User talk:CompactStar/Ed8/5: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 2:

I understand the desire to explore various nonoctave tunings, but if we're going to create one for each interval, we might just as well mention them straight on the interval pages, which are not used as much as they could right now. I think [[edo]]s and [[edt]]s deserve their own page because they've been explored a lot already, but for other pages, it might be worth waiting before splitting. See [[Wikipedia: WP:SPLIT]] for a general discussion of why article splitting can be useful (and therefore when it is not necessary or useful). --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

: By "mentioning them straight on the interval pages" do you mean moving the content to interval pages or just putting them in "See also"? [[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

By "mentioning them straight on the interval pages" do you mean moving the content to interval pages or just putting them in "See also"?

:: I mean moving the content to interval pages. Beside from EDO and EDT which have more historic context and therefore justify a split, most of the content in pages like this one can be summarized on the [[equal-step tuning]] page, and whatever is specific to that family of tunings is probably related to the interval anyway. The links to each individual tuning could be moved to the interval page. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

::: Okay. I don't see any problem with merging the interval pages with ET pages, and the quality of stubs like [[8/3]] would be improved when merging them with [[Ed8/3]] anyways. Although, I suggest [[EDF]] should also be kept as-is due to being explored a lot like EDO and EDT. [[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 02:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

:::: Indeed, I forgot to mention EDF but I would also include in along with EDO and EDT as the main ones. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 04:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

:::: I just thought of a reason to keep these pages around. All pages about equal divisions of the same interval are placed together in a category (e.g. [[:Category:Ed5/2]]), so it allows for pages like this one to be the category's main page. I do think, however, that some pages needlessly repeat some information that could be referenced instead (e.g. "the question of equivalence", could link to [[interval of equivalence]] where this is already discussed). --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 04:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 I understand the desire to explore various nonoctave tunings, but if we're going to create one for each interval, we might just as well mention them straight on the interval pages, which are not used as much as they could right now. I think [[edo]]s and [[edt]]s deserve their own page because they've been explored a lot already, but for other pages, it might be worth waiting before splitting. See [[Wikipedia: WP:SPLIT]] for a general discussion of why article splitting can be useful (and therefore when it is not necessary or useful). --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
+: By "mentioning them straight on the interval pages" do you mean moving the content to interval pages or just putting them in "See also"? [[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
-By "mentioning them straight on the interval pages" do you mean moving the content to interval pages or just putting them in "See also"?
+:: I mean moving the content to interval pages. Beside from EDO and EDT which have more historic context and therefore justify a split, most of the content in pages like this one can be summarized on the [[equal-step tuning]] page, and whatever is specific to that family of tunings is probably related to the interval anyway. The links to each individual tuning could be moved to the interval page. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
-[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
+::: Okay. I don't see any problem with merging the interval pages with ET pages, and the quality of stubs like [[8/3]] would be improved when merging them with [[Ed8/3]] anyways. Although, I suggest [[EDF]] should also be kept as-is due to being explored a lot like EDO and EDT. [[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 02:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::: Indeed, I forgot to mention EDF but I would also include in along with EDO and EDT as the main ones. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 04:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::: I just thought of a reason to keep these pages around. All pages about equal divisions of the same interval are placed together in a category (e.g. [[:Category:Ed5/2]]), so it allows for pages like this one to be the category's main page. I do think, however, that some pages needlessly repeat some information that could be referenced instead (e.g. "the question of equivalence", could link to [[interval of equivalence]] where this is already discussed). --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 04:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)