Talk:CET - Revision history

Fredg999: Split new discussion (unrelated to acronym issue), reply

2025-08-06T16:01:09Z

Split new discussion (unrelated to acronym issue), reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 6 August 2025
Line 168:		Line 168:
	::::: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)		::::: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

	: I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 or 41ED8 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ED3/2 or 41ED8 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)		== Merge CET pages ==
			I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 or 41ED8 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ED3/2 or 41ED8 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

	:: By the logic of merging 88cet with 8edf or 41ed8, we would also need to merge Carlos Alpha with 9edf, Carlos Beta with 11edf, Carlos Gamma with 20edf, and BP with 13edt. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)		: By the logic of merging 88cet with 8edf or 41ed8, we would also need to merge Carlos Alpha with 9edf, Carlos Beta with 11edf, Carlos Gamma with 20edf, and BP with 13edt. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
			: I think we should be careful when applying systematic thinking to merging and splitting discussions. Some tunings may be notable enough to justify having their own pages despite their similarity with other tunings. At the moment, I think it's safer to start with merging less commonly used tunings. Similar tunings should be mentioned on each page's lead section when they're not merged, and it's already the case most of the time. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 16:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

FloraC: Update & re

2025-08-06T11:31:32Z

Update & re

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:31, 6 August 2025
Line 156:		Line 156:

	::::: That could be proof that ''CET'' ''was'' the most commonly used term. However, the ''AS''/''APS'' series of terms was only brought to the table in 2021, with several ppl involved, and this terminology discussion started in 2023, adding another lot of context. The point is your citations aren't indicative of what ppl choose today, for which my suggestion is to start a poll in the server (I might as well do that right now). [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)		::::: That could be proof that ''CET'' ''was'' the most commonly used term. However, the ''AS''/''APS'' series of terms was only brought to the table in 2021, with several ppl involved, and this terminology discussion started in 2023, adding another lot of context. The point is your citations aren't indicative of what ppl choose today, for which my suggestion is to start a poll in the server (I might as well do that right now). [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

			::::: Poll result:

			:::::* 88cet: 10
			:::::* APS88c: 2
			:::::* 1ed88c: 2
			:::::* 150ed2048: 1

			::::: I respect this and acknowledge the commonness argument is indeed sound.

			::::: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

	: I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 or 41ED8 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ED3/2 or 41ED8 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)		: I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 or 41ED8 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ED3/2 or 41ED8 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

			:: By the logic of merging 88cet with 8edf or 41ed8, we would also need to merge Carlos Alpha with 9edf, Carlos Beta with 11edf, Carlos Gamma with 20edf, and BP with 13edt. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Hkm at 18:29, 5 August 2025

2025-08-05T18:29:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 5 August 2025
Line 157:		Line 157:
	::::: That could be proof that ''CET'' ''was'' the most commonly used term. However, the ''AS''/''APS'' series of terms was only brought to the table in 2021, with several ppl involved, and this terminology discussion started in 2023, adding another lot of context. The point is your citations aren't indicative of what ppl choose today, for which my suggestion is to start a poll in the server (I might as well do that right now). [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)		::::: That could be proof that ''CET'' ''was'' the most commonly used term. However, the ''AS''/''APS'' series of terms was only brought to the table in 2021, with several ppl involved, and this terminology discussion started in 2023, adding another lot of context. The point is your citations aren't indicative of what ppl choose today, for which my suggestion is to start a poll in the server (I might as well do that right now). [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

	: I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 anyway, so I think calling the page ~~8ed3~~/2 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)		: I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 or 41ED8 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ED3/2 or 41ED8 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hkm: /* Concern about acronym */

2025-08-05T18:17:22Z

Concern about acronym

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:17, 5 August 2025
Line 156:		Line 156:

	::::: That could be proof that ''CET'' ''was'' the most commonly used term. However, the ''AS''/''APS'' series of terms was only brought to the table in 2021, with several ppl involved, and this terminology discussion started in 2023, adding another lot of context. The point is your citations aren't indicative of what ppl choose today, for which my suggestion is to start a poll in the server (I might as well do that right now). [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)		::::: That could be proof that ''CET'' ''was'' the most commonly used term. However, the ''AS''/''APS'' series of terms was only brought to the table in 2021, with several ppl involved, and this terminology discussion started in 2023, adding another lot of context. The point is your citations aren't indicative of what ppl choose today, for which my suggestion is to start a poll in the server (I might as well do that right now). [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

			: I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ed3/2 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2025-08-05T12:03:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:03, 5 August 2025
Line 154:		Line 154:

	:::: Please look outside of the Xen Wiki if you're going to make that sort of argument. I can find several sources using cET terminology (mostly about 88cET), but the only search results I get for 1ed88c are hex color codes. People like [http://tonalsoft.com/enc/number/88-cet.aspx Joseph Monzo], [https://www.r-5.org/files/books/rx-music/tuning/William_A_Sethares-Tuning_Timbre_Spectrum_Scale-EN.pdf William Sethares], [http://www.nonoctave.com/tuning/glossary.html X. J. Scott], Gary Morrison (of course), etc., used that term way before the three composers you mentioned above. Isn't that proof already that CET ''is'' the most commonly used term? Some sources only mention 88cET specifically, but others clearly identify a general notation for CETs. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 20:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)		:::: Please look outside of the Xen Wiki if you're going to make that sort of argument. I can find several sources using cET terminology (mostly about 88cET), but the only search results I get for 1ed88c are hex color codes. People like [http://tonalsoft.com/enc/number/88-cet.aspx Joseph Monzo], [https://www.r-5.org/files/books/rx-music/tuning/William_A_Sethares-Tuning_Timbre_Spectrum_Scale-EN.pdf William Sethares], [http://www.nonoctave.com/tuning/glossary.html X. J. Scott], Gary Morrison (of course), etc., used that term way before the three composers you mentioned above. Isn't that proof already that CET ''is'' the most commonly used term? Some sources only mention 88cET specifically, but others clearly identify a general notation for CETs. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 20:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

			::::: That could be proof that ''CET'' ''was'' the most commonly used term. However, the ''AS''/''APS'' series of terms was only brought to the table in 2021, with several ppl involved, and this terminology discussion started in 2023, adding another lot of context. The point is your citations aren't indicative of what ppl choose today, for which my suggestion is to start a poll in the server (I might as well do that right now). [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 12:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Fredg999: /* Concern about acronym */ Re

2025-08-04T20:17:24Z

Concern about acronym: Re

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 4 August 2025
Line 152:		Line 152:

	::: The only works I see come from Carlo Serafini, Chris Vaisvil, and Mundoworld. Among those, Mundoworld's two pieces were released in 2021 and 24, which are perhaps the most relevant. The rest I'm not so sure of since they came out so early that this naming question couldn't have been brought to them. So that's the three composers, which imo is hardly indicative of anything. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)		::: The only works I see come from Carlo Serafini, Chris Vaisvil, and Mundoworld. Among those, Mundoworld's two pieces were released in 2021 and 24, which are perhaps the most relevant. The rest I'm not so sure of since they came out so early that this naming question couldn't have been brought to them. So that's the three composers, which imo is hardly indicative of anything. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

			:::: Please look outside of the Xen Wiki if you're going to make that sort of argument. I can find several sources using cET terminology (mostly about 88cET), but the only search results I get for 1ed88c are hex color codes. People like [http://tonalsoft.com/enc/number/88-cet.aspx Joseph Monzo], [https://www.r-5.org/files/books/rx-music/tuning/William_A_Sethares-Tuning_Timbre_Spectrum_Scale-EN.pdf William Sethares], [http://www.nonoctave.com/tuning/glossary.html X. J. Scott], Gary Morrison (of course), etc., used that term way before the three composers you mentioned above. Isn't that proof already that CET ''is'' the most commonly used term? Some sources only mention 88cET specifically, but others clearly identify a general notation for CETs. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 20:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2025-08-03T13:09:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:09, 3 August 2025
Line 150:		Line 150:

	:: I don't think I've ever seen anyone use 1ed88c to describe the tuning of their music on any online platform or elsewhere. Have a look at the music sections of these equal cent tunings and try to convince me that the two forms are equally likely. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)		:: I don't think I've ever seen anyone use 1ed88c to describe the tuning of their music on any online platform or elsewhere. Have a look at the music sections of these equal cent tunings and try to convince me that the two forms are equally likely. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

			::: The only works I see come from Carlo Serafini, Chris Vaisvil, and Mundoworld. Among those, Mundoworld's two pieces were released in 2021 and 24, which are perhaps the most relevant. The rest I'm not so sure of since they came out so early that this naming question couldn't have been brought to them. So that's the three composers, which imo is hardly indicative of anything. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Fredg999: /* Concern about acronym */Re

2025-08-03T12:13:43Z

Concern about acronym: Re

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:13, 3 August 2025
Line 148:		Line 148:

	: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)		: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

			:: I don't think I've ever seen anyone use 1ed88c to describe the tuning of their music on any online platform or elsewhere. Have a look at the music sections of these equal cent tunings and try to convince me that the two forms are equally likely. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

FloraC at 10:09, 3 August 2025

2025-08-03T10:09:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:09, 3 August 2025
Line 145:		Line 145:
	: Personally, I don't take issue with the likelihood of confusion between ''CET'' and ''TET'', tho I can't speak for Douglas, who brought that up. My problem with using ''CET'' and ''TET'' is in their semantic inconsistency.		: Personally, I don't take issue with the likelihood of confusion between ''CET'' and ''TET'', tho I can't speak for Douglas, who brought that up. My problem with using ''CET'' and ''TET'' is in their semantic inconsistency.

	: So far I can't see any of the names being more common than the others. It's plausible that ppl are more likely to search ''88cet'' than ''1ed88c'' in the searchbox, for the reasons outlined, but that is no replacement for real data, for which we should prolly get more ppl involved, start a poll in the server, etc. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)		: So far I can't see any of the names being more common than the others. It's plausible that ppl are more likely to search ''88cet'' than ''1ed88c'' in the searchbox, for the reasons outlined, but that is no replacement for real data, for which we should prolly get more ppl involved, start a poll in the server, etc.

			: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2025-08-03T10:08:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:08, 3 August 2025
Line 140:		Line 140:

	Morrison and Sethares talked about "88-cent equal temperament". It was quickly abbreviated to "88cET" (variously with or without a hyphen, and with various capitalizations too). Several musicians adopted these terms. And so this is why I re-added "88cET" to the lead section of the corresponding page tonight, and similarly for a few others too. I am however waiting a bit before I rename the pages back to their previous "cET" form, because I don't want to act unilaterally, the same way I believe the change to "1ed" form could be perceived as unilateral, from the perspective of 3 people vs. the community. Wikis work based on a consensus, and obviously since you had a consensus of 3 people last time you discussed it, you proceeded, and I can't contest that. But I am going against the consensus now, and I hope we can reach a decision which makes the wiki more intuitive to navigate and read for a majority of users, not just a few math nerds already deep down the xen rabbit hole. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 06:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)		Morrison and Sethares talked about "88-cent equal temperament". It was quickly abbreviated to "88cET" (variously with or without a hyphen, and with various capitalizations too). Several musicians adopted these terms. And so this is why I re-added "88cET" to the lead section of the corresponding page tonight, and similarly for a few others too. I am however waiting a bit before I rename the pages back to their previous "cET" form, because I don't want to act unilaterally, the same way I believe the change to "1ed" form could be perceived as unilateral, from the perspective of 3 people vs. the community. Wikis work based on a consensus, and obviously since you had a consensus of 3 people last time you discussed it, you proceeded, and I can't contest that. But I am going against the consensus now, and I hope we can reach a decision which makes the wiki more intuitive to navigate and read for a majority of users, not just a few math nerds already deep down the xen rabbit hole. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 06:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

			: Okay, I don't consider the ambiguity of ''ET'' a major issue. But I insist we should stick to ''equal-step tuning'' as the main name if we were to revert to that state.

			: Personally, I don't take issue with the likelihood of confusion between ''CET'' and ''TET'', tho I can't speak for Douglas, who brought that up. My problem with using ''CET'' and ''TET'' is in their semantic inconsistency.

			: So far I can't see any of the names being more common than the others. It's plausible that ppl are more likely to search ''88cet'' than ''1ed88c'' in the searchbox, for the reasons outlined, but that is no replacement for real data, for which we should prolly get more ppl involved, start a poll in the server, etc. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 6 August 2025
Line 168:		Line 168:
	::::: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)		::::: [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

	: I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 or 41ED8 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ED3/2 or 41ED8 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)		== Merge CET pages ==
			I believe we should document related (stretched or compressed) tunings under the same article as we are doing with most edo pages. Also, the degree of precision in 88cET, for example, is arbitrary--why 88cET rather than 87.9 or 88.1--and the degree of precision cannot be consistent across similar articles, as precision up to the cent is too precise at very large step sizes and too imprecise at small ones. It is also more likely that the tuning is conceptualized as 8ED~3/2 or 41ED8 anyway, so I think calling the page 8ED3/2 or 41ED8 is superior to 88cET. More generally, I don't think the page title of any equal tuning should be XcET or APSXc. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 18:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

	:: By the logic of merging 88cet with 8edf or 41ed8, we would also need to merge Carlos Alpha with 9edf, Carlos Beta with 11edf, Carlos Gamma with 20edf, and BP with 13edt. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)		: By the logic of merging 88cet with 8edf or 41ed8, we would also need to merge Carlos Alpha with 9edf, Carlos Beta with 11edf, Carlos Gamma with 20edf, and BP with 13edt. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
			: I think we should be careful when applying systematic thinking to merging and splitting discussions. Some tunings may be notable enough to justify having their own pages despite their similarity with other tunings. At the moment, I think it's safer to start with merging less commonly used tunings. Similar tunings should be mentioned on each page's lead section when they're not merged, and it's already the case most of the time. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 16:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)