Instead, Move to Repetitive guitar-tunings. The category page is a pseudoarticle. It has a talk page that suits the article talk page. Listify the category listing into this article. This is not to say that the article is an appropriate article. It may be. Or it may belong merged into Guitar tunings or Regular tuning.
I am unsure as to whether the category should stay in addition to the new article. It looks to belong in the current structure of Category:Guitar tunings, alongside Category:Regular guitar-tunings. Possibly, the three subpages (3rd being Category:Open tunings) should be upmerged as too small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi SmokeyJoe!
- You suggested creating an article from the categorical explanation, but you mention caveats against creating such an article. Would you clarify your position, please?
- There are six open tunings listed in guitar tunings, but a couple don't have stand-alone articles. Open tunings are very important, e.g. for slide guitar, and so they are highlighted in Sethares's guidebook. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend creating the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I started an article, which is referenced.
- I classified it as C class, but it may be start class. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the new article has been questioned as WP:OR, specifically WP:Synthesis, and the DYK nomination is on hold. :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not surprising. WP:OR and SYNTH are overstatements, it's really a question of independent notability, WP:N. It may be merged. If merged, then this category should be upmerged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, these issues are delicate, and the concerns were fairly stated. I hesitated to write the article because a good article for readers would require abstracting the discussions of repetitive tuning (with author A comparing tunings 1, 2, 3 and author B comparing tunings 1, 3, 4, and author C comparing tunings 4, 5, 6, for example). At DYK, the reviewer reconsidered. However, others are welcome to join the discussion and discuss WP:Synthesis. (The reviewer seemed to be familiar with categorical discussions, so I did not note the notice here at DYK or the talk page.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was briefly tagged with the possible-neologism template, but has been removed by another editor. Others are welcome to discuss that issue also! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]