Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Notability guidelines: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 I guess the gist of all this is that now that we know why pages such as the Alpharabian interval pages are useful to readers, I think it suffices to say that I do approve of the majority of these notability guidelines.  I do think however, that we can include a few examples of what's notable and why in the guidelines themselves, so that people can spot more of the things that make pages notable, especially those that are notable in spite of other, potentially disqualifying factors. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+May I add that 297/256 is very useful as a small minor third or a large interseptimal major second/minor third, being 896/891 smaller than 7/6. This, along with 128/99 and 99/64, for example, can be used in a neomedieval European setting as substitutes for 7/6, 9/7, and 14/9, indeed closer to the likeliest interpretation, such as that of Jay Rahn, of Marcheto (or Marchettus or Marcheto) of Padua in 1318 than my septimal interpretation.
+I would need to write an article on proximality in 14th-century European style, but the tangible musical applicability of Aura’s paramajor and paraminor intervals should not be underestimated as a present reality, and thus their notability according to your excellent guidelines.
+[[User:Mschulter1325|Mschulter1325]] 00:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)