Talk:Octave reduction - Revision history

Fredg999 at 17:09, 18 July 2021

2021-07-18T17:09:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 18 July 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:

	::: This is great news! I also don't have anything against reorganizing stuff. As long as we provide an easy way to approach concepts. In this special case, octave reduction will be quite understandable, because of the very broad acceptance of the ''octave equivalence'' concept (in western music). Good luck for further reorganization! --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		::: This is great news! I also don't have anything against reorganizing stuff. As long as we provide an easy way to approach concepts. In this special case, octave reduction will be quite understandable, because of the very broad acceptance of the ''octave equivalence'' concept (in western music). Good luck for further reorganization! --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

			:::: I reorganized the page as discussed and added the other elements that I had in mind. If there is anything else to mention, please let me know. [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Introduction */ re

2021-07-18T13:10:26Z

Introduction: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 18 July 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	: Second this. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		: Second this. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		:: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

			::: This is great news! I also don't have anything against reorganizing stuff. As long as we provide an easy way to approach concepts. In this special case, octave reduction will be quite understandable, because of the very broad acceptance of the ''octave equivalence'' concept (in western music). Good luck for further reorganization! --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Fredg999 at 12:30, 18 July 2021

2021-07-18T12:30:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 18 July 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	: Second this. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		: Second this. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

			: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

FloraC: /* Introduction */ +1

2021-07-18T11:58:33Z

Introduction: +1

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, 18 July 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==

	I don't think that it's a good idea to start from the ''generalized perspective''. I'm especially confused by the fact that [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Octave_reduction&type=revision&diff=74592&oldid=74275 the change] was done by Fredg999. @Fredg999, , as a teacher, you should know that if you introduce a topic in this way, you risk losing the attention of half the students already at the beginning. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		I don't think that it's a good idea to start from the ''generalized perspective''. I'm especially confused by the fact that [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Octave_reduction&type=revision&diff=74592&oldid=74275 the change] was done by Fredg999. @Fredg999, as a teacher, you should know that if you introduce a topic in this way, you risk losing the attention of half the students already at the beginning. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

			: Second this. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Introduction */ reword

2021-07-18T11:29:04Z

Introduction: reword

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:29, 18 July 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==

	I don't think to start ~~with a~~ generalized ~~view~~. I'm especially confused by the [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Octave_reduction&type=revision&diff=74592&oldid=74275 change done by Fredg999]. @Fredg999, as a teacher, you should know that ~~by starting~~ this way, you~~'ll~~ losing half ~~of your~~ students. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		I don't think that it's a good idea to start from the ''generalized perspective''. I'm especially confused by the fact that [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Octave_reduction&type=revision&diff=74592&oldid=74275 the change] was done by Fredg999. @Fredg999, , as a teacher, you should know that if you introduce a topic in this way, you risk losing the attention of half the students already at the beginning. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: (put merge issue in its own section)

2021-07-18T11:03:47Z

(put merge issue in its own section)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:03, 18 July 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	* should merge this page with [[Octave-reduce]] -- [[User:Spt3125\|Spt3125]] ([[User talk:Spt3125\|talk]]) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)		== Merge ==

			Should merge this page with [[Octave-reduce]] -- [[User:Spt3125\|Spt3125]] ([[User talk:Spt3125\|talk]]) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

			: Done meanwhile. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	== Introduction ==		== Introduction ==

	I don't think to start with a generalized view. I'm especially confused by the [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Octave_reduction&type=revision&diff=74592&oldid=74275 change done by Fredg999]. @Fredg999, as a teacher, you should know that by starting this way, you'll losing half of your students. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		I don't think to start with a generalized view. I'm especially confused by the [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Octave_reduction&type=revision&diff=74592&oldid=74275 change done by Fredg999]. @Fredg999, as a teacher, you should know that by starting this way, you'll losing half of your students. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Introduction */ new section

2021-07-18T11:02:21Z

Introduction: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:02, 18 July 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	* should merge this page with [[Octave-reduce]] -- [[User:Spt3125\|Spt3125]] ([[User talk:Spt3125\|talk]]) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)		* should merge this page with [[Octave-reduce]] -- [[User:Spt3125\|Spt3125]] ([[User talk:Spt3125\|talk]]) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

			== Introduction ==

			I don't think to start with a generalized view. I'm especially confused by the [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Octave_reduction&type=revision&diff=74592&oldid=74275 change done by Fredg999]. @Fredg999, as a teacher, you should know that by starting this way, you'll losing half of your students. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Spt3125: Created page with "* should merge this page with Octave-reduce -- ~~~~"

2018-12-08T19:09:29Z

Created page with "* should merge this page with Octave-reduce -- ~~~~"

New page

* should merge this page with [[Octave-reduce]] -- [[User:Spt3125|Spt3125]] ([[User talk:Spt3125|talk]]) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 18 July 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	: Second this. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		: Second this. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

	: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)		:: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

			::: This is great news! I also don't have anything against reorganizing stuff. As long as we provide an easy way to approach concepts. In this special case, octave reduction will be quite understandable, because of the very broad acceptance of the ''octave equivalence'' concept (in western music). Good luck for further reorganization! --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)