Talk:318edo - Revision history

Aura at 17:21, 7 January 2021

2021-01-07T17:21:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 7 January 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:::: I fear you completely misunderstand my point. I'm guessing you weren't too enthusiastic about text problems in math class either? So why do you choose the text form to represent commas (these are in the end also a collection of mathematical facts)? Maybe a list or table would do a better job here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		:::: I fear you completely misunderstand my point. I'm guessing you weren't too enthusiastic about text problems in math class either? So why do you choose the text form to represent commas (these are in the end also a collection of mathematical facts)? Maybe a list or table would do a better job here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::: It's easier for me to identify commas by their names in many cases- particularly with more complex commas. The trouble I had was in finding the commas on this wiki's lists that are tempered out. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: It's easier for me to identify commas by their names in many cases- particularly with more complex commas. The trouble I had was in finding the commas on this wiki's lists that are tempered out. Regardless, I do agree that we need comma tables. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

	== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==		== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==

Aura at 17:19, 7 January 2021

2021-01-07T17:19:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 7 January 2021
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

	: This whole issue tells me one of the reasons that comma tables are needed. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		: This whole issue tells me one of the reasons that comma tables like the one for [[72edo]] are needed. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Aura at 17:19, 7 January 2021

2021-01-07T17:19:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 7 January 2021
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==		== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==
	Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			: This whole issue tells me one of the reasons that comma tables are needed. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Aura at 17:18, 7 January 2021

2021-01-07T17:18:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 7 January 2021
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:::: I fear you completely misunderstand my point. I'm guessing you weren't too enthusiastic about text problems in math class either? So why do you choose the text form to represent commas (these are in the end also a collection of mathematical facts)? Maybe a list or table would do a better job here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		:::: I fear you completely misunderstand my point. I'm guessing you weren't too enthusiastic about text problems in math class either? So why do you choose the text form to represent commas (these are in the end also a collection of mathematical facts)? Maybe a list or table would do a better job here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			::::: It's easier for me to identify commas by their names in many cases- particularly with more complex commas. The trouble I had was in finding the commas on this wiki's lists that are tempered out. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

	== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==		== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==
	Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Readability */ re

2021-01-07T17:15:19Z

Readability: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 7 January 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	::: Unfortunately, I didn't have as many resources for figuring out what commas this EDO tempered out. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 16:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		::: Unfortunately, I didn't have as many resources for figuring out what commas this EDO tempered out. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 16:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			:::: I fear you completely misunderstand my point. I'm guessing you weren't too enthusiastic about text problems in math class either? So why do you choose the text form to represent commas (these are in the end also a collection of mathematical facts)? Maybe a list or table would do a better job here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

	== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==		== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==
	Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

FloraC: Name (ratio) vs ratio (name)

2021-01-07T16:42:32Z

Name (ratio) vs ratio (name)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 7 January 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	::: Unfortunately, I didn't have as many resources for figuring out what commas this EDO tempered out. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 16:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		::: Unfortunately, I didn't have as many resources for figuring out what commas this EDO tempered out. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 16:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			== Name (ratio) vs ratio (name) ==
			Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Aura at 16:12, 7 January 2021

2021-01-07T16:12:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 7 January 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:: I started [[:Category:Todo:improve readability]] for cases like this. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		:: I started [[:Category:Todo:improve readability]] for cases like this. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			::: Unfortunately, I didn't have as many resources for figuring out what commas this EDO tempered out. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 16:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Readability */ new todo cat for this

2021-01-07T11:17:43Z

Readability: new todo cat for this

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:17, 7 January 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:: Yes, a lot of work on old pages, but we should especially have an eye on newly created pages. Of course, when we now edit old pages (especially for minor fixes) we have to be careful what we leave behind. People tend to get used to things that they see as accepted by others, especially by experienced users. Take [[206edo]] for an example, it's better now but still not good, we should add it in some [[:Category:Todo\|todo category]], but I don't find the right one (rework seems to much, review to little). To get back to this article, I think that enumerations of technical facts should be made obvious as such. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		:: Yes, a lot of work on old pages, but we should especially have an eye on newly created pages. Of course, when we now edit old pages (especially for minor fixes) we have to be careful what we leave behind. People tend to get used to things that they see as accepted by others, especially by experienced users. Take [[206edo]] for an example, it's better now but still not good, we should add it in some [[:Category:Todo\|todo category]], but I don't find the right one (rework seems to much, review to little). To get back to this article, I think that enumerations of technical facts should be made obvious as such. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			:: I started [[:Category:Todo:improve readability]] for cases like this. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Readability */ typo

2021-01-07T11:09:18Z

Readability: typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:09, 7 January 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:
	: I'm afraid a lot of other mega-edo pages are written this way, too. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		: I'm afraid a lot of other mega-edo pages are written this way, too. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

	:: Yes, a lot of work on old pages, but we should especially have an eye on newly created pages. Of course, when we now edit old pages (especially for minor fixes) we have to be careful what we leave behind. People tend to get used to things that they see as accepted by others, especially by experienced users. Take [[206edo]] for an example, it's better now but still not good, we should a it in some [[:Category:Todo\|todo category]], but I don't find the right one (rework seems to much, review to little). To get back to this article, I think that enumerations of technical facts should be made obvious as such. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		:: Yes, a lot of work on old pages, but we should especially have an eye on newly created pages. Of course, when we now edit old pages (especially for minor fixes) we have to be careful what we leave behind. People tend to get used to things that they see as accepted by others, especially by experienced users. Take [[206edo]] for an example, it's better now but still not good, we should add it in some [[:Category:Todo\|todo category]], but I don't find the right one (rework seems to much, review to little). To get back to this article, I think that enumerations of technical facts should be made obvious as such. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Readability */ re

2021-01-07T11:08:27Z

Readability: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:08, 7 January 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:

	: I'm afraid a lot of other mega-edo pages are written this way, too. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		: I'm afraid a lot of other mega-edo pages are written this way, too. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			:: Yes, a lot of work on old pages, but we should especially have an eye on newly created pages. Of course, when we now edit old pages (especially for minor fixes) we have to be careful what we leave behind. People tend to get used to things that they see as accepted by others, especially by experienced users. Take [[206edo]] for an example, it's better now but still not good, we should a it in some [[:Category:Todo\|todo category]], but I don't find the right one (rework seems to much, review to little). To get back to this article, I think that enumerations of technical facts should be made obvious as such. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)