Template talk:Infobox ET: Difference between revisions

Line 8:

: 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===

Line 121:

Line 123:

::::: 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)

: 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)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 : 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===
@@ Line 121: / Line 123: @@
 ::::: 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)
+: 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)