User talk:Cmloegcmluin/EPD: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 4:

:: I have to agree with Fredg999 that one page per concept is the right way to go, and I also have to agree with Flora that this is the same concept as equal-step tuning, so I agree they should be merged. Flora's idea to merge them back in February was on the right track, but when she did the merge, I thought she left out some key stuff, and so rather than try to rework what she did, I simply reverted her changes. That's probably why she is asking "What contents are still not in it?", because I was never specific about what I thought was missing yet; I only said in my edit message "The contents were not reproduced at the redirect site." (I also said at that time, "I think this page is better as it was, primarily for parallel structure with the other related arithmetic tunings, to make it easier to understand them", but I now agree that my wishes for parallelism are unimportant compared with the one-page-per-concept rule.) So now I'll expand on my concerns: I'm fine with what Flora has done with merging what I wrote into a "Formula" section of the equal-step tunings page; what I'm concerned about is missing the "Relationship to other tunings" and "Examples" sections, which can't simply be cut-and-pasted, but will need to be massaged a bit to fit into their new home. Also key would be some acknowledgment that "ED" can be short for "EPD".

:: Yes, the harmonic tunings material on the wiki was all added by my account, but it reflects a collective effort of several folks on Facebook years ago (including Paul Erlich) to create a good system for talking about these types of tunings. I have seen at least a couple of other people using the system in the wild. I don't think moving to the user namespace would be the best course. Once the merger is complete, the existing contents of "EPD" can be replaced with a simple redirect to "ED" as Flora did before. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

::: I agree with all of the above. By the way, I would find it interesting to see the credits on the arithmetic and harmonotonic tuning pages, so that people know where this specific categorization comes from. Proper attribution is usually a good thing for authors, and it helps readers connect concepts with the community and the history of xenharmonic music theory. That's probably a point I want to include in a sort of guidelines help page, eventually. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

:::: Thanks for clarifying. Let me see how this can be implemented. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

: Yeah, I think we can merge it now. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :: I have to agree with Fredg999 that one page per concept is the right way to go, and I also have to agree with Flora that this is the same concept as equal-step tuning, so I agree they should be merged. Flora's idea to merge them back in February was on the right track, but when she did the merge, I thought she left out some key stuff, and so rather than try to rework what she did, I simply reverted her changes. That's probably why she is asking "What contents are still not in it?", because I was never specific about what I thought was missing yet; I only said in my edit message "The contents were not reproduced at the redirect site." (I also said at that time, "I think this page is better as it was, primarily for parallel structure with the other related arithmetic tunings, to make it easier to understand them", but I now agree that my wishes for parallelism are unimportant compared with the one-page-per-concept rule.) So now I'll expand on my concerns: I'm fine with what Flora has done with merging what I wrote into a "Formula" section of the equal-step tunings page; what I'm concerned about is missing the "Relationship to other tunings" and "Examples" sections, which can't simply be cut-and-pasted, but will need to be massaged a bit to fit into their new home. Also key would be some acknowledgment that "ED" can be short for "EPD".
 :: Yes, the harmonic tunings material on the wiki was all added by my account, but it reflects a collective effort of several folks on Facebook years ago (including Paul Erlich) to create a good system for talking about these types of tunings. I have seen at least a couple of other people using the system in the wild. I don't think moving to the user namespace would be the best course. Once the merger is complete, the existing contents of "EPD" can be replaced with a simple redirect to "ED" as Flora did before. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
+::: I agree with all of the above. By the way, I would find it interesting to see the credits on the arithmetic and harmonotonic tuning pages, so that people know where this specific categorization comes from. Proper attribution is usually a good thing for authors, and it helps readers connect concepts with the community and the history of xenharmonic music theory. That's probably a point I want to include in a sort of guidelines help page, eventually. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
+:::: Thanks for clarifying. Let me see how this can be implemented. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 04:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
+: Yeah, I think we can merge it now. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)