Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Notability guidelines: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{High priority}}
 == Alpharabian interval pages ==
@@ Line 20: / Line 22: @@
 :: [[User:Mschulter1325|Mschulter1325]] 00:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+::: Well, it seems clear these pages are useful to at least some people, so they should stay. But instead of spelling it out on this talk page, why not add it to the pages in question? That would immediately make them notable according to the guidelines. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 16:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+:::: Most of the material that's covered here in the talk page is already on the pages in question- except for the yet-to-be-found practical applications I've alluded to before.  As for the rest of the material that's not currently added to these pages, I'll see what I can do about that now. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 16:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::: Just saw your edits. Good work, thanks for taking the time to add the information! – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 == Exclusion of theoretical systems that are practical, but not necessarily beneficial ==
@@ Line 33: / Line 41: @@
 BTW for alpharabian & axirabian interval situation I agree with what Aura and Margo Schulter had stated. [[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 04:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+: With regards to the kangaroo example, I think the fact that it provides a theoretical framework for understanding 15edo in a way that similar temperaments don't '''''is''''' "a clear conceptual benefit" which 'solves a specific problem'. So in my opinion I would say that it is still notable under these guidelines.
+: But I'll wait to see what Sintel says.
+:  Though it is only notable if the page actually explicitly spells out its usefulness in plain text - if it is just numbers and the reader is left to guess why it's important, then it's not notable. And maybe needs a "niche" mbox though since while useful, it is only useful for quite a niche purpose.
+: But imo I think it'd still be notable under the current guidelines.
+: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+:: Basically this:
+:::Though it is only notable if the page actually explicitly spells out its usefulness in plain text
+:: And yea, such content would be more likely to be moved instead of deleted. Pages with ''literally'' just infoboxes though are trivial to recreate if someone does want to add content to it.
+:: – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 16:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+== Minor variations, overly niche pages ==
+For the most part, I think these notability guidelines are pretty good; however, you have:
+* "Minor variations: Systems that differ only trivially from existing systems. For example, 17 equal divisions of 8/3, which is just 12edo with a slight octave stretch."
+This would tend to knock out more than you might want to knock out.  For instance, although 17ed8/3 and 19ed3/1 are minor variations on 12edo, each of these is part of a series that has members that deviate considerably more from their nearest EDO.  So they not only merit a mention, but should be able to keep their own articles to avoid interrupting the #ed8/3 and #ed3/1 series.
+Related to this, you have:
+* "High complexity: Temperaments of high complexity or EDOs with extremely high divisions (e.g. 31132edo), unless accompanied by a clear explanation of its utility or theoretical significance. This also includes temperaments and commas in impractical subgroups (e.g. 2.43.83)."
+The guideline about things being too niche due to high complexity would knock out pages for high EDOs and complicated(*) ratios that have not found use yet &mdash; these should probably be left alone, maybe after adding something like a {{tlx|niche}} tag.
+(*)We should be wary of using "complex" with respect to ratios unless we really mean it, since this has a specific mathematical meaning that is not generally what is intended here.
+Added:  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 07:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+: I am aware that there's currently a decent amount of pages that don't meet the criteria (hitting 'random page' a few times should be enough to demonstrate this). But of course, if it didn't affect anything there wouldn't be a need for this guideline in the first place.
+: Since there were basically no guidelines before, care will need to be taken in applying them retroactively. I trust other editors and especially sysops not to just start removing stuff without discussion. The focus should be on improving existing pages so they do meet the standards, and deletion still happens mostly on a case-by-case basis.
+: Sidenote: 17ed8/3 example might not have been the best example, it was just the first thing I could think of. I'll replace it with something better.
+: – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+:: An example of ''you never know when something might turn out to be useful later'' would be [[4/9-comma meantone]], which was once tagged as Novelty (since re-tagged as Niche), but turns out to be extremely close to [[26edo]].
+:: And where you have:
+:: * "Minor variations: Systems that differ only trivially from existing systems. For example, a meantone tuning with a fifth very close to quarter-comma meantone should not get its own page. It can be added to the existing tunings on the meantone page."
+:: However, a different type of tuning that gives a fifth that happens to be very close to quarter-comma meantone should get its own page.  Examples would include [[112edo]] and temperaments which split [[3/1]] into 3 to support a [[17L&nbsp;2s]] scale that happen to give also a good meantone tuning near quarter-comma.
+:: Added:  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 20:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+:: Last modified:  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 20:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+::: If both of the examples I could come up with weren't any good, then maybe it should just be removed. Though I do still believe, in general, if something is very closely related to an already existing page it is preferable to just add it there instead of making a new page. (And most temperament pages do come with a tuning spectrum, which does that job quite nicely.)
+::: If you can think of a better way to phrase it then let me know (or edit the page!) – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+:::: What you said has some merit, so I wouldn't want to get rid of it entirely, but adding some qualifiers (with examples) would be good to avoid confusion.  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 22:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::: I think what's going on is that for a tuning to meet the definition of what Sintel's talking about, two separate criteria have to be met.  The first is that the tuning in question can't be noticeably different from something else on the wiki- this is something that Sintel's first example does well.  However, the second is that the tuning in question should not offer anything substantially new compared to a previously existing tuning.  Is this right? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+:::::: Sintel, I do think you were barking up the right tree with your second example, but we just need to find a better example along those same lines.  First example that comes to my mind is 31edo versus other quarter-comma meantone temperaments with only 31 notes and pure octaves. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::::: I have updated the minor variations guideline so it now says the following:
+* '''Minor variations''': Systems that differ only trivially from existing systems. For example, a meantone tuning with a fifth very close to quarter-comma meantone should not get its own page. It can be added to the existing tunings on the meantone page.
+** ''This guideline does not apply to nearby equal divisions of ''simple'' intervals (e.g. 12ed2/1, 19ed3/1, and 7ed3/2), because those pages are still useful for navigating between neighbouring ETs using their infobox.''
+::::::: Are you all happy with this?
+::::::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+** ''This guideline also does not apply to temperaments that might happen to give similar tunings of common intervals, but also do something else, such as an [[Alphatricot]] relative that happens to give a fifth close to quarter-comma meantone, but also divides the twelfth in 3, thereby allowing generator chains that could not exist in actual quarter-comma meantone.''
+** ''In addition, it is best to exercise caution when considering whether to apply these guidelines to existing pages.''
+::::::::: [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 06:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::::::: Since the "minor variations" dot point is getting too clunky and wordy, I just decided to follow Sintel's suggestion earlier in this conversation and just remove the "minor variations" dot point entirely.
+::::::::: Is everybody happy for us to move this page into main space and make it official now? Given that the Discord voted 93% in favour, I feel eager to put it into action unless there are still outstanding objections?
+::::::::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
+Sure, seem great! I'd prefer if we got at least one sysop to sign off on it "officially" though. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 11:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
+: Put my vote in for that (including getting sysop signoff).  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 14:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)