then, and only if there is to much information in those respective articles, should we content fork (WP:CFORK). Furthermore, this article does not appear to address the scale issue within the first few sentences. I believe all C, D, E, F, G, A (music note) are the fundemental values and that everything else is a harmonic deviation or a content fork. It almost like having an article for 50 Watt light bulb and 75 Watt light bulb. Also note: The article F (musical note) should also be renamed F (music) or Fa (music) so we could then present and discuss in a marcoscopic view point many musical components of the thousands of different variations. As per my above comment, it should be merged for now until there is more information and it doesn't appear to be some sort WP:POV. (That is a violation of WP:NPOV Undue weight... which may stem down to some very argumentative philosphical, scientific and other reasons. C flat vs B... E sharp vs. F. etc...) --CyclePat (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (Reformated Reply at approx. 10h11 p.m. EST)
 * There have been some bizarre arguments put forward at AFD before now. But the idea that flats and sharps are points of view ranks quite highly on the bizarreness scale. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps indeed... We could talk philosophy for POV's... but Flats and sharps are modifications of the fundamental musical note and stem down to a common denominator which is the basic musical note. Any arguments, such as the comment from SeanMD80 regarding slight variations Equal Temperament, or other issues such as "vocal scales vs. piano, vs. other instruments and there temperaments" are precisely that... minor variations. I consider these variations to be content which should be part of one main article, unless there is plenty of information to content fork. Usually such musical acoustic issues can and should be discussed in 1 main article where everyone can work together! (ie.:Fa, Fa#, Fa##.... etc... are all notes with the common denominator of Fa. (It would be like having an article for A 440, then A 445 and all the infinite tunning possibilities... Everything else is WP:CFORK. --CyclePat (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Equating F-flat with "Fa" is simply wrong. Fixed solfege is only used in a few countries and clearly represents an anti-US bias.  ... OK, maybe it doesn't, but it is relatively unused.  For much of the world, "Fa" doesn't mean "F", it means the fourth degree of a major scale. Torc2 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * US bias? euh! Okay... (quizical look).. (I guess that's for your region!) As we say in french Quebec... `C'est pour ça qu'on veut se séparé!`... I've never really heard that before. I have heard of the french and english conflict in solfege being one of letters vs the solfege. For example, in english we sometimes solfege using the letters C D E F G A B, other times we use "Do re mi fa sol la si". In french however, we rarelly ever use the letters but use the latter Do re mi... furthermore, there is something with a moveable "do" where, instead of singing the scale of ré - mi - fa# -sol - la - si - do# we would sing the same scale but with do re mi fa... making fa the IV of the scale. Anyways, doesn't matter... all these interesting facts should be consolidated and merged into the same article. One reason for this is the fact that scales follow a patern... there are hundreds if not thousands of different paterns and examples. For example: If we where to use or talk about a cadence in the tonality of C major or "do majeur" (en bon francais) and placed some emphasis on the IV (pré-dominante) explaining that it is the chord of "Fa majeur" (in french) or "F major" (for you loyalist english) the english french translation means the same thing, it makes sense to have it all in the same article. I believe the only reason this article was created in the first place is because of the circle of fifth and it was called F-flat major. My understanding... sorry if I don't have any sources but only first hand experience since I live in Ottawa studied french and english music... (here is where we contradict each other) Fa means the same as F and should be noted within such an article (ie.: merged together and explained). Similarly, F-flat is the same as E and should be noted in the same article. This interesting conflict should be talked about in one article and not split into millions of different articles to prove a point or the respective POV. Plus what are we going to do with those dam fury scrolls and gregorian chants that use different methods of notation... one article that encompasses all of this would be excellent! --CyclePat (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * b.t.w.: We must be careful on the dis-ambiguation page of fa. --CyclePat (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For much of the world, "Fa" does not mean the same as F. That's your regional bias kicking in.  Redirecting F to "Fa" makes as much sense as redirecting torch to flashlight, so redirecting F-flat to "Fa" would like redirecting arson to flashlight based on the idea that "torch" is a synonym for committing arson, and "torch" means "flashlight" in the UK. Torc2 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay! Well, I figure my experience would be good enought but here is a source. I'd direct you attention towards the wikipedia article called "solfege". Solfege compares both terms and places them at the same level. All my teachings and music books (pre-school to university appear to say the same thing)... but then again... I guess my prof's and those doctors in music, and history... God dam university degree in music... 25000 dollars latter, do you think they'll give me a refund... may have been wrong through their teachings of Western Music. --CyclePat (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time: Fixed Do is a regional system, not a universal system. I don't know how I can say that any more clearly.  In much of the English-speaking world, "Fa" in D major means the note "G", for example; in A major it means the note D; in other words, the assumption that Fa is always F is wrong.  Instead of pointing me at the Solfege article, why not read it?  Specifically the Solfege section, which gives the locations where "Fa" is not synonymous with "F".  You could even amuse yourself with the section right above it, that says even in the Fixed Do system, "Fa" does not equal F-sharp or F-flat; it would be "Fi" for F-sharp, and there is no equivalent for F-flat.  It makes no sense whatsoever to throw them into a single article and then explain why they're different when they are actually different things.  And as long as we're going to pull out our musical degrees and wave them around like phalli, your degree is impressive, but I have a Ph.D. in music composition.  So, how about focusing on the information itself rather than trying to bully people with your credentials? Torc2 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. We're practically saying the same thing! That's good that we agree on that! But, you realize that these notes are often, more than less, compared to each other. I think it's safe to say that the article is "currently" more focused on the tonality of "F flat major" instead of the musical note "F-flat". 1. I personally think the F-flat (musical note), whether it be, as you claim "different things", (too which I do not completely agree), per the status quo should be linked with E Musical note. 2. This covers what I believe is one issue... (musical notes). Now, for scales and musical notes. I think that C (musical note) and C major (tonality) could probably be consolidated to make one article that explains all these differences. Similarly in this case, E (musical note) and F-flat major, F-double flat minor, F minor harmonic, tonality, scales, F phrygian, etc... should be in one article. For example we could have C (music) with the paragraph headings: "Music note", "scales" (major, minor, etc.), "Harmonic equivalents", "alterations" (Cbb, Cb or C#, C##). One interesting precedence for this could be the article "electric bicycle" which is virtually the same thing (yet different) and has been merged to motorized bicycle. Furthermore, the article and any conflicts (or changes in Hz or etc... can be clearly explained as is the case with the article E (musical note). b.t.w.: I do humbly agree, and apologize in regards to the "in you face" manner of my previous statement regarding our qualifications. Our music degrees help us express in better terms what is happening... however, it really has nothing much to do with this subject, unless we want to pull out our old course notes and start using them as references. (Which in most cases, like an interview with someone (unless published), would probably not meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion). Sorry. p.s.: I do understand what you mean about F-sharp and Fa does not equal Fa... however I believe this is an interesting minority POV (which should be included in one merged article. I guess that's where we disagree, for now anyways! --CyclePat (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted, if it hasn't already, that while F-flat and E are the same in Equal Temperament, I think they are slightly different in Meantone temperament. Sean MD80 talk 04:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:We could also note Musical acoustics... which could be a top category... (asside: It would be interesting to see in a diagram how some subjects on Wiki forck out from their Common denominator! What is the common denominator in our case?) --CyclePat (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as all musical notes are per se notable. Well-sourced and likely to be researched by students. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: (humorously) Sounds like a puny to me! notable notes! lol ;) My favourite note is Ré### or Mi# sometimes called Fa or Gbb or sol double bémol... Sometimes I like to modulate a piece and with the dominent of the dominent and so on! But no mater how you right it... whether it's in the treble clef and or the the clée d'Ut or some gregorian notation, or 1 octave lower, or 1 octave higher, at X hz or 2X hz, it's always going to have one thing in common...  it's always going to be an alteration of a given basic notation which is "C D E F G A B". Surelly notable... but surelly something... and I say this one last time... that can be merged to make one nice article instead of 300 thousands POV's. -CyclePat (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Merging would possibly be valid, but there's no legitimate reason whatsoever to delete.  Merging is a discussion for talk pages or, since you might be dealing with a wide range of pages, the WikiProject level, with appropriate notification at the pages being discussed.  Not a discussion for AFD at any rate. --JayHenry (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.