Talk:Tenney–Euclidean tuning: Difference between revisions
→Motivation & "weaknesses": expand |
→Motivation & "weaknesses": perhaps a better idea |
||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
: This isn't a distinct issue on top of the ubiquity of octave equivalence. Replace "octave" with "fifth" and the logic still holds, so I don't think it needs to be brought up. | : This isn't a distinct issue on top of the ubiquity of octave equivalence. Replace "octave" with "fifth" and the logic still holds, so I don't think it needs to be brought up. | ||
: Fixing this section will be difficult as most of the contents are so out of place. I'd say a complete removal is the best way to go. Then we might wanna selectively re-install them to the relevant articles. | : Fixing this section will be difficult as most of the contents are so out of place. <s>I'd say a complete removal is the best way to go. Then we might wanna selectively re-install them to the relevant articles.</s> Moving some of the relevant info to the "otherwise normed tunings" section would make sense, as that's where we compare different norms. | ||
: As for the "motivation" section, most of it is discussing the characteristics of Tenney weighting and Euclidean norms. I'm thinking about condensing it to something similar to the "features" section of Wikipedia's IPA sound articles. | : As for the "motivation" section, most of it is discussing the characteristics of Tenney weighting and Euclidean norms. I'm thinking about condensing it to something similar to the "features" section of Wikipedia's IPA sound articles. | ||
: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC) | : —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC) (updated [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)) | ||