Xenharmonic Wiki

Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Things to do: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Xenwolf (talk | contribs)
autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, confirmaccount-notify, Interface administrators, Sysops
8,705 edits
ArrowHead294 (talk | contribs)
14,512 edits
mNo edit summary
 
(78 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archives}}
== Automatic color names? ==
== Automatic color names? ==


Line 4: Line 5:


: Oops, I hadn’t read the description well enough! The matter is way simpler and there is no guessing at all. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 20:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
: Oops, I hadn’t read the description well enough! The matter is way simpler and there is no guessing at all. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 20:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
: A potential project relating to color names would be a Lua implementation to automatically find the color name of an interval, given a ratio or a monzo. [[Xen-calc]] uses the microtonal-utils Javascript library, so maybe a translation of the relevant JS code could work, although it should be noted that the Lua modules on this wiki do not necessarily match similar features that could be found in that library. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


== Add to the navbar ==
== Add to the navbar ==
Line 10: Line 12:


: We'll do that soon. But I think that we should first have to clarify its structure. I'd prefer dedicated pages one per task (maybe as sub pages). We should have a handful of clearly defined projects available before we link this overview in the navigation. The style of the existing ones will silently work as a blueprint for future projects, so we better limit confusion to a minimum. a bit of styling (for the intro in the header) could also help to make this site as inviting as possible. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
: We'll do that soon. But I think that we should first have to clarify its structure. I'd prefer dedicated pages one per task (maybe as sub pages). We should have a handful of clearly defined projects available before we link this overview in the navigation. The style of the existing ones will silently work as a blueprint for future projects, so we better limit confusion to a minimum. a bit of styling (for the intro in the header) could also help to make this site as inviting as possible. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Agree. Also I agree subpages are a clean way. Some of them may be transcluded, other just linked to?.. Intro styling is good but here I think I used all my style mana on the todo template today, so better someone else. :D --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 21:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Agree. Also I agree subpages are a clean way. Some of them may be transcluded, other just linked to?.. Intro styling is good but here I think I used all my style mana on the todo template today, so better someone else. :D --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 21:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::: I think we've come a long way and can afford a break, and it's also good to keep gaining distance so as not to get stuck. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::: I think we've come a long way and can afford a break, and it's also good to keep gaining distance so as not to get stuck. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: 🤝
:::: 🤝
:::: BTW would be nice to make something to enter a couple of frequent emoji from somewhere near post edit. Does MediaWiki has a toolbar or something for this case?.. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 22:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: BTW would be nice to make something to enter a couple of frequent emoji from somewhere near post edit. Does MediaWiki has a toolbar or something for this case?.. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 22:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:: It seems the "one page per project" structure was never adopted, instead leading to a structure where project summaries are placed on the main page and discussions take place in the talk page. I think this structure seems to work well for now, given that many projects are temporary and can be archived more easily instead of creating lots of different pages about old projects. If we're to keep this structure, we might need to clarify it and uniformize the existing topics. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


== <code>Template:Stub</code> ==
== <code>Template:Stub</code> ==
Line 23: Line 23:


: Before thinking about an appropriate [[Template:Stub]], I think [[:Category:Todo]] is worth a look, as well as its sub categories, these category developed out of wikispaces tags and are maybe more specific then just ''stub''. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 18:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
: Before thinking about an appropriate [[Template:Stub]], I think [[:Category:Todo]] is worth a look, as well as its sub categories, these category developed out of wikispaces tags and are maybe more specific then just ''stub''. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 18:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Oh, this is a treasure! But a visual rectangular reminder may still be useful? Let it be tunable to include the subcategory of Todo one wants to apply. How do you think? I’ll experiment with that in a subspace. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Oh, this is a treasure! But a visual rectangular reminder may still be useful? Let it be tunable to include the subcategory of Todo one wants to apply. How do you think? I’ll experiment with that in a subspace. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::: The template with an example of how it looks: [[User:Arseniiv/TodoTest]]. It seems to apply the category correctly. Maybe that can find some use still, but if not, no problem. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 19:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::: The template with an example of how it looks: [[User:Arseniiv/TodoTest]]. It seems to apply the category correctly. Maybe that can find some use still, but if not, no problem. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 19:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: I moved this discussion from [[Xenharmonic Wiki:Things to do]] to here, since it's not decided yet whether it should go into the list. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: I moved this discussion from [[Xenharmonic Wiki:Things to do]] to here, since it's not decided yet whether it should go into the list. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
::::: Now that two days have passed and no new things to add or remove arose, maybe we should now migrate the Todo template to the template namespace and start sticking it everywhere :) Also it’s very nice [[Template:Infobox interval]] automatically adds todo categories, I think this is a way to go with other specialized templates, should they apper later. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 14:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
::::: Now that two days have passed and no new things to add or remove arose, maybe we should now migrate the Todo template to the template namespace and start sticking it everywhere :) Also it’s very nice [[Template:Infobox interval]] automatically adds todo categories, I think this is a way to go with other specialized templates, should they apper later. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 14:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
: For reference, some time ago I moved [[:Category:Stub]] to [[:Category:Stubs]] (by WP:SETCAT). I also create [[Template:Mbox]], which can be used for various kinds of message boxes, and now [[Template:Stub]] uses it. I haven't touched [[Template:Todo]] yet, and for now it's not a bad thing to have a distinction between reader-oriented boxes and editor-oriented boxes, but we might want to uniformize that later. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
== Infobox for EDO pages ==
 
Let’s list what should be present in the template:
 
* step count (<code>steps</code>)
 
* period? (for EDT and several others?)
*: [Xenwolf: no need, consider other templates for other EDs]
 
* <code>step size</code>
*: [Xenwolf: size alone isn't clear]
 
* commas tempered out
*: [FloraC: too many stuff]
 
* notable commas not tempered out? (possibly with an example of distinguished JI intervals?)
*: [FloraC: too many stuff]
 
* family?
 
* JI subgroup represented fairly well? (and a patent val?)
 
* notable modes?
*: [FloraC: no consensus]
*: [Arseniiv: now I come to think including entire modes would also bloat the table]
 
* related EDOs? (maybe more specific relations, like “refines 11edo”?)
*: [Xenwolf: include predecessor and successor EDOs]
 
Thoughts? --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 14:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
: The parameters <code>step count</code> (or <code>step size</code>) and <code>size</code> seem indisputable to me, EDO implies 2/1 as <code>period</code> (I'd consider to make other templates for other EDs). What about prime factorization? Relates would be great for navigational purposes (for instance predecessor and successor). As far as the parameters can be filled without headaches and without edit wars they should be included. Maybe we can get a community process started about that. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:: Do you mean prime factorization for <code>steps</code>? --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:: Writing only <code>size</code> was a mistake: I corrected that in may comment and in the "working copy" on top. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 20:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::: Forgot to add yesterday: what do you think about next/previous zeta EDOs (all three kinds of them)? Though all “sequential related page links” should go at the bottom of the template plaque to not steal attention from the properties of the EDO itself. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
: I'm afraid <code>Commas tempered out</code> and <code>Commas not tempered out</code> are too many stuff. And there's no consensus what constitutes "notable". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:: (To all:) Is there a consensus about patent vals for EDOs? I seem to remember in several cases there were at least two vals which would be as good, so I don’t know if it’s a good for the template. Also the same about well-representedness of JI subgroups.
 
:: I added your comments to the list above so they won’t be forgotten if someone would take just the list and make something! --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::: Which val is deemed useful is a subjective matter, but the patent val is rigorously defined. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::: So <code>patent val</code> should be added. Am I right in assuming that consistency of intervals relates to it? Can also a subgroup be deduced from it? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::: The relation between consistency and the patent val seems indirect to me. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
: I suggest listing the # of edosteps that the 3-limit M2 and m2 span. If the best 3/2 of n-edo is m/n, that would be 2m-n and 3n-5m. This instantly gives you the "flavor" of the edo. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 02:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:: Maybe A1 and m2. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::: @TallKite, @FloraC, Isn't ''A1 := M2 - m2''? Why not all three? Maybe also ''m'' itself that should probably better be renamed in, say, ''f'' or ''fifth''? <br> Of course a collection of name-values pairs will not look that great, but maybe something like ''M2=m2+A1:'' (as label) and ''3=2+1'' (as value), as a rough sketch? <br> --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::: I could imagine that the 3-limit inconsistency of certain EDOs could diminish the usefulness of this otherwise very illustrative approach. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::: Yes, A1 = M2 - m2, so A1 isn't needed. Sure, we could have all three. If we have only two, M2 and m2 are the most useful for finding your way around a microtonal guitar. For example, hand a guitarist a 31-edo guitar tuned EADGBE and say M2 = 5 frets and m2 = 3 frets, and they can figure it out pretty quickly.
::: And yes, for certain edos like 6-edo, it's not that helpful. But for most edos it's very useful, so we might as well include it for all of them. Even if the M2 is not the same as the best approximation of 9/8. Because M2 is always the distance between the best approximation of 4/3 and the best approximation of 3/2. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::: The reason why I favor A1 over M2 is that addition is easier than subtraction. Once you have A1 and m2, M2 is obvious; not so the other way around. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 06:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 
: To all: Inthar has got [[Template:Infobox ET]] constructed and has implemented it(!) in many edo pages. Let's move on to [[Template talk:Infobox ET]]. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 06:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 
:: I am really impressed, but rather not in a positive sense. I left a ping on the user discussion and the template discussion. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 
== Relations of various interval categories ==
 
There are [[:Category:Interval]], [[:Category:Just interval]], [[:Category:Interval ratio]] and [[:Category:Ratio]] with different content of ''m''/''n'' pages like [[3/2]]. Maybe someone knows if there was an intention behind that?
 
Also there seems to be a forgotten todo in the description of [[:Category:Intervals]]. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 16:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
: Good catch! This is caused by the migration procedure (from wikispaces to MediaWiki), categories were retrieved from tags. Tags are much more lightweight and community-driven so there is not much consistency. The important question is how to name it, which has to be wisely decided considering relating (super, sub, sibling) categories. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:: Yeah I agree. AFAIU, no one here needs ratios by themselves, mathematically, so we would have a simple inclusion ''Just interval'' inside ''Interval'', taking both existing categories and reshuffling which page belongs where: rational intervals into ''Just interval'', and remaining few irrational intervals may reside directly in ''Interval'' without their own subcategory. (FTR [[:Category:Comma]] stays as it was.) Now we need more opinions! --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 18:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::: I agree. I think [[:Category:Just interval]] is the best solution here (a more technical term would be something like <code>Category:Interval page</code>, but I prefer your - more pragmatic - solution). --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 17:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::: I suggest the category "ratio" should remain and "just interval" should go, for there's no consensus what "just" really means. I once talked about the concept of "just" in the FB group. Obviously there are people who argue:
:::# Rational isn't synonymous with just;
:::# Justness is a perceptual property and has nothing to do with the rationality of an interval;
:::# Justness contrasts with wolfness;
:::# The point of rationality of an interval is neutralized by the Gabor limit. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::: What about "rational interval" then? It's a technical term that doesn't imply musical quality. I find "interval" and "ratio" too common terms, I'd like to discuss this first before we do a lot of category changes. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 18:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::: My previous suggestion takes the extent of changes into account. If there's no problem with that, I think "rational interval" is better. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 19:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::::: I guess ''Ratio'' may be simply moved to the new one? Ah, but page texts won’t change with that… Looks like work for a bot. But it seems there will be lots of work anyway, as sometimes for example there are several categories applied at the same time. (When I saw that, I didn’t touch it exactly because of undecidedness which ones are suited better.) --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 19:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::::: As we seem to agree about the pragmatical usefulness of "Rational interval", I'd say we could add this without problems to uncategorized pages, we could also replace "interval ratio" with it (this one was introduced by me after the migration to MediaWiki to combine "interval" and "ratio", two tags from the wikispaces era - tags were single words). The same would apply to pages that are categorized as both "interval" and "ratio", or written in a more
:::::::; compact form&#58;
:::::::* (none) &rarr; "Rational interval"
:::::::* "Interval ratio" &rarr; "Rational interval"
:::::::* "Interval" and "Ratio" &rarr; "Rational interval"
::::::: But nothing to be done right now. Should we try to get [[User:Aura|Aura]], [[User:CritDeathX|CritDeathX]], [[User:IlL|IlL]], [[User:TallKite|TallKite]], and [[User:Yourmusic Productions|Yourmusic Productions]] involved? What do you think? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 19:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::::::: Of course all active people should have a say, I think. :) Also they should see this new page for discussing overarching plans; maybe few of them had still seen it? --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::::::: I do think that a "Rational Interval" is a good idea for a category, and as a target for merging a number of the various categories.  However, "Interval" should remain its own category, with "Rational Interval" as the subcategory. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 13:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::::::::: @Aura: What you just suggested is already planned: keep [[:Category:Interval]] and placing [[:Category:Rational interval]] into it. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 15:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::::::: I don't have a strong opinion. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::::::: I'd incline towards the shortest unambiguous tags possible. The longer they are, the more likely people are to forget or misspell them, resulting in pages falling through the cracks. [[User:Yourmusic Productions|Yourmusic Productions]] ([[User talk:Yourmusic Productions|talk]]) 10:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::::::::: @Yourmusic Productions: Sorry that I have to correct you about a misconception. There is no ''tag'' feature available in MediaWiki. The ''category'' feature is comparable but not as lightweight and not combinable (see below). Since the term ''Just'' is disputable and ''Interval'' and ''Ratio'' so little significant, we are searching for a ''category name'' that will do a good job in containing all the pages about individual intervals. MediaWiki unfortunately does not support selecting pages by a logic combination of categories (like <code> Interval AND Ratio AND Just</code>), so single words as category names will not be as usable as you might imagine. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::::::: I think it'd be good if we have Interval as a regular category with Rational Interval as a subcategory. Its possible we could include irrational intervals on the wiki, though at the moment it doesn't seem clear when we would need those pages. --[[User:CritDeathX|CritDeathX]] ([[User talk:CritDeathX|talk]]) 00:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


== Templates for wedgies, n-vals?.. ==
== Templates for wedgies, n-vals?.. ==
Line 150: Line 34:


: Nice to have. So why not simply extend ''Template:Val'' and defaulting to one? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
: Nice to have. So why not simply extend ''Template:Val'' and defaulting to one? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:: @FloraC: You know that [[Template:Val]] does nothing but formatting.  
:: @FloraC: You know that [[Template:Val]] does nothing but formatting.  
:: We could do much more if we had scripting on board (see also [[User talk:Tyler Henthorn #Fwd: Extension request]]). We maybe should open an own section for this here ... --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:: We could do much more if we had scripting on board (see also [[User talk:Tyler Henthorn #Fwd: Extension request]]). We maybe should open an own section for this here ... --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Still even though that doesn’t do more than syntax, I made a test: [[User:Arseniiv/Val']]. And while scripting is a good boon, what’s expected of it to make better for multival notation? Aside from correctness checks (a ''k''-val should have <math>\binom nk</math> entries), of course. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
::: Still even though that doesn’t do more than syntax, I made a test: [[User:Arseniiv/Val']]. And while scripting is a good boon, what’s expected of it to make better for multival notation? Aside from correctness checks (a ''k''-val should have <math>\binom nk</math> entries), of course. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
: I believe [[wedgies and multivals]] are part of the [[varianced exterior algebra]] approach to RTT, which I believe isn't used anymore by the people who developed that theory. I think the current templates are sufficient, but I'd like to hear from others. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


== Website for listening to intervals ==
== Website for listening to intervals ==
Line 163: Line 46:


: A browser-based solution (JS, WebAudio) would be really great. This included in Interval pages would be superior to most sound examples we uploaded. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 13:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
: A browser-based solution (JS, WebAudio) would be really great. This included in Interval pages would be superior to most sound examples we uploaded. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 13:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Very glad you like it! I also added my view on GUI at [[User:Arseniiv/Interval player idea]]. Now I can leave it for a while. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 13:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
:: Very glad you like it! I also added my view on GUI at [[User:Arseniiv/Interval player idea]]. Now I can leave it for a while. --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 13:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
::: I'm not sure if I didn't saw something like that. Maybe other xenharmonics have a better memory for that. Here is an interesting resource (provided you are not on IE 😉): [https://teropa.info/blog/2016/07/28/javascript-systems-music.html JavaScript Systems Music] --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
::: I'm not sure if I didn't saw something like that. Maybe other xenharmonics have a better memory for that. Here is an interesting resource (provided you are not on IE 😉): [https://teropa.info/blog/2016/07/28/javascript-systems-music.html JavaScript Systems Music] --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: Thanks, that would be useful! --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 14:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
:::: Thanks, that would be useful! --[[User:Arseniiv|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv|talk]]) 14:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
::::: Here is what led me to above page: [https://medium.com/@metalex9/making-generative-music-in-the-browser-bfb552a26b0b Making Generative Music in the Browser &#124; by Alex Bainter &#124; Medium] --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
::::: Here is what led me to above page: [https://medium.com/@metalex9/making-generative-music-in-the-browser-bfb552a26b0b Making Generative Music in the Browser &#124; by Alex Bainter &#124; Medium] --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 
: I'm not sure whether we could generate audio using Lua modules, but at least for now every interval infobox has a link to xen-calc, which itself provides a link to Scale Workshop, where you can tweak the timbre ("waveform") from a preset list (18 choices at the moment). It's not as convenient as having it directly on the wiki, but it's a nice workaround, and you can probably just keep Scale Workshop open and enter the list of intervals in the scale data if you're going comparing multiple intervals anyway. [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
== Shorten editing titles ==
 
Say what you think about the change proposed ([[Xenharmonic Wiki:Things to do#Proposal: Shorten editing titles]])?
* I'm for it: I have already tried it for three years in another wiki and can say that it proved to be useful there. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]])
 
== New Category? ==
 
Would it be possible to have a Kite Guitar category? There's already about a dozen pages about it.
 
: Definitively. Good idea. I'll do it in a moment. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC) <br> <small>PS: Please, Kite, think of signing your contributions on discussion pages; it's easy, just type <code><nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki></code> (2 hyphens and 4 tildes), <br> the 4 tildes will be replaced automatically (on saving) by your linked user name and the time of saving. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)</small>
 
:: Sorry, I keep forgetting to sign. Ill try signing before typing in my comment. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::: Great :) (I sometimes myself forget to sign). I hope the [[:category:Kite Guitar]] brings the expected benefits, hopefully I got all the pages you meant. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 22:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::: Looks good! By the way, how do I fix a double redirect? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 
::::: Double redirects (''A'' &rarr; ''B'' &rarr; ''C'') are fixed by changing them into normal ones (A &rarr; C). Resolving double redirects is no big effort, I check from time to time if there are any to clean up. The [[Special:DoubleRedirects]] page helps with that. I'll leave it for a while in case you want to do it yourself. Please let me know if you like me to do it. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 08:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::::: I tried to fix it, did I do it right? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 01:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 
:::::::  Yeah absolutely :) --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 
== Naming articles ==
 
I'd like to write down our collaborative findings and experience about naming. What do you think? Is it reliable, or even correct? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 22:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


== 13-Limit, 17-Limit and 19-Limit Comma Pages ==
== 13-Limit, 17-Limit and 19-Limit Comma Pages ==
Line 237: Line 90:
More generally, if the IUS is tempered from rank n to rank k < n through tempering (n - k) commas, then:
More generally, if the IUS is tempered from rank n to rank k < n through tempering (n - k) commas, then:
If the tempered result is rank 1, it is an equal temperament.
If the tempered result is rank 1, it is an equal temperament.
If the tempered result is rank 2, it is just a temperament.
If the tempered result is rank 2, it is a temperament.
If it is rank 3, it is a clan or family, alternatively named a planar temperament if using or considering it with no further tempering is desired.
If it is rank 3, it is a clan or family, alternatively named a planar temperament if using or considering it with no further tempering is desired.
If it is rank 4, it is a superfamily.
If it is rank 4, it is a superfamily.
Line 269: Line 122:
Rank 8 - the IUS (initial untempered subgroup).
Rank 8 - the IUS (initial untempered subgroup).
</pre>
</pre>
Note: A partial reason I chose "Metafamilies" to correspond to 3 commas (and thus "Metafamily temperaments" to 4) is to suggest focusing on tempering at least 3 or 4 commas in high rank situations so that we don't just get a whole bunch of 1 or 2 comma temperaments which are comparatively uninteresting and of which, at that scale, there will inevitably be (perhaps far too) many. This also has the neat property of meaning that Metafamily temperaments in the 19-prime-limit are "cubic" in analogy to how rank 3 temperaments are "planar", ad that Metafamily temperaments in the 17-prime-limit are "planar temperaments". Plus I like the fact that "Metafamily temperaments" are either equated or closely connected to Superfamilies and/or Ultrafamilies depending on how high of a rank your IUS is, further justifying the aesthetic choice of "meta" (at least IMO).<br/>
Note: A partial reason I chose "Metafamilies" to correspond to 3 commas (and thus "Metafamily temperaments" to 4) is to suggest focusing on tempering at least 3 or 4 commas in high rank situations so that we don't just get a whole bunch of 1 or 2 comma temperaments which are comparatively uninteresting and of which, at that scale, there will inevitably be (perhaps far too) many. This also has the neat property of meaning that Metafamily temperaments in the 19-prime-limit are "cubic" in analogy to how rank 3 temperaments are "planar", and that Metafamily temperaments in the 17-prime-limit are "planar temperaments". Plus I like the fact that "Metafamily temperaments" are either equated or closely connected to Superfamilies and/or Ultrafamilies depending on how high of a rank your IUS is, further justifying the aesthetic choice of "meta" (at least IMO).<br/>
'''[ End of suggestion/reply by''' [[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)'''. ]'''<br/><br/>
'''[ End of suggestion/reply by''' [[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)'''. ]'''<br/>
In hindsight this suggestion of mine is suggesting to redefine the word "temperament" but considering terms such as "planar temperament" and "linear temperament" I think the confusion is understandable, plus I still think the spirit of the suggestion is still relevant and if anything more relevant than before considering temperaments describing complete or near-complete harmonic series maps for the purpose of making constant structure harmonic series scales will be very high limit by default. Also I think the most important/least aged insight here is merging the information for temperaments that are dependent strongly on a single comma into the page for that comma, where it should logically belong; why talk of a comma if you don't talk of tempering it? If you don't temper it, then temperaments are either irrelevant, or you can suggest other commas to equate it with and thereby link to corresponding temperaments. In other words, every interesting small comma should ideally have some information on consequences and relation to temperaments in a standard "Temperaments" subsection. Information about how it relates to other intervals (the structure of JI) would '''not''' go under the Temperaments subsection.
 
For example, for [[676/675]] it is notable that it is a [[square superparticular]] (its numerator is 26<sup>2</sup> and its denominator one less) and also a ratio of the [[square superparticular]]s S13 = [[169/168]] and S15 = [[225/224]] which gives a mathematical explanation of why tempering [[676/675]] means tempering ([[4/3]])/([[15/13]])<sup>2</sup>. (For an explanation of why check the "semiparticular" section of [[square superparticular]]s.) It suggests that tempering {S13, S15} is an efficient simple temperament that tempers S26. If we then notice another pattern explained on that page, we can temper {S25, S26, S27} which implies tempering both S13 and S15 by multiple coincidences. Specifically, S25*S26*S27 = S15 (a 1/3-square-particular; guaranteed to be superparticular in this case but a coincidence that it is also a square superparticular) and S25*S26*S26*S27 = S13 (note that 26/2 = 13 which is how this general pattern works). This all together suggests that the no-11's 13-limit [[catakleismic]] temperament '''2.3.5.7.13[19 & 53] = {S13, S15, S25, S26, S27}''' is very efficient because many of the commas imply each-other and thus this description's multiple redundancieds shows how naturally these commas pair together.
 
'''[ End of comment/refinement by''' [[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 21:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)'''. ]'''
<br/><br/>


: Allow me to open a giant can of worms. :) I feel pretty strongly that a rank-2 "family" should only apply to strong extensions (meaning the pergen doesn't change), and weak extensions should not be part of a family. For example, tempering out both 81/80 and 243/242 from 2.3.5.11 gives you a temperament that I wouldn't call a member of the meantone family, because it has a fundamentally different structure. In pergen terms, it's (P8, P5/2) not (P8, P5). I would call this temperament a member of the Neutral/Lulu family instead. In other words, 243/242 is the comma that identifies/defines the family, not 81/80, even though the latter is 5-limit and the former is 11-limit. This suits my personal preference not to elevate prime 5 too much above primes 7, 11, etc. Now this is *not* how family has been used in the past, and much of the xenwiki is based on including weak extensions, and having the comma with the lowest prime limit be the one to identify the family. So maybe this is a futile request. But think about it -- you usually can't translate a piece in Neutral to Meantone. Half the notes simply aren't there. Thoughts?
: Allow me to open a giant can of worms. :) I feel pretty strongly that a rank-2 "family" should only apply to strong extensions (meaning the pergen doesn't change), and weak extensions should not be part of a family. For example, tempering out both 81/80 and 243/242 from 2.3.5.11 gives you a temperament that I wouldn't call a member of the meantone family, because it has a fundamentally different structure. In pergen terms, it's (P8, P5/2) not (P8, P5). I would call this temperament a member of the Neutral/Lulu family instead. In other words, 243/242 is the comma that identifies/defines the family, not 81/80, even though the latter is 5-limit and the former is 11-limit. This suits my personal preference not to elevate prime 5 too much above primes 7, 11, etc. Now this is *not* how family has been used in the past, and much of the xenwiki is based on including weak extensions, and having the comma with the lowest prime limit be the one to identify the family. So maybe this is a futile request. But think about it -- you usually can't translate a piece in Neutral to Meantone. Half the notes simply aren't there. Thoughts?
Line 279: Line 138:


:: The last suggestion about families, clans, tribes seems a way to simplify things for most people. Experts may disagree... --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 07:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
:: The last suggestion about families, clans, tribes seems a way to simplify things for most people. Experts may disagree... --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 07:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
::: We might wanna consult the inventor of the scheme for their logical basis, but I reckon it important to point out that "family" and "clan"/"temperaments" seem to be defined by nullity instead of rank in the first place. I don't know why it's the case, but by the fact that I can word it this way, it's not utterly broken. I'm not one of the experts who may disagree though, but I hope to be sure whether redefining by rank is really an improvement. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
: Well, at least I now have an idea at to how to deal with pages like [[The Archipelago]], and that is for such pages to serve as a hub for accessing the different clans and families and stuff such that are defined by tempering out the comma in question. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


== Comma tables in EDO pages ==
== Comma tables in EDO pages ==
Line 343: Line 206:


MOSes of larger size such as meantone[12] would probably be used as gamuts to choose notes for melodic scales and choose notes for MODMOSes of smaller MOSes from. They could still have Scale Workshop links but given less focus on. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
MOSes of larger size such as meantone[12] would probably be used as gamuts to choose notes for melodic scales and choose notes for MODMOSes of smaller MOSes from. They could still have Scale Workshop links but given less focus on. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
===Plain-language writing===
I'm trying to understand and document the tools that already exist both to mark beginner articles for readers and steer beginners to them, and to tag articles that are in need of improved accessibility to beginners. So far I have these, but are there others? ...
*Categories | Add category tags at the bottom of the page (must use "Edit source") after a blank line.
**[[:Category:Stubs]]
**[[:Category:Todo]]
***[[:Category:Todo:expand|Todo:expand]]
***[[:Category:Todo:explain its xenharmonic value|Todo:explain its xenharmonic value]] | As of 2023-Sep-07 the only articles with this tag are bios, but the [[:Category:Todo:explain_its_xenharmonic_value|category page itself]] describes other helpful usages. Examples: explain its value for ''composing xenharmonic music'', or for ''xenharmonic music theoretical analysis'' , which are of course closely related.
***[[:Category:Todo:add_introduction|Todo:add introduction]]
***[[:Category:Todo:intro|Todo:intro]] | Use [[:Category:Todo:add_introduction|Todo:add introduction]] instead, for more clarity.
***[[:Category:Todo:improve synopsis|Todo:improve synopsis]] | This means "improve intro."
***[[:Category:Todo:simplify|Todo:simplify]]
***[[:Category:Todo:improve readability|Todo:improve readability]]
***[[:Category:Todo:reduce_mathslang|Todo:reduce mathslang]]
**[[:Category:Inaccessible pages|Category:Inaccessible pages]] | [[Template:Inaccessible]] is preferable. This flag is related to [[:Category:Todo:reduce_mathslang|Todo:reduce mathslang]].
**[[:Category:Beginner pages|Category:Beginner pages]] | [[Template:Beginner]] is preferable.
**[[:Category:Expert pages|Category:Expert pages]] | [[Template:Expert]] is preferable.
*Templates | In practice, these function like categories but also add a message box for readers to alert them. Add these at the top of the article (must use "Edit source").
**[[Template:Beginner]] | Adds an article to [[:Category:Beginner pages]] plus a message box that can point them to the corresponding Expert page.
**[[Template:Expert]] | Adds an article to [[:Category:Expert pages]] plus a message box that can point them to the corresponding Beginner page.
**[[Template:Inaccessible]] | Adds an article to [[:Category:Inaccessible pages]] and also adds a "math ahead" warning message box to the article's head.
**[[Template:Wikipedia]] | Use <code><nowiki>{{Wikipedia}}</nowiki></code> when the article titles exactly match, else<code><nowiki>{{Wikipedia|page title on Wikipedia}}</nowiki></code>
**[[Template:Stub]]
I'm updating the above list when I get new suggestions. Once these are clarified and documented here, and maybe expanded or modified, this listing might be added to the corresponding section of the main "Things to do" page, since categorizing and tagging appropriately does fit that imperative.
[[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 09:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Replies from discussion on the #wiki channel of the [[Links#Discord_server | Xen Discord server]]:
: From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149297751482437743 Discord channel]... Fumica (41et) — 2023-Sep-07 at 6:58 AM. "There's no difference between category: todo: add introduction and category: todo: intro" [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149428486700814416 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 3:38 PM. "There are several older category names inherited from older versions of the wiki, before it was run with MediaWiki among other things, so that explains why some categories aren't always coherent. There's definitely a little cleanup to be done in this regard at some point."
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149436649252597790 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07at 4:10 PM. "Btw, synopsis = introduction = lead section (I use "lead section" personally, as Wikipedia does)"
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149437122340732929 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 4:12 PM. "I also lean towards single pages, the current issue is page protection enforced on some expert pages."
Perhaps there needs to be a Todo for a specific problem I frequently encounter in the Xen Wiki, even for critical foundational terminology articles: The very first paragraph, even the very first line, is written with math-speak and it's not rare for it to include math theory beyond high-school/algebra level. I offer the article for [[Harmonic limit]] as an example: "In just intonation, the p-limit or p-prime-limit consists of the ratios of p-smooth numbers, where a p-smooth number is an integer with prime factors no larger than p." I don't think it's a horrible article. But 1) The first line refers to "p-smooth numbers" which is higher-math-speak (regardless of it being a link, I shouldn't need to know what number theory is) and the majority of people are math-phobic and will walk away right there; (2) The article is called "Harmonic limit" and there's no use of that term in the article or explanation of what's "harmonic" about the p-limit.
I strongly suggest that all [[User:Mousemambo/Introduction_to_xenharmonic_music_terminology|foundational terminology articles]] should open with a plain-language introduction. I'd actually rather not have any advanced (post-algebra) math language even appear before a plain-language section is presented — one that will provide a beginner everything they need to have a strong basic understanding of the topic. I don't yet have a suggestion for what such a section should be called... "Basic summary" may sound a bit condescending, but I am unsure. I don't think that "Harmonic limit" needs a whole plain-language section. But perhaps a first line that gives a non-math summary/definition, then a paragraph of non-math explanation, and then finally a paragraph that opens with, "In mathematical terms, ...." [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:After a few weeks of thinking about it, I've settled on the heading "Overview" to indicate the plain-language, non-technical introduction and summary of an article that is mostly technical and expert-level. The term is not condescending or disparaging, it's true and accurate, and it allows for subheadings. So... expert/technical/mathematical articles would start with a brief plain-language intro paragraph (newly added if it doesn't already exist), followed by a technical/mathematical/expert intro paragraph (usually an existing one), then a new "Overview" plain-language section (preceded by the automatically created table of contents). The original article would follow that. This seems to me like a good general strategy for modifying articles on my [[User:Mousemambo/Introduction_to_xenharmonic_music_terminology]] listing that need plain-language upgrades. [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 08:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I am thinking out loud here to illustrate my perspective. I note that the plain-language text will probably (maybe ideally) duplicate or paraphrase some text from any corresponding Wikipedia article, e.g. Wikipedia:Limit (music). But I suggest that this level of explanation is going to frequently be necessary to provide basic introductions that don't frighten people off with immediate complexity. I feel that a limited amount of duplicating Wikipedia should not be discouraged within a plain-language section or summary. Especially because one of the functions of beginner terminology articles is to encourage understanding from a xenharmonic rather than a conventional musicology perspective, and the Xen Wiki analogous article can do that.
[[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149435515821633586 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 4:06 PM. "I'm personally a fan of message boxes, because it combines categories and visibility for both readers and editors. Readers are warned of known issues on a page, while editors are reminded of work to do on a page. Here's what I would use instead of "todo:add plain-language": [[Template:Inaccessible]]"
:From the [https://discord.com/channels/332357996569034752/780300193110818826/1149443429818966118 Discord channel]... fredg999 — 2023-Sep-07 at 4:37 PM. "I think the lead section is one of the places where Wikipedia and the Xen Wiki can duplicate each other, especially if it fits adequately in both contexts. As you said earlier, some articles benefit from being adapted to the Xen Wiki's context."
I will throw in here that I am compiling my personal thoughts about writing accessible Xen wiki articles into an [[User:Mousemambo/Workbench#Elements_of_good_Xenharmonic_Wiki_article_writing | Elements of good Xenharmonic Wiki article writing]] section of my workbench page. [[User:Mousemambo|Mousemambo]] ([[User talk:Mousemambo|talk]]) 19:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Reorganize temperament pages ===
IMO there are too many rank-2 temperaments on this wiki that are just variants of each other (have similar optimal tunings) and only differ in some high complexity interpretation for an extra harmonic. Ideally the most important (low-complexity) approximations and subgroups should be given first, and one way we can pin those down is look at what intervals are approximated in small EDO tunings (<=36edo) for the rank 2 temperament. I'm not proposing deleting any material, just reorganizing the data presented.
This suggests a scale-tree based format for temperament pages; each page would focus on a fixed MOS structure and possible temperaments for the generator chain that generates that MOS. The temperaments are ordered in increasing generator size, and more complex temperaments (i.e. approximating additional JI intervals with intervals further out in the generator chain) would be children of simpler temperaments. See [[User:IlL/Temp_page_example|proposed format for rank-2 temperament pages]]. The new scale tree temperament pages need not replace current temperament pages, but I believe that this is the most intuitive format and should be what newcomers to RTT-based tunings should be directed to. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 07:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
: You have a fair point, but the premise yet to be discussed is what purposes these temperament pages serve. In the end, most temperaments may be augmented with their own pages and even subpages just like those edo pages, where much more detailed information can be presented, so that novices can get practical help to the full extent. We've got some of them (such as ''Meantone family'' vs ''Meantone''), so why not most of them? Apart from that, this wiki must reserve the capacity to technically precisely document the temperaments.
: The structure you illustrated looks like a catalog by MOS scales, but we've got pages for MOS scales such as ''5L 2s'', which you might feel like working on instead (they're indeed in need of an overhaul). The reason I'm saying this is, the scale structure is a function of generator set, not temperament. Meantone and garibaldi are temperaments which, despite having the same generator chain, require vastly different approaches to harmony due to tempering out different commas. All temperaments in meantone family takes +4 steps (or a multiple thereof if the generator is split) for harmonic 5, whereas all temperaments in schismatic family takes -8. So if you're interested in scale structure, there are such pages; if you're interested in temperaments, I think meantone, garibaldi and superpyth are too different to be temperament-wise reasonably listed in the same page.
: A lot of problems in this wiki can be fixed by linking improvement. The navigation will be much more friendly to novices if there are straightforward, logical links between scala files, scale structure pages, and temperaments. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I hadn't seen this before.
:: I'm sure I've written this several times, but the "right" answer to this is to complete organizing things into "subgroup families," which is a nontrivial problem. Originally, the theory involved only prime limits, and after we started looking at subgroup temperaments, Gene Smith tried a variety of different naming systems for the other ones, all of which are incompatible and for which the consensus is that these are suboptimal. For instance, [[The Archipelago]] is one early naming system which was subsequently abandoned, followed by some work algorithmically naming them after [[dyadic chord|dyadic chords]] and ultimately the [[Chromatic pairs]] page. The idea on the latter page was to see subgroup temperaments as being derived from full-limit temperaments and then give it like a weird, variant/misspelled name. But, it is clearly not great for us to have a thousand different versions of "Porcupine" named "Porkypine" or whatever, or "Mohaha" and "Mohoho" as subgroup versions of Mohajira.
:: The correct answer would be to generalize the way "families" are laid out, so that instead of 2.3.5.7 temperaments being "extensions" of 2.3.5 temperaments, we have 2.3.5.7 temperaments "extending" both 2.3.5, 2.3.7, 2.5.7, or even 2.3.7/5, etc. Then we can look for just the "best" "root" temperaments which start a tree of extensions and focus on those. These would become the "main" temperaments of the theory, and everything else would be different extensions. For instance, "meantone" is a "main" temperament, and we know there are many meantone extensions ("meantone", "meanpop", "flattone", "meanenneadecal", etc), but these are all grouped in the "meantone" family. Similarly, the 2.3.11 243/242 temperament (called "neutral") is a *VERY* important subgroup temperament of which mohajira, suhajira, migration, "mohoho" and "mohaha" and *all* of these related temperaments are extensions of.
:: This is a very interesting and nontrivial problem. Not every "good" comma leads to a "good" rank-2 temperament, for instance. 36/35 is simpler than 49/48, for instance, but 49/48 is "better" for rank-2 temperaments because it is supported on a simple rank-3 subgroup (2.3.7) whereas 36/35 doesn't have any good rank-3 subgroup that it is part of. Similarly, 225/224 is not as "good" as 1029/1024 for the same reason.
:: There is quite a bit of partially developed theory on this and a few missing puzzle pieces. I don't know how mathematical you Discord folks are, but perhaps someone sees something that I'm missing on how to put it all together. But it would be *great* to get this done, as we could then just "close the book" on this subgroup temperament problem and then move onto whatever the next part of the theory is.
:: Lastly, the consensus we came to on Facebook was, rather than just arbitrarily organizing them into families, we ought to be somewhat methodical in figuring out which ones really matter, by ranking them the same way we do temperaments and etc. So I hope that any proposed reorganizational scheme will either be compatible with this structure, or leave us adequate room to do this properly later. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
::: It ''is'' a nontrivial problem. The question is which root temperament is the best. For one, I most recently moved ''guiron'' from ''schismatic family'' to ''gamelismic clan'' not only because it's a strong extension (i.e. the pergen remains unchanged) of slendric and a weak extension (i.e. the pergen changes) of helmholtz, but also because the mapping of 2.3.7 is much simpler than that of 5, resulting in more abundant septimal intervals in a small scale. Such moves are currently based on my intuition and can be explained thru reasons like above but I don't have a rigorous approach yet. I feel the same that temperament ''families'' and ''clans'' are the more prioritized categories and ''collections'' such as ''marvel temperaments'' are less of a concern. I'll post on the FB group when I got more ideas. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


=== New format for temperament entries ===
=== New format for temperament entries ===
Line 377: Line 315:
To use this to find a reasonably objective measurement of what subgroups are best, we can add a few logical restrictions on this rather general definition:<br/>
To use this to find a reasonably objective measurement of what subgroups are best, we can add a few logical restrictions on this rather general definition:<br/>
* Consider the monzos of the harmonics in any S as r-dimensional vectors (AKA, interpreted as members of N^r), corresponding to the p_r-prime-limit with p_r the r'th prime, and with p_r not exceeding L. These vectors must be linearly independent, so as to not represent a "pathological" subgroup which can have multiple mappings for the same positive integer.
* Consider the monzos of the harmonics in any S as r-dimensional vectors (AKA, interpreted as members of N^r), corresponding to the p_r-prime-limit with p_r the r'th prime, and with p_r not exceeding L. These vectors must be linearly independent, so as to not represent a "pathological" subgroup which can have multiple mappings for the same positive integer.
* Then, if we assume that all harmonics in the subgroup are harmonics we want to approximate, we can think about the logarithmic size of each harmonic as the amount of information it generates, because smaller harmonics generate more of the harmonic series, especially when combined with other small harmonics, hence leading to prime limits as the most efficient subgroup representations of the harmonic series, with "efficient" being defined as "generates the most harmonics considering the number of generators". This leads to about the most natural formulation I can currently think of which is relatively straightforward and (as a sanity check) which is used on the page for [[The Riemann Zeta Function and Tuning]], which is weighting each generator by the reciprocal of the log of its size. To then make the definition invariant to the number of generators, you can make the weightings sum to 1 by multiplying by an appropriate scalar.
* Then, if we assume that all harmonics in the subgroup are harmonics we want to approximate, we can think about the logarithmic size of each harmonic as the amount of information it generates, because smaller harmonics generate more of the harmonic series, especially when combined with other small harmonics, hence leading to prime limits as the most efficient subgroup representations of the harmonic series, with "efficient" being defined as "generates the most harmonics considering the number of generators". This leads to about the most natural formulation I can currently think of which is relatively straightforward and (as a sanity check) which is used on the page for [[The Riemann zeta function and tuning]], which is weighting each generator by the reciprocal of the log of its size. To then make the definition invariant to the number of generators, you can make the weightings sum to 1 by multiplying by an appropriate scalar.
* Then, to find the subgroups that nEDk best approximates relative to its step size, simply look at all choices for subsets of L where all harmonics are linearly independent and where the error is low enough to guarantee a good level of [[consistency]], and sort results by increasing errors. Note that this becomes very computationally intensive for large L, so L=30, L=42, L=58, L=96 and at most L=126 are all good restrictions, depending on what is computationally feasible in a reasonable amount of time.<br/>(The choices of L that I listed here are based on prime limits (specifically, record prime gaps, and 30 is 2*3*5 so its significant) with the exception of 58 which is based on the 53-prime-limit being the highest limit available on x31eq. Note that larger L can be used for small ETs if we restrict accuracy sufficiently or consider only lower-prime-limit subsets of L.)
* Then, to find the subgroups that nEDk best approximates relative to its step size, simply look at all choices for subsets of L where all harmonics are linearly independent and where the error is low enough to guarantee a good level of [[consistency]], and sort results by increasing errors. Note that this becomes very computationally intensive for large L, so L=30, L=42, L=58, L=96 and at most L=126 are all good restrictions, depending on what is computationally feasible in a reasonable amount of time.<br/>(The choices of L that I listed here are based on prime limits (specifically, record prime gaps, and 30 is 2*3*5 so its significant) with the exception of 58 which is based on the 53-prime-limit being the highest limit available on x31eq. Note that larger L can be used for small ETs if we restrict accuracy sufficiently or consider only lower-prime-limit subsets of L.)
* As for making the search more computationally feasible, there is an easy way to eliminate possibilities, which is by adding harmonics in order of increasing error relative to the error of some starting harmonic until there are none left in L or none left that wouldn't introduce too much error. This provides an easy way to define "families of subgroup interpretations" by increasing error and through superset/subset relationships as well as compatibility relations, which could be an interesting direction to take this in of itself.<br/>(I wonder how related it'd be to [[Xenharmonic_Wiki_talk:Things_to_do#13-Limit, 17-Limit and 19-Limit Comma Pages|families of temperaments]]? Seems like it'd be strongly related, and better yet, suggest potential ways of organising relatively unknown temperaments.)
* As for making the search more computationally feasible, there is an easy way to eliminate possibilities, which is by adding harmonics in order of increasing error relative to the error of some starting harmonic until there are none left in L or none left that wouldn't introduce too much error. This provides an easy way to define "families of subgroup interpretations" by increasing error and through superset/subset relationships as well as compatibility relations, which could be an interesting direction to take this in of itself.<br/>(I wonder how related it'd be to [[Xenharmonic_Wiki_talk:Things_to_do#13-Limit, 17-Limit and 19-Limit Comma Pages|families of temperaments]]? Seems like it'd be strongly related, and better yet, suggest potential ways of organising relatively unknown temperaments.)
A few notes on the mathematics:
A few notes on the mathematics:
* I pick the variance over the standard deviation because squaring the error leads to a "least-squares" optimisation, which is then much more "compatible" with the tuning optimisations represented by the Riemann Zeta function.
* I pick the variance over the standard deviation because squaring the error leads to a "least-squares" optimisation, which is then much more "compatible" with the tuning optimisations represented by the Riemann zeta function.
* We can take an alternative strategy to tuning a subgroup less focused on the regular temperament theory interpretation and more focused on what consonant chords and intervals are approximated that you want to use. In such a case, you pick ''any'' subset of X corresponding to ''any'' subset of L, which is to say that the r-dimensional vectors ''are not'' required (or even recommended) to be linearly independent. Then the subset of L represents a generalisation of [[odd limit]]s, where odd limits are specific to where your subset of L is only odd harmonics due to the discarding of 2's in the prime factorisations due to being specific to ED2s. This interpretation/use fits very nicely with the notion of [[Consistent#Consistency_to_distance_d|consistency to distance d]], with the standard deviation being an "expected overall consistency" which is less discrete/rigid. The only potential problem with this is it seems like a very large number of possibilities can result with different subsets being preferable for subjective reasons.
* We can take an alternative strategy to tuning a subgroup less focused on the regular temperament theory interpretation and more focused on what consonant chords and intervals are approximated that you want to use. In such a case, you pick ''any'' subset of X corresponding to ''any'' subset of L, which is to say that the r-dimensional vectors ''are not'' required (or even recommended) to be linearly independent. Then the subset of L represents a generalisation of [[odd limit]]s, where odd limits are specific to where your subset of L is only odd harmonics due to the discarding of 2's in the prime factorisations due to being specific to ED2s. This interpretation/use fits very nicely with the notion of [[Consistent#Consistency_to_distance_d|consistency to distance d]], with the standard deviation being an "expected overall consistency" which is less discrete/rigid. The only potential problem with this is it seems like a very large number of possibilities can result with different subsets being preferable for subjective reasons.
--[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
--[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Line 389: Line 327:
: I don't think it's our place as wiki editors to pass judgement on what an edo can do. Our job is just to report the facts. But any rating or metric will have some arbitrariness. We have the absolute and relative errors of each prime right there at the top of the edo's page. This lets people make their own decisions. Not to say that what you're doing isn't a worthwhile endeavor. I just don't think it belongs on the edo pages. Perhaps it could be a separate page on the xenwiki called "Godtone's analysis of EDO subgroups" or some such, that the main EDO page links to. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
: I don't think it's our place as wiki editors to pass judgement on what an edo can do. Our job is just to report the facts. But any rating or metric will have some arbitrariness. We have the absolute and relative errors of each prime right there at the top of the edo's page. This lets people make their own decisions. Not to say that what you're doing isn't a worthwhile endeavor. I just don't think it belongs on the edo pages. Perhaps it could be a separate page on the xenwiki called "Godtone's analysis of EDO subgroups" or some such, that the main EDO page links to. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


:: That's a fair criticism of trying to box EDOs into subgroups, there's too much subjectivity involved. I still think we can stand to reduce bias in the way that objective information is presented. I've changed my proposal to "[[Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Things to do#Reduce over-2 and prime-limit bias|Reduce over-2 and prime-limit bias]]". [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 08:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
:: I've amended my proposal to "[[Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Things to do# Odd harmonics table instead of prime harmonics for edos]]". It's better to report odd harmonics so they're immediately visible. Better yet, Tom Price suggested we use a circular diagram to plot the error of odd harmonics mod edo steps. Which allows seeing at a glance which ratios between odds are in tune.  [[User:Inthar|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar|talk]]) 20:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 
I've included a relevant function [[User:Godtone#My_Python_3_code|<code>orderedapproximator</code> in my code]] (which is free to use and modify etc. at will by anyone subject they provide it to others under the same conditions; that's essentially what the license is: copyleft). Notably this solves the exact type of mean used. I am not aware if this has anything to do with TE error, but i suspect it is a new metric. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 19:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 
== Accessibility formatting guidelines for presenting RTT in general-audience pages ==
It seems the proposal for making the temperament material more accessible has failed. It might be better for pages intended for a general audience to be as isolated as possible from the temperament pages and for us to be especially careful to try not to obligate newcomers to learn it at all.
 
'''Proposal:''' On a page intended to be read by a general audience and those unfamiliar with RTT, such as pages about MOS patterns,
# A temperament should not be mentioned at all, unless the temperament has been used in at least 20 compositions (for example, a 1L6s MOS in a porcupine tuning, or pumps the porcupine comma). Pages on which this temperament restriction policy is active should be clearly marked for editors.
# When linking to a temperament name, it should link to a page describing the temperament for a general audience, not a technical temperament entry.
# <s>The same threshold should apply for creating a temperament page.</s>
[[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 08:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 
: > The same threshold should apply for creating a temperament page.
 
: A temperament page documents whatever important about the temperament: notation, interval chain, chords, scales, history, music examples, etc. It's with the page will come compositions, not the other way around. Therefore, there should be no barrier for creating a temperament page so that its use can be facilitated.
 
: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 
:: Alright. It's not my intention to restrict creative work in any way. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 
== Too many short interval pages to fit in "todo:expand" or "stubs" ==
 
 
; The problem
 
There are 303 pages in Category:Todo:expand, including 42 interval pages. 
 
There are 1,072 pages in Category:Stubs, including 61 interval pages.
 
There are 1,043 pages in Category:Rational intervals.
 
Currently, stub interval pages are being under-reported: using the "Threshold for stub link formatting" preference and setting it to a value that lines up with Category:Stubs, it flags about 90% of interval pages as a potential stub. That’d be about 900 pages.
 
If we were to actually mark those as stubs or todo:expand as current convention suggests, it would completely overwhelm both todo categories and make it difficult to actually use them.
 
I have three proposed solutions we could choose from. Which one does everyone prefer? Or do you have your own ones to suggest?
 
 
; Solution A - stricter criteria
 
We make the criteria for including interval pages in either category more strict than it would be for other types of pages:
 
* For inclusion in "stubs", an interval page should have to be extremely barebones, only about one sentence of human text.
 
* For inclusion in "todo:expand", an interval page should have to be highly notable (e.g. 6/5, 7/1, etc.) OR should have to show an obvious specific way it ought to be expanded (though in that case "todo:complete section" may often fit better).
 
''If we go with this solution, I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and remove those categories from any pages that don't meet the above criteria.''
 
''Then I will to go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add “stub” or “todo:expand” to all pages which ''do'' meet the criteria (there likely aren’t many, given the strict criteria).''
 
''All edits will be marked as minor.''
 
 
; Solution B - new todo categories for interval pages
 
We create the categories "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub".
 
We continue categorising interval pages exactly the same way we do now, except using those two new categories on interval pages in place of "todo:expand" and "stub".
 
''If we go with this solution, I will make category pages for "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub".''
 
''Then I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and move them to "todo:expand interval page" or "todo:interval stub".''
 
''Then I will go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub" to all pages which they apply to.''
 
''All edits will be marked as minor.''
 
 
; Solution C - new todo category for critical pages
 
We create the category "todo:expand critical page" for any stub or todo:expand pages where the subject matter has especially broad relevance to multiple other concepts in xen, and it makes sense to focus on expanding those key pages first before all the other stuff.
 
''If we go with this solution, I will make the category page for "todo:expand critical page".''
 
''Then I will go through all the  pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and move any ones with broad xenharmonic relevance to "todo:expand critical page". I suspect there won't be many, maybe around 20. We can always add others later if I miss some.''
 
''All edits will be marked as minor.''
 
 
; Conclusion
 
Of all of these, I prefer solution B. It seems like the least convoluted or clunky. I’m okay with any of the solutions though. But what do others think?
 
I'll wait until January 1st, Sydney time, to take any action so there's time for everyone to discuss.
 
(''If discussions are still ongoing as of Jan 1, I'll postpone any action until some consensus is reached.'')
 
(''If no one has commented by Jan 1, I will ask on the talk pages of a couple more experienced editors and I’ll follow their advice.'')
 
--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
 
: I have a preference for solution A. We can think of a few criteria to determine what's an important interval page, e.g. below some threshold for at least one metric, from a list of a few relevant metrics (we might want to discuss this on Discord and/or poll the community for their input). Otherwise, I wouldn't want to make it look like there's an urgent need to fill hundreds of pages with content without any obvious need from the community, and that is why I don't like solutions B and C as much. In general, stuff like stub and todo templates should be placed while taking into consideration the importance of the page, so it's expected that narrower topics have shorter pages, including very specific intervals with fewer applications; those can be expanded at any time, of course, but we don't necessarily need a flashing light pointing to them. By the way, thank you for offering to help with recategorizing the pages, this is a big amount of manual work and it is appreciated. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 06:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:: Thank you for the input, after reading your explanation I too am leaning towards solution A. I will wait to see what others say first, but if that’s also how others are feeling, then I’ll be happy to take that route.
 
:: If we do end up going with Solution A, then on Jan 1, I will first of all just look through all the interval pages currently marked as stub or todo:expand, and see what types of groups they fall into.
 
:: Then I will run a poll on which of those groups of interval pages are important to expand, and which ones are not. Then I will add or remove the categories to pages based on the criteria set by the poll results.
 
:: Thank you again for your help :) And Happy Holidays as well :) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:: …
 
:: I am posting this update for a general audience rather than for Fredg999 specifically: While not strictly part of this same topic, I removed stub boxes from EDO pages bigger than 1000 for the same reasons that were discussed here: ("''In general, stuff like stub and todo templates should be placed while taking into consideration the importance of the page, so it's expected that narrower topics have shorter pages, including very specific intervals with fewer applications; those can be expanded at any time, of course, but we don't necessarily need a flashing light pointing to them''").
 
:: If it happens that any of the specific edo pages I removed stub from actually is important to a bunch of other pages, then of course anyone can feel free to add the stub box back to those specific ones. I just suspect that for more of them than not, they probably didn’t need the stub box, considering their step size is way way below the just noticeable difference and some were even marked as novelties.
 
:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 19:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:: …
 
:: It is now Jan 1 Sydney time so I’m going ahead with Solution A, and with the survey. Please vote in the survey here: [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScFzn4u5FR-QXm4FYf1UOmIzcIj9AHV6NGFdzSvwvUYvcnMxw/viewform?usp=dialog ''Survey about interval pages in Todo:expand and Stubs'' - Google Forms]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:: …
 
:: I have concluded the survey now, and based on the results, come up with these guidelines: [[Xenharmonic Wiki:Optional guidelines for interval page todo categories]]. XW:IntTodo for short. (Survey results included in that page too.) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
 
:: …
 
:: Over the past 24 hours, I have gone through all pages in Category:Rational intervals, and ensured they are all in the correct categories according to XW:IntTodo. For unclear edge cases, I just left them how they are and didn’t change them. It ended up being that by far most pages were already in the correct categories anyway, so I didn’t have to change very much.
 
:: Since the guidelines are optional, no one really needs to think or worry about them moving forwards, they are just there if anyone wants them as an aid to guide decision making. They helped me though, I feel much more satisfied now, knowing that there’s at least a loose system behind what page goes where :)  


== Reduce over-2 and prime-limit bias ==
:: Thank you to everyone who helped in this process, especially Fredg999 for the earlier comment that set me on this path.
The problem with just having a table of ''prime'' harmonics is that it only focuses on intervals of the form ''p''/2, and the approximations of many other intervals (which are important for subgroup temperaments) aren't immediately visible and cannot always be obtained directly from the best approximations for primes.


So I '''propose''' that every edo page should have a subpage that catalogues the best approximations in the edo of all the intervals in the 29-odd limit. The reason I propose the 29-odd limit is that 7n-edos approximate 29/16 to within ~1c. Up to inversional equivalence and omitting 1/1 and 2/1, that's 91 intervals. If that's overkill, then the primes table at the top of every edo page should actually have all the odd harmonics from 3 to 29 and their best approximations. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 08:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.xen.wiki/w/Xenharmonic_Wiki_talk:Things_to_do"
Return to the project page "Things to do".