User talk:Eliora/2592edo: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
m Fredg999 moved page Talk:2592edo to User talk:Eliora/2592edo without leaving a redirect: XW:NG |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: +1 Delete – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 15:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC) | : +1 Delete – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 15:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC) | ||
:: A compromise: I ask that the page be reinstated and then contents moved to [[User:Eliora/2592edo]], so I can work on my niche edos without clogging up the main namespace if the ideas aren't notable enough. [[User:Eliora|Eliora]] ([[User talk:Eliora|talk]]) 02:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:52, 4 August 2025
Notability
I don't think this page meets the notability guidelines. I understand that this edo is the optimal patent val of one particular temperament (whose notability is either tenuous or insufficiently explained) and has a lot of divisors. Unfortunately, the first aspect is most likely the case of a very large number of edos in the thousands, and the second aspect, as far as I know, isn't a particularly notable aspect, especially in edos of that size (for the vast majority of musicians, should I specify). I believe it's sufficient that this edo figures in the optimal patent val list of windrose temperament, but otherwise I'll consider deleting this page per XW:NG. --Fredg999 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- A compromise: I ask that the page be reinstated and then contents moved to User:Eliora/2592edo, so I can work on my niche edos without clogging up the main namespace if the ideas aren't notable enough. Eliora (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)