Talk:Map of linear temperaments: Difference between revisions
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:: The split was because it was difficult both read and edit the huge uninterrupted wall of table. The reason multiples of 150c were chosen is because they are the only spots which have nice round numbers which aren't in the middle of any of the temperaments already listed (eg not breaking porcupine or tetracot or any other temperament in half). Multiples of 200c would work too, but I went with 150c because that means each section is shorter thus more readable. But the choices were 150s or 200s. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 10:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC). | :: The split was because it was difficult both read and edit the huge uninterrupted wall of table. The reason multiples of 150c were chosen is because they are the only spots which have nice round numbers which aren't in the middle of any of the temperaments already listed (eg not breaking porcupine or tetracot or any other temperament in half). Multiples of 200c would work too, but I went with 150c because that means each section is shorter thus more readable. But the choices were 150s or 200s. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 10:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC). | ||
:: I don't think the subheadings are likely to introduce any bias - it's not like I said "150-300c is the best range, all the others smell!", I don't think there's anything that would lead a reader to preference one over another. And the dividing lines don't cut any temperaments in half so no bias is introduced in that way either (if it did cut any in half, then those ones would look "less important", but it didn't | :: I don't think the subheadings are likely to introduce any bias - it's not like I said "150-300c is the best range, all the others smell!", I don't think there's anything that would lead a reader to preference one over another. And the dividing lines don't cut any temperaments in half so no bias is introduced in that way either (if it did cut any in half, then those ones would look "less important", but it didn't so we're good). | ||
:: So I see no cause for concern of introducing bias there. | :: So I see no cause for concern of introducing bias there. | ||