Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Things to do: Difference between revisions
Re: topics 1-5, move obsolete discussions to archive page |
ArrowHead294 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
MOSes of larger size such as meantone[12] would probably be used as gamuts to choose notes for melodic scales and choose notes for MODMOSes of smaller MOSes from. They could still have Scale Workshop links but given less focus on. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC) | MOSes of larger size such as meantone[12] would probably be used as gamuts to choose notes for melodic scales and choose notes for MODMOSes of smaller MOSes from. They could still have Scale Workshop links but given less focus on. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
===Plain-language writing=== | |||
I'm trying to understand and document the tools that already exist both to mark beginner articles for readers and steer beginners to them, and to tag articles that are in need of improved accessibility to beginners. So far I have these, but are there others? ... | |||
*Categories | Add category tags at the bottom of the page (must use "Edit source") after a blank line. | |||
**[[:Category:Stubs]] | |||
**[[:Category:Todo]] | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:expand|Todo:expand]] | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:explain its xenharmonic value|Todo:explain its xenharmonic value]] | As of 2023-Sep-07 the only articles with this tag are bios, but the [[:Category:Todo:explain_its_xenharmonic_value|category page itself]] describes other helpful usages. Examples: explain its value for ''composing xenharmonic music'', or for ''xenharmonic music theoretical analysis'' , which are of course closely related. | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:add_introduction|Todo:add introduction]] | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:intro|Todo:intro]] | Use [[:Category:Todo:add_introduction|Todo:add introduction]] instead, for more clarity. | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:improve synopsis|Todo:improve synopsis]] | This means "improve intro." | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:simplify|Todo:simplify]] | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:improve readability|Todo:improve readability]] | |||
***[[:Category:Todo:reduce_mathslang|Todo:reduce mathslang]] | |||
**[[:Category:Inaccessible pages|Category:Inaccessible pages]] | [[Template:Inaccessible]] is preferable. This flag is related to [[:Category:Todo:reduce_mathslang|Todo:reduce mathslang]]. | |||
**[[:Category:Beginner pages|Category:Beginner pages]] | [[Template:Beginner]] is preferable. | |||
**[[:Category:Expert pages|Category:Expert pages]] | [[Template:Expert]] is preferable. | |||
*Templates | In practice, these function like categories but also add a message box for readers to alert them. Add these at the top of the article (must use "Edit source"). | |||
**[[Template:Beginner]] | Adds an article to [[:Category:Beginner pages]] plus a message box that can point them to the corresponding Expert page. | |||
**[[Template:Expert]] | Adds an article to [[:Category:Expert pages]] plus a message box that can point them to the corresponding Beginner page. | |||
**[[Template:Inaccessible]] | Adds an article to [[:Category:Inaccessible pages]] and also adds a "math ahead" warning message box to the article's head. | |||
**[[Template:Wikipedia]] | Use <code><nowiki>{{Wikipedia}}</nowiki></code> when the article titles exactly match, else<code><nowiki>{{Wikipedia|page title on Wikipedia}}</nowiki></code> | |||
**[[Template:Stub]] | |||
I'm updating the above list when I get new suggestions. Once these are clarified and documented here, and maybe expanded or modified, this listing might be added to the corresponding section of the main "Things to do" page, since categorizing and tagging appropriately does fit that imperative. | |||
[[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 09:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Replies from discussion on the #wiki channel of the [[Links#Discord_server | Xen Discord server]]: | |||
: From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149297751482437743 Discord channel]... Fumica (41et) — 2023-Sep-07 at 6:58 AM. "There's no difference between category: todo: add introduction and category: todo: intro" [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149428486700814416 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 3:38 PM. "There are several older category names inherited from older versions of the wiki, before it was run with MediaWiki among other things, so that explains why some categories aren't always coherent. There's definitely a little cleanup to be done in this regard at some point." | |||
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149436649252597790 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07at 4:10 PM. "Btw, synopsis = introduction = lead section (I use "lead section" personally, as Wikipedia does)" | |||
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149437122340732929 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 4:12 PM. "I also lean towards single pages, the current issue is page protection enforced on some expert pages." | |||
Perhaps there needs to be a Todo for a specific problem I frequently encounter in the Xen Wiki, even for critical foundational terminology articles: The very first paragraph, even the very first line, is written with math-speak and it's not rare for it to include math theory beyond high-school/algebra level. I offer the article for [[Harmonic limit]] as an example: "In just intonation, the p-limit or p-prime-limit consists of the ratios of p-smooth numbers, where a p-smooth number is an integer with prime factors no larger than p." I don't think it's a horrible article. But 1) The first line refers to "p-smooth numbers" which is higher-math-speak (regardless of it being a link, I shouldn't need to know what number theory is) and the majority of people are math-phobic and will walk away right there; (2) The article is called "Harmonic limit" and there's no use of that term in the article or explanation of what's "harmonic" about the p-limit. | |||
I strongly suggest that all [[User:Mousemambo/Introduction_to_xenharmonic_music_terminology|foundational terminology articles]] should open with a plain-language introduction. I'd actually rather not have any advanced (post-algebra) math language even appear before a plain-language section is presented — one that will provide a beginner everything they need to have a strong basic understanding of the topic. I don't yet have a suggestion for what such a section should be called... "Basic summary" may sound a bit condescending, but I am unsure. I don't think that "Harmonic limit" needs a whole plain-language section. But perhaps a first line that gives a non-math summary/definition, then a paragraph of non-math explanation, and then finally a paragraph that opens with, "In mathematical terms, ...." [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
:After a few weeks of thinking about it, I've settled on the heading "Overview" to indicate the plain-language, non-technical introduction and summary of an article that is mostly technical and expert-level. The term is not condescending or disparaging, it's true and accurate, and it allows for subheadings. So... expert/technical/mathematical articles would start with a brief plain-language intro paragraph (newly added if it doesn't already exist), followed by a technical/mathematical/expert intro paragraph (usually an existing one), then a new "Overview" plain-language section (preceded by the automatically created table of contents). The original article would follow that. This seems to me like a good general strategy for modifying articles on my [[User:Mousemambo/Introduction_to_xenharmonic_music_terminology]] listing that need plain-language upgrades. [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 08:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
I am thinking out loud here to illustrate my perspective. I note that the plain-language text will probably (maybe ideally) duplicate or paraphrase some text from any corresponding Wikipedia article, e.g. Wikipedia:Limit (music). But I suggest that this level of explanation is going to frequently be necessary to provide basic introductions that don't frighten people off with immediate complexity. I feel that a limited amount of duplicating Wikipedia should not be discouraged within a plain-language section or summary. Especially because one of the functions of beginner terminology articles is to encourage understanding from a xenharmonic rather than a conventional musicology perspective, and the Xen Wiki analogous article can do that. | |||
[[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149435515821633586 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 4:06 PM. "I'm personally a fan of message boxes, because it combines categories and visibility for both readers and editors. Readers are warned of known issues on a page, while editors are reminded of work to do on a page. Here's what I would use instead of "todo:add plain-language": [[Template:Inaccessible]]" | |||
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149443429818966118 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 4:37 PM. "I think the lead section is one of the places where Wikipedia and the Xen Wiki can duplicate each other, especially if it fits adequately in both contexts. As you said earlier, some articles benefit from being adapted to the Xen Wiki's context." | |||
I will throw in here that I am compiling my personal thoughts about writing accessible Xen wiki articles into an [[User:Mousemambo/Workbench#Elements_of_good_Xenharmonic_Wiki_article_writing | Elements of good Xenharmonic Wiki article writing]] section of my workbench page. [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 19:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
=== Reorganize temperament pages === | === Reorganize temperament pages === | ||
| Line 265: | Line 315: | ||
To use this to find a reasonably objective measurement of what subgroups are best, we can add a few logical restrictions on this rather general definition:<br/> | To use this to find a reasonably objective measurement of what subgroups are best, we can add a few logical restrictions on this rather general definition:<br/> | ||
* Consider the monzos of the harmonics in any S as r-dimensional vectors (AKA, interpreted as members of N^r), corresponding to the p_r-prime-limit with p_r the r'th prime, and with p_r not exceeding L. These vectors must be linearly independent, so as to not represent a "pathological" subgroup which can have multiple mappings for the same positive integer. | * Consider the monzos of the harmonics in any S as r-dimensional vectors (AKA, interpreted as members of N^r), corresponding to the p_r-prime-limit with p_r the r'th prime, and with p_r not exceeding L. These vectors must be linearly independent, so as to not represent a "pathological" subgroup which can have multiple mappings for the same positive integer. | ||
* Then, if we assume that all harmonics in the subgroup are harmonics we want to approximate, we can think about the logarithmic size of each harmonic as the amount of information it generates, because smaller harmonics generate more of the harmonic series, especially when combined with other small harmonics, hence leading to prime limits as the most efficient subgroup representations of the harmonic series, with "efficient" being defined as "generates the most harmonics considering the number of generators". This leads to about the most natural formulation I can currently think of which is relatively straightforward and (as a sanity check) which is used on the page for [[The Riemann | * Then, if we assume that all harmonics in the subgroup are harmonics we want to approximate, we can think about the logarithmic size of each harmonic as the amount of information it generates, because smaller harmonics generate more of the harmonic series, especially when combined with other small harmonics, hence leading to prime limits as the most efficient subgroup representations of the harmonic series, with "efficient" being defined as "generates the most harmonics considering the number of generators". This leads to about the most natural formulation I can currently think of which is relatively straightforward and (as a sanity check) which is used on the page for [[The Riemann zeta function and tuning]], which is weighting each generator by the reciprocal of the log of its size. To then make the definition invariant to the number of generators, you can make the weightings sum to 1 by multiplying by an appropriate scalar. | ||
* Then, to find the subgroups that nEDk best approximates relative to its step size, simply look at all choices for subsets of L where all harmonics are linearly independent and where the error is low enough to guarantee a good level of [[consistency]], and sort results by increasing errors. Note that this becomes very computationally intensive for large L, so L=30, L=42, L=58, L=96 and at most L=126 are all good restrictions, depending on what is computationally feasible in a reasonable amount of time.<br/>(The choices of L that I listed here are based on prime limits (specifically, record prime gaps, and 30 is 2*3*5 so its significant) with the exception of 58 which is based on the 53-prime-limit being the highest limit available on x31eq. Note that larger L can be used for small ETs if we restrict accuracy sufficiently or consider only lower-prime-limit subsets of L.) | * Then, to find the subgroups that nEDk best approximates relative to its step size, simply look at all choices for subsets of L where all harmonics are linearly independent and where the error is low enough to guarantee a good level of [[consistency]], and sort results by increasing errors. Note that this becomes very computationally intensive for large L, so L=30, L=42, L=58, L=96 and at most L=126 are all good restrictions, depending on what is computationally feasible in a reasonable amount of time.<br/>(The choices of L that I listed here are based on prime limits (specifically, record prime gaps, and 30 is 2*3*5 so its significant) with the exception of 58 which is based on the 53-prime-limit being the highest limit available on x31eq. Note that larger L can be used for small ETs if we restrict accuracy sufficiently or consider only lower-prime-limit subsets of L.) | ||
* As for making the search more computationally feasible, there is an easy way to eliminate possibilities, which is by adding harmonics in order of increasing error relative to the error of some starting harmonic until there are none left in L or none left that wouldn't introduce too much error. This provides an easy way to define "families of subgroup interpretations" by increasing error and through superset/subset relationships as well as compatibility relations, which could be an interesting direction to take this in of itself.<br/>(I wonder how related it'd be to [[Xenharmonic_Wiki_talk:Things_to_do#13-Limit, 17-Limit and 19-Limit Comma Pages|families of temperaments]]? Seems like it'd be strongly related, and better yet, suggest potential ways of organising relatively unknown temperaments.) | * As for making the search more computationally feasible, there is an easy way to eliminate possibilities, which is by adding harmonics in order of increasing error relative to the error of some starting harmonic until there are none left in L or none left that wouldn't introduce too much error. This provides an easy way to define "families of subgroup interpretations" by increasing error and through superset/subset relationships as well as compatibility relations, which could be an interesting direction to take this in of itself.<br/>(I wonder how related it'd be to [[Xenharmonic_Wiki_talk:Things_to_do#13-Limit, 17-Limit and 19-Limit Comma Pages|families of temperaments]]? Seems like it'd be strongly related, and better yet, suggest potential ways of organising relatively unknown temperaments.) | ||
A few notes on the mathematics: | A few notes on the mathematics: | ||
* I pick the variance over the standard deviation because squaring the error leads to a "least-squares" optimisation, which is then much more "compatible" with the tuning optimisations represented by the Riemann | * I pick the variance over the standard deviation because squaring the error leads to a "least-squares" optimisation, which is then much more "compatible" with the tuning optimisations represented by the Riemann zeta function. | ||
* We can take an alternative strategy to tuning a subgroup less focused on the regular temperament theory interpretation and more focused on what consonant chords and intervals are approximated that you want to use. In such a case, you pick ''any'' subset of X corresponding to ''any'' subset of L, which is to say that the r-dimensional vectors ''are not'' required (or even recommended) to be linearly independent. Then the subset of L represents a generalisation of [[odd limit]]s, where odd limits are specific to where your subset of L is only odd harmonics due to the discarding of 2's in the prime factorisations due to being specific to ED2s. This interpretation/use fits very nicely with the notion of [[Consistent#Consistency_to_distance_d|consistency to distance d]], with the standard deviation being an "expected overall consistency" which is less discrete/rigid. The only potential problem with this is it seems like a very large number of possibilities can result with different subsets being preferable for subjective reasons. | * We can take an alternative strategy to tuning a subgroup less focused on the regular temperament theory interpretation and more focused on what consonant chords and intervals are approximated that you want to use. In such a case, you pick ''any'' subset of X corresponding to ''any'' subset of L, which is to say that the r-dimensional vectors ''are not'' required (or even recommended) to be linearly independent. Then the subset of L represents a generalisation of [[odd limit]]s, where odd limits are specific to where your subset of L is only odd harmonics due to the discarding of 2's in the prime factorisations due to being specific to ED2s. This interpretation/use fits very nicely with the notion of [[Consistent#Consistency_to_distance_d|consistency to distance d]], with the standard deviation being an "expected overall consistency" which is less discrete/rigid. The only potential problem with this is it seems like a very large number of possibilities can result with different subsets being preferable for subjective reasons. | ||
--[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC) | --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| Line 297: | Line 347: | ||
:: Alright. It's not my intention to restrict creative work in any way. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | :: Alright. It's not my intention to restrict creative work in any way. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) | ||
== Too many short interval pages to fit in "todo:expand" or "stubs" == | |||
; The problem | |||
There are 303 pages in Category:Todo:expand, including 42 interval pages. | |||
There are 1,072 pages in Category:Stubs, including 61 interval pages. | |||
There are 1,043 pages in Category:Rational intervals. | |||
Currently, stub interval pages are being under-reported: using the "Threshold for stub link formatting" preference and setting it to a value that lines up with Category:Stubs, it flags about 90% of interval pages as a potential stub. That’d be about 900 pages. | |||
If we were to actually mark those as stubs or todo:expand as current convention suggests, it would completely overwhelm both todo categories and make it difficult to actually use them. | |||
I have three proposed solutions we could choose from. Which one does everyone prefer? Or do you have your own ones to suggest? | |||
; Solution A - stricter criteria | |||
We make the criteria for including interval pages in either category more strict than it would be for other types of pages: | |||
* For inclusion in "stubs", an interval page should have to be extremely barebones, only about one sentence of human text. | |||
* For inclusion in "todo:expand", an interval page should have to be highly notable (e.g. 6/5, 7/1, etc.) OR should have to show an obvious specific way it ought to be expanded (though in that case "todo:complete section" may often fit better). | |||
''If we go with this solution, I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and remove those categories from any pages that don't meet the above criteria.'' | |||
''Then I will to go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add “stub” or “todo:expand” to all pages which ''do'' meet the criteria (there likely aren’t many, given the strict criteria).'' | |||
''All edits will be marked as minor.'' | |||
; Solution B - new todo categories for interval pages | |||
We create the categories "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub". | |||
We continue categorising interval pages exactly the same way we do now, except using those two new categories on interval pages in place of "todo:expand" and "stub". | |||
''If we go with this solution, I will make category pages for "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub".'' | |||
''Then I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and move them to "todo:expand interval page" or "todo:interval stub".'' | |||
''Then I will go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub" to all pages which they apply to.'' | |||
''All edits will be marked as minor.'' | |||
; Solution C - new todo category for critical pages | |||
We create the category "todo:expand critical page" for any stub or todo:expand pages where the subject matter has especially broad relevance to multiple other concepts in xen, and it makes sense to focus on expanding those key pages first before all the other stuff. | |||
''If we go with this solution, I will make the category page for "todo:expand critical page".'' | |||
''Then I will go through all the pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and move any ones with broad xenharmonic relevance to "todo:expand critical page". I suspect there won't be many, maybe around 20. We can always add others later if I miss some.'' | |||
''All edits will be marked as minor.'' | |||
; Conclusion | |||
Of all of these, I prefer solution B. It seems like the least convoluted or clunky. I’m okay with any of the solutions though. But what do others think? | |||
I'll wait until January 1st, Sydney time, to take any action so there's time for everyone to discuss. | |||
(''If discussions are still ongoing as of Jan 1, I'll postpone any action until some consensus is reached.'') | |||
(''If no one has commented by Jan 1, I will ask on the talk pages of a couple more experienced editors and I’ll follow their advice.'') | |||
--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I have a preference for solution A. We can think of a few criteria to determine what's an important interval page, e.g. below some threshold for at least one metric, from a list of a few relevant metrics (we might want to discuss this on Discord and/or poll the community for their input). Otherwise, I wouldn't want to make it look like there's an urgent need to fill hundreds of pages with content without any obvious need from the community, and that is why I don't like solutions B and C as much. In general, stuff like stub and todo templates should be placed while taking into consideration the importance of the page, so it's expected that narrower topics have shorter pages, including very specific intervals with fewer applications; those can be expanded at any time, of course, but we don't necessarily need a flashing light pointing to them. By the way, thank you for offering to help with recategorizing the pages, this is a big amount of manual work and it is appreciated. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 06:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Thank you for the input, after reading your explanation I too am leaning towards solution A. I will wait to see what others say first, but if that’s also how others are feeling, then I’ll be happy to take that route. | |||
:: If we do end up going with Solution A, then on Jan 1, I will first of all just look through all the interval pages currently marked as stub or todo:expand, and see what types of groups they fall into. | |||
:: Then I will run a poll on which of those groups of interval pages are important to expand, and which ones are not. Then I will add or remove the categories to pages based on the criteria set by the poll results. | |||
:: Thank you again for your help :) And Happy Holidays as well :) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: … | |||
:: I am posting this update for a general audience rather than for Fredg999 specifically: While not strictly part of this same topic, I removed stub boxes from EDO pages bigger than 1000 for the same reasons that were discussed here: ("''In general, stuff like stub and todo templates should be placed while taking into consideration the importance of the page, so it's expected that narrower topics have shorter pages, including very specific intervals with fewer applications; those can be expanded at any time, of course, but we don't necessarily need a flashing light pointing to them''"). | |||
:: If it happens that any of the specific edo pages I removed stub from actually is important to a bunch of other pages, then of course anyone can feel free to add the stub box back to those specific ones. I just suspect that for more of them than not, they probably didn’t need the stub box, considering their step size is way way below the just noticeable difference and some were even marked as novelties. | |||
:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 19:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: … | |||
:: It is now Jan 1 Sydney time so I’m going ahead with Solution A, and with the survey. Please vote in the survey here: [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScFzn4u5FR-QXm4FYf1UOmIzcIj9AHV6NGFdzSvwvUYvcnMxw/viewform?usp=dialog ''Survey about interval pages in Todo:expand and Stubs'' - Google Forms]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: … | |||
:: I have concluded the survey now, and based on the results, come up with these guidelines: [[Xenharmonic Wiki:Optional guidelines for interval page todo categories]]. XW:IntTodo for short. (Survey results included in that page too.) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: … | |||
:: Over the past 24 hours, I have gone through all pages in Category:Rational intervals, and ensured they are all in the correct categories according to XW:IntTodo. For unclear edge cases, I just left them how they are and didn’t change them. It ended up being that by far most pages were already in the correct categories anyway, so I didn’t have to change very much. | |||
:: Since the guidelines are optional, no one really needs to think or worry about them moving forwards, they are just there if anyone wants them as an aid to guide decision making. They helped me though, I feel much more satisfied now, knowing that there’s at least a loose system behind what page goes where :) | |||
:: Thank you to everyone who helped in this process, especially Fredg999 for the earlier comment that set me on this path. | |||
:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||