Xenharmonic Wiki:Cross-platform dialogue: Difference between revisions

Line 182:

:: So far, my suggestion is to have a single standard optimal tuning displayed in any given temperament data block, and optionally append a collapsible box containing more "optimal tunings" for various optimization methods. These would serve as quick references for people who do not wish to use a calculator, namely if one wants to compare similar temperaments at a glance. These tunings can most likely be computed dynamically if we have the right modules, but they could also just be manually inserted if need be. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

::: Showing a single standard tuning by default has the issue of which though. If they're on board with KE (if we can show that it's practically almost always very close to POTE) then that's not an issue, but otherwise I presume it means that they'd want it to be POTE; I would object to POTE being the standard tuning to show (as opposed to, say, KE) just as they object to CTE. In such a case it seems better to just show a few tunings side-by-side and let the reader make their own judgement. The values given are only meant to be a starting point anyways (for if one doesn't want to use an EDO tuning). --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 03:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

::: My pick for the standard tuning would be TE, which the others (POTE, KE, CTE, anything else) being included in the collapsed box. There seems to be a lot of disagreement about which pure-octaves optimal tuning is acceptable, but most people seem to be okay with TE as the stretched-octaves one, so with TE being the least controversial, it seems to make sense to list it first. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|Budjarn Lambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 :: So far, my suggestion is to have a single standard optimal tuning displayed in any given temperament data block, and optionally append a collapsible box containing more "optimal tunings" for various optimization methods. These would serve as quick references for people who do not wish to use a calculator, namely if one wants to compare similar temperaments at a glance. These tunings can most likely be computed dynamically if we have the right modules, but they could also just be manually inserted if need be. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 ::: Showing a single standard tuning by default has the issue of which though. If they're on board with KE (if we can show that it's practically almost always very close to POTE) then that's not an issue, but otherwise I presume it means that they'd want it to be POTE; I would object to POTE being the standard tuning to show (as opposed to, say, KE) just as they object to CTE. In such a case it seems better to just show a few tunings side-by-side and let the reader make their own judgement. The values given are only meant to be a starting point anyways (for if one doesn't want to use an EDO tuning). --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 03:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
+::: My pick for the standard tuning would be TE, which the others (POTE, KE, CTE, anything else) being included in the collapsed box. There seems to be a lot of disagreement about which pure-octaves optimal tuning is acceptable, but most people seem to be okay with TE as the stretched-octaves one, so with TE being the least controversial, it seems to make sense to list it first. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|Budjarn Lambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)