Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 21

July 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2008

F♭ (musical note) --> E (musical note)
The result of the debate was keep. Wizardman 05:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article talks nothing about F flat. Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Technically, that is an alternate name for E natural in the diatonic scale.  It is an unusual notation, in my experience most often used as an inside joke among musicians - though it is occasionally used for consistency when talking about minor scales like A-flat minor.  The fact that it's not mentioned in the target article is a reason to expand that article, not to delete the redirect.  Rossami (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In some contexts, E is called F-flat, and in other contexts F is called E-sharp to simplify key signatures. The two are one and the same, and deleting the redirect would create a void. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * B♯ (musical note) and E♯ (musical note) should be created. --- RockMFR 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur with above arguments in favor of it. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, mostly per Blanchardb. E is sometimes referred to as F-flat. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, by agreement with others above, but surely it would make much more sense if it was either a brief article explaining that it's almost the same thing, and why it exists, or if the page to which it redirected did so. To avoid clutter, I suspect the former (article not redirect) would be better or else we'd have to explain lots of double flats and sharps too on every note page. But I don't think it helps people, if they already do not understand musical grammar, to simply redirect them, without explanation, from F-flat to E. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (PS C-flat seems to have got left out of this brief debate ... poor C-flat! (Surely this area must have been debated already elsewhere???)
 * Keep CHANGE! Undoubtedly, there are many musicians amongst us here that know the inside joke of F flat as being E. Yes it is the semi-tone lower from F.  I don’t think this warrants its own article, so the redirect should remain…  I think I’ll try and find some WP:RS regarding this and add an entry into the E article.  I think the can be snowball closed.  --Pmedema (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)  Total mistake... there is already an article out there for F flat.  The redirect should go to F-flat major.--Pmedema (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that that's a key, not a note. The trouble with this is it's a bit of a can of worms, which is why I wondered if there isn't a WikiProject Enharmonic Changes or whatever that tries to sort this area out. And it's not quite right to suggest that say C-flat and B are always the same note - the F-flat major article makes this very point - it's to do with how you got there, and I think that in saying (or implying by a redirect) that it is the same is misleading. So in that sense I think the key article is better than the redirect, or nothing, but in the broader sense I worry that it's a policy issue which needs hammering out for the whole area. And not by me! Headache time. :( DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep except as suggested, something should be said about Fb in the article on E. I tried to add something, but got myself all mixed up since it's been too long since I did any actual music theory.  Fb could be used if, say, you are in Bb minor and the chord calls for a diminished fifth, for example, right?  Anybody got any WP:RS on this? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)