Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Notability guidelines: Difference between revisions
→Minor variations, overly niche pages: Additional text for minor variations guideline |
{{High priority}} |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{High priority}} | |||
== Alpharabian interval pages == | == Alpharabian interval pages == | ||
| Line 105: | Line 107: | ||
** ''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.'' | ** ''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.'' | ** ''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) | ::::::::: [[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) | |||