Template talk:Infobox ET: Difference between revisions
→Make zeta optional: Done |
|||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
IMO usually not that useful, and when it is useful it should be discussed in the theory section of the edo article. I propose it be replaced with number of rings of 5ths (see my proposal below). --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | IMO usually not that useful, and when it is useful it should be discussed in the theory section of the edo article. I propose it be replaced with number of rings of 5ths (see my proposal below). --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
: I proposed this, my intention was to show structural properties. Maybe I better suggested ''“d(n) (also called tau(n) or sigma_0(n)), the number of divisors of n”''<sup>[[OEIS:A000005]]</sup>. To me, it feels relevant which cycles (not only of 5ths) are possible at all. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:: I see your point. On the one hand, 3 is a very important prime, and the template info should be somewhat fifth-centric. On the other hand, we don't want to be too fifth-centric, since lots of microtonalists like omitting lower primes and using higher ones. So I'm in favor of keeping prime factorization. But can there please be a practice of leaving this parameter blank when the edo is prime? Otherwise IMO the template is too cluttered and confusing. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 02:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
===Subgroup=== | ===Subgroup=== | ||
| Line 23: | Line 27: | ||
::: I totally agree with Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise". There is no indisputable way to decide which primes are tuned accurately enough to be included in this section. The indisputable information about primes is already on every edo page, in the Selected just intervals by error section. The table of errors for each prime, by cents and by % of edostep. This table is not concise enough to fit in the template. So I suggest removing the subgroup parameter from the template altogether. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ::: I totally agree with Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise". There is no indisputable way to decide which primes are tuned accurately enough to be included in this section. The indisputable information about primes is already on every edo page, in the Selected just intervals by error section. The table of errors for each prime, by cents and by % of edostep. This table is not concise enough to fit in the template. So I suggest removing the subgroup parameter from the template altogether. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
:::: I think the selected 15 limit JI intervals table should also give the closest approximation in the edo, not just the error, but that's a different conversation [[User:IlL|IlL]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 05:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
=== Fifth type === | === Fifth type === | ||
| Line 37: | Line 43: | ||
:::: I guess because the 41 fifths doesn't close at the octave in 53edo. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | :::: I guess because the 41 fifths doesn't close at the octave in 53edo. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
Hmm... Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out. Similarly, the type of fifth that | Hmm... Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out. Similarly, the type of fifth that 12edo has should just be called "Pythagorean" because the [[Pythagorean comma]] is tempered out. I hope this is at least a start... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
: "Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean"" - did you mean 12edo? Every edo tempers out only one 2.3 comma (not counting multiples of this comma). For N-edo, the comma's 3-exponent is ±N/GCD(M,N), where the best 3/2 is M\N. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | : "Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean"" - did you mean 12edo? Every edo tempers out only one 2.3 comma (not counting multiples of this comma). For N-edo, the comma's 3-exponent is ±N/GCD(M,N), where the best 3/2 is M\N. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
:: Yes, I did mean that the type of fifth that 12edo has should just be called "Pythagorean". I fixed that in the above comment. Thank you. I don't know how I botched that. Unfortunately, I don't see what you're getting at with much of the rest of your comment. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 08:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
I agree with FloraC, fifth type is not rigorously defined. Every comma that contains primes 2 and 3 and only 1 other prime implies a fifth size, or a narrow range of fifth sizes. But the exact range is disputable, and also there are an infinite number of possible commas. There is already a lengthy table of commas on every edo page. By Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise" rule, we should not list the fifth type. I propose there only be fifth size in edosteps and cents, e.g. for 24edo, "14\24 700¢". The shorter the better. We could possibly have IlL's categories of mavila, 7edo, hypopent, (just 3/2), hyperpent, 5edo, father. (BTW these are quite similar to my edo categories superflat, perfect, diatonic, pentatonic and supersharp.) But once you know the fifth size, it's easy to tell what category it's in. The 7edo category is obvious -- the edo must be a smallish (< 50) multiple of 7, and the 5th must be 680-something cents. The 5edo category is even more obvious. Mavila and father are also obvious, the 5th is < 680¢ or > 720¢. It's not like there are edos who's fifths are only a cent or two away from 4\7 or 3\5. Hypopent and hyperpent are mostly easy to tell too, as long as you know how many cents 3/2 is. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | I agree with FloraC, fifth type is not rigorously defined. Every comma that contains primes 2 and 3 and only 1 other prime implies a fifth size, or a narrow range of fifth sizes. But the exact range is disputable, and also there are an infinite number of possible commas. There is already a lengthy table of commas on every edo page. By Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise" rule, we should not list the fifth type. I propose there only be fifth size in edosteps and cents, e.g. for 24edo, "14\24 700¢". The shorter the better. We could possibly have IlL's categories of mavila, 7edo, hypopent, (just 3/2), hyperpent, 5edo, father. (BTW these are quite similar to my edo categories superflat, perfect, diatonic, pentatonic and supersharp.) But once you know the fifth size, it's easy to tell what category it's in. The 7edo category is obvious -- the edo must be a smallish (< 50) multiple of 7, and the 5th must be 680-something cents. The 5edo category is even more obvious. Mavila and father are also obvious, the 5th is < 680¢ or > 720¢. It's not like there are edos who's fifths are only a cent or two away from 4\7 or 3\5. Hypopent and hyperpent are mostly easy to tell too, as long as you know how many cents 3/2 is. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
| Line 58: | Line 66: | ||
:: This is a fun idea, but it doesn't belong in the template! How would the contest be judged? Would the winner be indisputable? There's already a section for musical examples. Also, larger edos tend to sound alike. If I wrote something in 5-limit or 7-limit JI and made two recordings, one in 53-edo and the other in 72-edo, I doubt most people could tell which was which. Because all large edos sound like JI. Perhaps instead there could be a sound file, like the ratio template has. For smaller edos, it could be the entire gamut of notes up to an 8ve. For larger edos, perhaps a 5-limit major scale? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | :: This is a fun idea, but it doesn't belong in the template! How would the contest be judged? Would the winner be indisputable? There's already a section for musical examples. Also, larger edos tend to sound alike. If I wrote something in 5-limit or 7-limit JI and made two recordings, one in 53-edo and the other in 72-edo, I doubt most people could tell which was which. Because all large edos sound like JI. Perhaps instead there could be a sound file, like the ratio template has. For smaller edos, it could be the entire gamut of notes up to an 8ve. For larger edos, perhaps a 5-limit major scale? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
::: I think a short example composition does belong in the info box. The musical examples linked further down are mostly works of art of varying styles written in the edo, and it's not always obvious to an uninitiated reader to what extent these pieces highlight features of the edo (and which ones). The point of the example composition is to be short (about a minute) and to specifically highlight unique features of the edo, with annotated sheet music to point these features out. (See the example by IIL on the 13edo page.) I think this could be useful for smaller edos (so not really 53edo or 72edo). The problem of course is that even the smaller edos have many features and which are worthy of being highlighted is subjective, and people might disagree about this. That's is why I thought Flora's idea of a competition was a good idea. [[User:Schrodingasdawg|Schrodingasdawg]] ([[User talk:Schrodingasdawg|talk]]) 02:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::: As much as this might work for smaller EDOs, something like 159edo would be a different story, as compared to the more common EDOs, the basic colors of multiple commonly used EDOs exist side-by-side. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::: To be clear, I was semi-sarcastic about the composing contest, just in order to expose the difficulties of this parameter (despite that I have two 19edo fugues each is 1 minute in length and extremely fit). [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::: I think you should consider annotating one of your fugue scores and adding it to the 19edo page as a tuning showcase then! I honestly think having a short piece with an annotated score can help orient a reader who's new to an edo and wants to see and hear in practice how the edo works, with the little details explicitly pointed out to them. [[User:Schrodingasdawg|Schrodingasdawg]] ([[User talk:Schrodingasdawg|talk]]) 04:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
=== Steps or Step count === | === Steps or Step count === | ||
| Line 107: | Line 123: | ||
: I also propose putting the patent val in the table of primes that has the error in cents, error as % of edostep, and fifthspan. This is the obvious place for it, I should have done this when I first started making those tables. Since this table is so important, I propose moving it up to the theory section (the first section) where it is easier to find. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | : I also propose putting the patent val in the table of primes that has the error in cents, error as % of edostep, and fifthspan. This is the obvious place for it, I should have done this when I first started making those tables. Since this table is so important, I propose moving it up to the theory section (the first section) where it is easier to find. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
:: Oh, just saw FloraC's comment about addition easier than subtraction, so A1 and m2 rather than M2 and m2. That would be fine by me. Or we could list all 3. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::: I'm all in for Kite (and A1 plz, since the sharpness is directly associated with notation). [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::: Sure, let's add A1. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 09:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::: Most people will value an EDO for some "classical" or "just" qualities. So it's understandable that the 5th is given a prominent role for characterizing an EDO, but I'd like to be more neutral in this aspect. That's why [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Xenharmonic_Wiki_talk:Things_to_do&diff=prev&oldid=53374 I suggested a formula] for the 5th lovers which I'd now like to call the '''''tone ratio''''' (an optional parameter) which is <code>1:1</code> in 12edo and <code>2:1</code> in 19edo. The name is derived from [[tone]] and inspired by the [[Golden ratio]] (BTW, the ''tone ratio'' of [[Golden meantone]] is <code>φ:1</code>). I'd like to omit cent values here; for EDOs it can be calculated easily with every pocket/phone calculator. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 13:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::: I can't find your formula in the link. Is it the edostep ratio of the m2 to the A1? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 02:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::: It must be m2 to A1. But let's get down to the details. (1) Should the term be ''semitone ratio'' since it's of two semitones? (2) Should we ever reduce the ratio? (I guess not.) (3) A1 to m2, or m2 to A1? Btw, the just value is 1.26001... or 0.79364..., respectively. A new page is necessary if we use this neologism. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
: I added M2, m2 and A1 to the template. (Hopefully I did it right, I'm new at editing templates.) I saw that for multi-ring edos, the fifth field should include any lower edo with the same fifth. For example 24edo has "12edo" in the fifth parameter. This makes the Rings parameter unnecessary, so I no longer think it should be included. Rather than seeing 24edo and 2 rings and deducing that 24-edo's fifth is 12-edo's fifth, you can see it directly, much better. Related, I now think prime factorization should be included. | |||
: But ye gods, people, it took a lot of self-control when editing not to delete the parameters about Important MOSes and Common Uses and Compositions on the spot. These things belong on the edo page, but there's already a place for them. Further down the page, where there's room to list ALL the MOSes and ALL the uses and ALL the compositions. Same for the type of fifth as schismic/meantone/superpyth etc. There's already a table that lists ALL the temperaments the edo supports, without having to single out one as "the" defining temperament. Having these parameters in the template invites endless debate. | |||
: The subgroup is also problematic, since any criteria for including a borderline prime or not is by necessity somewhat arbitrary. This one isn't as bad as the others, but moving the prime errors table to the top of the page is a much better solution. Because the table gives the complete picture in a way the template parameter can't. For example, you can look at the percentage error and decide for yourself if the edo accurately represents that prime. BTW this also makes it unnecessary to add the prime-3 error in the template's fifth parameter (e.g. -1.955¢ for 12-edo). | |||
: Can we all agree that the template should only be for those things that are indisputable facts? Or if we can't all agree, can we at least agree that we won't reach consensus on including those parameters, and the right course of action is to delete them? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 02:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:: I suppose the M2/m2/A1 stuff should be ''one'' parameter, not ''three''. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:: So I added a parameter called "Semitones". It appears as "Semitones (A1:m2)" in the infobox. Maybe we can use some links for "A1" and "m2" now. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::: Hmmm, not seeing the point. Not that this ratio isn't nice to know. But the two numbers are already in the template, and they are even right next to each other on the screen. Seems redundant to list them twice. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 11:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::: I mean we could use "Semitones" in place of "Minor 2nd" and "Augmented 1sn". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::: Why squeeze three numbers into one parameter? And If m2 and A1 are both called semitones, how can one tell which is which? How can someone look at "semitones: 3\31 2\31" and know that 2 is the A1 not the m2? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Because these parameters are related, with the purpose to show the characteristics of the edo. And as said, it appears as "Semitones (A1:m2)" or "Semitones (m2:A1)" – what is in the parentheses indicates the order of the two semitones. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::: OK, I could live with that, as long as all 3 numbers are there in edosteps --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 05:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::: In editing all the EDO pages, I came to realize that the cents for the m2 and A1 are very handy. Yes, you can do the math and calculate the cents, but it's really handy to see at a glance how many cents a sharp sign is. Also for large edos, doing the math is too much work. So on second thought, I would only like this proposed format if it also included the cents. Also, this is a bit of a quibble, but "semitone" means half a tone. And in a lot of these edos, it's nowhere near half. So the term semitone is a bit misleading, and IMO better avoided. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 08:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Looks alright to me. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Update: see [[#Reduce parameters]]. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
I just removed all the disputable parameters. I carefully moved all the data entries to a better spot on the EDO page. Example compositions got moved to "Introductory Materials". Important MOSes got moved to "Rank Two Temperaments". Common uses and subgroups got deleted. I considered working the common uses into the theory section, but they just seemed so arbitrary. Every edo has a thousand uses. I didn't do anything with the intro section. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Intro sentence on EDO pages == | |||
Slightly off-topic, but related in a way. IMO it would be good if this sentence were standardized. Not good to put important info here, too easy to miss. So something short like "N-EDO or N-ET divides the octave into N equal steps." No need to say what the step size is, since the template covers that now. The phrase "equal steps" could link back to the main EDO page, which would be handy when comparing EDOs. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 23:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
: I think the introduction (a section with a few sentences) is invaluable. We learn that from the silent but effective Wikipedia-Google collaboration: The question "What is <Random Xen Lemma>?" typed in the input line of Google or any other search engine should not only give results from the XenWiki in the first matches but the XenWiki result should also give the short answer. This is what the introduction is for. This is the reason why it has to start the article directly under the H1 (=lemma) header. The introduction should be readable, informative, and short. I know this is sometimes not easy but it's good to invest time here. Look into Wikipedia to find good examples: they have definitely a higher ratio of great introductions than we have. Standardization may not be a bad thing but an introduction that can be written by a bot is not an introduction a human reader wants to read (and the best search engines have increasingly good algorithms for distinguishing readable - and worth-to read - text from pseudo text). BTW: this is true for all articles. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 23:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
:: Good point --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 05:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
== Reduce parameters == | |||
I think it's enough to specify the ''fifth'' since the parameters ''M2'', ''m2'', and ''A1'' are not independent (see [[diatonic range]]). Also the sizes could be calculated by the template or a module. What do you think? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 22:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
: Yes, especially as they don't make sense for nondiatonic edos such as 13 or 16. Maybe specify the other parameters for diatonic edos but not for nondiatonic edos. Yes, they could be computed. [[User:Inthar|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar|talk]]) 22:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
:: The sharpness is an important piece of information that I find really handy. That's why I've always argued for ''semitones (A1:m2)''. It saves a line. Semitones are also helpful in that they are the basic building blocks for 12edo users. Chromatic semitone and diatonic semitone are established terms long before xen practice. And cent values still can be shown along with step numbers. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
: As discussed in the Discord server, I'm adding ''sharp fifth'' and ''flat fifth'' for dual-fifth edos. I define a dual fifth edo as those whose error of the fifth is greater than 1/3 edostep, since it is the point where the approximation of the major second (9/8) becomes better than the fifth (3/2) itself, and where doubling the edo guarantees a better fifth. For dual-fifth edos, I'd like to reflect their two typical interpretations as 2.3-.3+ and 2.9, so we'll use ''sharp fifth'', ''flat fifth'', and ''major 2nd''. For other edos, ''fifth'' and ''semitones''. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
: I have a strong preference for M2, m2 and A1 all spelled out like they used to be, like this: | |||
: M2: 4\22 (218¢) | |||
: m2: 1\22 (55¢) | |||
: A1: 3\22 (164¢) | |||
: There's almost always room on the page, since the infobox sits opposite the table of contents. The various L/s ratios can be read quite easily. Diatonic is 4:1, chromatic is 3:1. Heck, you can even figure out that 2L3s[5] is 5:4 pretty easily. -- [[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 00:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:: Before this was even decided CompactStar added a M3 line instead. I'd say I don't find a use for either M2 or M3 cuz I'm accustomed to apprehending the edo structure by chromatic ratios. 41edo is 4:3, 53edo is 5:4 etc. The M3 is particularly questionable. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: The only thing I can think of as a use for a modified version of the M3 line is as the representation for [[5/4]] for systems that have a consistent representation of it- and this merely because 5/4 is such a common reference point for major thirds. I wouldn't bother with those systems where 5/4 can reasonably be mapped to one of two possible EDO-steps. Other than that, I do indeed think that adding the M3 line is questionable. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: There's the prime harmonics table for that, and assuming the diatonic major third to be consistent with 5/4 is very meantone-centric anyway. The semitone ratio is already plenty of information. I agree that the M3 field should be removed, because it adds more clutter for no new significant information. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 22:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Consistency level == | |||
I'd like this to be present in the infobox because it quickly captures how the edo is likely to be used (in an RTT way or in an JI agnostic way). It's present in the theory section of basically every edo, often for the purpose I just mentioned. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
Added diamond consistency and diamond monotonicity. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
: Deprecating monotonicity. It wasn't a considerate decision. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Highly composite sequence past 5040 == | |||
The template shows [[9240edo]] as highly composite, yet it's not a member of the highly composite sequence, it's only largely composite. Also, past 5040 the sequences split into highly composite and superabundant so it would be worthy to get this noted. [[User:Eliora|Eliora]] ([[User talk:Eliora|talk]]) 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Ed4 navigation == | |||
{{Infobox ET|5ed4|debug=1}} | |||
At the moment, if you are on a page for an ed4, say for example 5ed4, then the the "'''<--'''" and "'''-->'''" links will link to '''4ed4''' and '''6ed4''', both of which will immediately redirect you to the relevant edo page (2edo or 3edo): | |||
I think this is a bit of a hinderance for navigation. It would be more helpful, I think, for "'''<--'''" and "'''-->'''" to link to '''3ed4''' and '''7ed4''', instead of 4ed4 and 6ed4. | |||
Similar problems may also occur with other non-prime EDs (ed6, ed8, ed9, ed10, etc.), I haven't checked. | |||
--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 07:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
: As of now, this is resolved for ed4's, ed9's, and ed9/4's. Ed8's may still link to edos. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Automatic link to xen-calc? == | |||
Would it be hard to add an automatic to xen-calc like the template for intervals has? (Something like "Open this temperament in xen-calc".) [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 22:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
: It should be possible, although I will note that only edos are supported in xen-calc (i.e. nonoctave equal tunings are not supported), and large edos will either take a long time to load; for instance, 1000edo just took me 30 seconds to load. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Wrong step size at 0EDO == | |||
{{Infobox ET|0edo|debug=1}} | |||
This template shows step size 0 ¢ for 0EDO [[Single-pitch tuning]]. That is wrong because it is either undefined because of division by zero or infinity as a limit of ‹x›EDO for ‹x› going to zero. To be consistent with the article, I think that it should show step size ∞ ¢. The article says “As a result of the step size of 0edo being infinite, the relative error of all intervals is zero.”. | |||
[[User:Matěȷ|Matěȷ]] ([[User talk:Matěȷ|talk]]) 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Make zeta optional == | |||
As has been discussed before, I don't believe zeta list status is worth being so prominantly displayed in the infobox. Preferably this information is made opt-in and thereby turned off for most of the edo pages. | |||
– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 17:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC) | |||
: Done. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 18:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC) | |||