Template talk:Infobox RT
Mapping format
Example page: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Hanson_and_cata
Why use the reduced mapping? Why not <1 0 1 0] <0 6 5 14] instead of <1; 6 5 14]? I personally find the missing numbers very useful. And there's plenty of room on the screen for them. (Quibble: the term "reduced mapping" means other things as well.) --TallKite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Missing numbers can be reconstructed from the generator tuning. Lériendil (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1) Why make the reader do the work of reconstructing, when the infobox can simply tell the reader the numbers? Especially since the infobox is the first thing a beginner or intermediate microtonalist will see. 2) These reduced mappings are NOT the standard way to list a mapping. Not here on the xenwiki, not on x31, not on Sintel's app, not anywhere that I know of. 3) When the octave equals many periods, it's quite possible to have two distinct temperaments with identical reduced mappings. Why make the reader guess? Again, why not just tell the reader what they want to know? --TallKite (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I second Kite. I'd also like to note the reduced mapping currently in use takes but one of many possible ways to "reduce" the mapping. The most basic reduced mapping, which precedes that one, is formed by simply rejecting the first row, and sees use in some of Gene's technical articles. For example meantone's reduced mapping would simply be [⟨0 1 4 10]]. This form of reduced mapping has the advantage of preserving the mathematical sense of a mapping such that it can be applied to monzos just like normal mappings. The reduced mapping currently in use is more like a shorthand notation that isn't subject to mathematical operations. FloraC (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Cents format
Example page: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Hanson_and_cata
Why overspecify the cents so much? Seems misleading. The comma basis is sometimes 2.3.5 and sometimes 2.3.5.13. Wouldn't the exact cents of the optimal generator vary depending on which comma basis is used? And isn't the choice of CTE over other standards somewhat arbitrary? I'd rather see "~317c" than "317.111c". No information is lost because all the exact tunings for specific temperaments already appear on the "Kleismic family" page, where they belong. --TallKite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- For Kleismic it's accurate enough that "317.1c" should be used in preference to "317c"; CTE was arbitrary but I'd rather select just one generator. This was 2.3.5.13 CTE I suppose. Lériendil (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at the Kleismic Family page. The first few generators listed range from 316.413c to 317.567c. So saying it's 317.1c is untrue. Isn't it better to give an approximate answer that describes the true situation, rather than an overly precise answer that misleads the reader? IMO it should say "~317c".--TallKite (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This one I'm not super sure of. If we're showing CTE we're certainly tryna give an exemplar tuning so it makes sense to be precise, but the purpose could just be to give a rough idea on the generator in which case integer cent would suffice or even be an overkill depending on the specific temp. FloraC (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)