Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Conventions: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{High priority}}
 == [[List model]] ==
@@ Line 41: / Line 43: @@
 When do we use this instead of making a regular page? [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 19:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 : It's for meta stuff that is not in the Help namespace. Pages that describe the project, pages that are not itself about microtonal or xenharmonic topics. Sometimes it's hard to decide if something is help-only or not. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 19:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
+== Should there be a convention for indicating original research ==
+As far as I know, Xenharmonic Wiki is a place for original research and subjective opinion; though it still seems important to say who the author is, so that people looking through the article know it's subjective/original. In this case. It seems  like it might interrupt the flow of the article or seem irrelevant if one always includes "(my name) thinks that XYZ might be good as ABC tuning".
+It might be sufficient that in a wiki, anybody can contribute, so if someone thinks some original research is wrong, xe can fix it; however, I worry that preexisting information is less likely to be challenged because usually there is indeed a good reason for why it's there are already; and there's still no sense of a consensus, i.e. if 500 people agree with a bit of OR and 1 person thinks it's questionable, that one person can't tell if xe should defer to the 500 people's views or if xe should change it in case someone agrees with him. I guess that's what the talk page would be for.[[User:Awelotta|Awelotta]] ([[User talk:Awelotta|talk]]) 16:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
+: For what it's worth, my rule of thumb regarding my own original research has been to assume that others have likely made similar observations from their own investigations and experimentation.  If it turns out that I'm really the one who discovered something, or that I actually invented a concept that wasn't around before, then by all means credit me for it's invention, but make sure to dig around looking to see if someone else invented the same concept independently before giving me sole credit. I don't know how useful this idea is, but I figure it doesn't hurt to try and play it on the safe side. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
+== EDO vs. edo (and MOS vs. mos) ==
+I've been discussing with some people on XA Discord about the use of EDO/edo/TET/ET/etc. on the Wiki. While it seems relevant to include the main variants in page intros, especially on popular pages like [[19-EDO]], I believe that a convention should be chosen for consistent usage across the Wiki. In that regard, "edo" appeared to be the best choice. While "EDO" is indeed quite common, "edo" has gained a lot of traction in the community over the past years, not only in naming tunings like 19edo, but also in creating new terminology, like edostep and edomapping. Choosing "edo" over "EDO" would be a case of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacronym anacronym], like laser and radar.
+Since I am working on improving the page [[EDO]] and eventually other related pages, I'd like to know if that convention is reasonable. The reason I ask is because I noticed some recent changes on the wiki, notably setting [[19edo]] as a redirection to [[19-EDO]] with an edit sumamry mentioning arguments in favour of "EDO" over "edo". I am aware that this is an old debate, but I think choosing the most common spelling is the right direction. At the end of the day, the objective is only to have a consistent spelling on the Wiki, and after that anyone can use the spelling of their choice.
+Similarly, I would suggest "mos" instead of "MOS" for common usage on the Wiki, while preserving the main variants in strategic places like page intros. The page [[TAMNAMS]] is an example of a case where "mos" is used both as a standalone word and within new terms like mosstep. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
+: Here is a short extract of arguments (I already sent it to FloraC via PM) that may add to the discussion:<syntaxhighlight lang="text">
+* the XenWiki is open to the public so it should be maximally readable
+* some people prefer 123EDO which obfuscates the number boundary
+* in 12345edo the number is also much harder to read than in 12345-EDO
+* the 123 EDO convention leads to lots of confusing line breaks
+* 123edo is easier to type, maybe only this caused the old convention
+* 123abe, the val notation, is optical close to it, bad for skimming
+Yes, changing a convention causes a lot of work. But why should the old
+convention stay, is it really that helpful?
+Yes, the 123-EDO rule will complicate typing: you need the shift key.
+But isn't easy-to-read text always hard to write?</syntaxhighlight>
+: Now I think we should not forget about the format <code>"%d-edo"</code> (''number''+''hyphen''+''edo'') which I could also live with and which I'd prefer to the current convention <code>"%dedo"</code> (''number''+''edo''). The reason why I like the hyphenated version(s) is that the parts can be distinguished easily and line breaks in the middle don't look too bad (in comparison to <code>"%d edo"</code> or <code>"%d EDO"</code>). On the ''EDO'' page itself (section [[EDO #Adding EDOs]]), we have ''n-edo MOS'' and ''m-edo MOS'' which reads much easier than ''nedo MOS'' and ''medo MOS''. I think a writing convention should benefit the reader first and the writer second. In any case, this should apply to texts intended for publication: they are aimed at as many readers as possible, and thus the writing effort is well spent. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 16:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
+:: Those are interesting points indeed. I agree with you that the convention should benefit the reader first. In that spirit, readers are more likely to recognize the spelling if they have seen it used elsewhere frequently, such as in the titles or descriptions of the music they listen to.
+:: By the way, I updated the [[EDO]] page today. I'm using "edo" and "<span><math>n</math></span>edo" for now, where the variable <span><math>n</math></span> is written using the math tag, which makes it stand out better. As for numbered edos, I use "12edo" for now, which I think is not that hard to read since digits are taller than lowercase letters, and having no spaces or hyphens prevents any line breaking from happening. In any case, I'm willing to change it later if we decide on another convention. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 03:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
+:: I think multiple formats can coexist, each one used when most appropriate. For example, I generally prefer "19edo", but "n-edo" is clearer than "nedo", as you've brought up. I don't see the problem with using a hyphen in some cases and not others. I think "<span><math>n</math></span>edo" is a bit visually jarring, and not as clear as using the hyphen.
+:: Beyond article titles, I don't think there's a particular need for standardization of formats, as long as it's clear. Different writers have different preferences, and may write things differently in different contexts. I'll also add that lowercasing "edo" or "mos" doesn't inherently erase their meanings as acronyms. [[User:SupahstarSaga]] 2021-07-18
+::: Yeah, "19th" and "''i''-th" co-exist perfectly and this style is very common in math textbooks. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
+:: On readability (I realized this when I tried unifying the style in the page ''Prime EDO''): if you read a larger text block, you'll notice how the capital style break the flow of text and results in worse readability. You know why small capitals are common in novels? It's to avoid capital letters so as to ease reading. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
+:: I'm starting to think "edo" and "n-edo" represent a good compromise, especially considering [[User:FloraC|FloraC]]'s argument. I'm also thinking of a compromise: presenting "EDO or edo" in that order on the [[EDO]] page to insist on the fact that it's an acronym, but choosing "edo" and "n-edo" as a convention for readability on the Wiki. That might seem contradictory, but it allows one to pass from the full term to the acronym to the anacronym more smoothly, from my point of view. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 18:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
+== Math conventions ==
+There are currently no real conventions for mathematical notation. Since a lot of math pages involve linear algebra, I propose the following:
+: Open up any introductory linear algebra textbook. Follow the notation that is used there.
+In practice this means:
+* Matrices are uppercase Roman letters: <math>M</math>.
+* Vectors (whether column or row) are usually lowercase Roman letters: <math>u</math>.
+* When there is potential confusion with scalars, they can be made boldface: <math>\mathbf{u}</math>, or get an arrow: <math>\overrightarrow{u}</math>.
+* Inner product can be notated: <math>u^\mathsf{T}v</math> or <math>\left\langle u,v \right\rangle</math>.
+* The p-norm is: <math>\| u \|_p</math>, when no p is given, 2-norm is assumed.
+* When writing a column vector inside text, just transpose it: <math>w =\begin{bmatrix}
+w_1 & w_2 & w_3
+\end{bmatrix}^{\mathsf{T}}</math>.
+The wiki has Mathjax support, use it!
+: EDIT: This also means getting rid of bra-ket notation, by the way. They are used to denote quantum states in complex Hilbert spaces. We are not doing quantum physics here so let's stop pretending.
+- [[User:Sintel|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
+== 2 or 3 digits ==
+Giving two options for the number of digits isn't really useful if we want consistency... I just changed the [[15edo#Commas]] table's values to 3 digits because I had checked [[17edo#Commas]] and that table used 3 digits, but apparently that one was the exception, not the reverse? Would it make sense to use 3 digits everywhere? Of course it's not urgent, but I'd rather stick to one standard rather than two, so that at least when we're making decisions, they're not arbitrary or random. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
+: I would be in favour of using 3 digits everywhere. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 02:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)