Talk:Table of 159edo Intervals: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Formatting: typos |
re |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
: If I understand right: you are suggesting the use of regular columns (even if with empty cells)? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) | : If I understand right: you are suggesting the use of regular columns (even if with empty cells)? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC) | ||
:: Yes. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:13, 16 September 2020
Formatting
Tbh I'm not fond of the current format of most such interval table pages.
- With a lot of merged columns it looks messy and hard to read.
- Some important higher-limit ratios are often obscured by simpler ratios in lower limit. That doesn't help to understand the structural characteristics of the temperament.
I suggest:
- Never merge units even if empty.
- All ratios under a certain criteria (which may vary by the complexity of the edo) should be present, despite the existence of simpler ones.
That'll make the interval table more similar to those in main edo pages, but each prime limit is in separate column, from which larger and higher-limit edos still benefit.
I think Aura has a good start. We might propagate that. FloraC (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)