Talk:318edo

Readability

There are lots of isolated facts hidden in the text. Why are we forcing people to search for it? Imagine you'd read it aloud to someone else: would this make sense? If not, other options should be evaluated: for example lists, tables, or images. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid a lot of other mega-edo pages are written this way, too. FloraC (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of work on old pages, but we should especially have an eye on newly created pages. Of course, when we now edit old pages (especially for minor fixes) we have to be careful what we leave behind. People tend to get used to things that they see as accepted by others, especially by experienced users. Take 206edo for an example, it's better now but still not good, we should add it in some todo category, but I don't find the right one (rework seems to much, review to little). To get back to this article, I think that enumerations of technical facts should be made obvious as such. --Xenwolf (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I started Category:Todo:improve readability for cases like this. --Xenwolf (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't have as many resources for figuring out what commas this EDO tempered out. --Aura (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Name (ratio) vs ratio (name)

Which is the better format for showing the commas in the circumstance of a large edo? Ratio (name) seems better to me because large edos tend to temper out some unnamed commas that are among the simplest for that edo. We can turn to monzo when the ratio gets complex enough. FloraC (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)