User talk:BudjarnLambeth/Gallery of just intervals
What this is and why
There was a long discussion today on the Discord, which has been a recurring discussion but it’s becoming more animated over time, and today was the most lively it has gotten so far.
Basically, a few editors want to remove a large number of entries from the Gallery of just intervals, and a few editors want to keep the entries that are in the table now and not remove any.
Overlapping with this discussion, a few editors think that there should be a systematic set of criteria for choosing intervals to go in the gallery: every interval that meets the rule should be added, every interval that doesn’t should be removed. A few other editors disagree with that, and think that the current, non-systematic approach is better due to its flexibility, preservation of tradition, and ability to cover interval regions without low integer JI ratios e.g. the 50ish cents either side of 4/3, 3/2, 2/1, etc.
Overlapping with that discussion, a few editors think that all intervals wider than 2/1 (1200 cents) should be removed - mostly these are editors who do not endorse the idea of tritave equivalence. A few editors think intervals wider than 2/1 should be kept after all - most these are editors who endorse tritave equivalence.
In response to all of that, I made a vague proposal on the Discord for turning the Gallery of just intervals into a hub page, with four different subpages, each with its own table, each to satisfy one or more of the above groups of editors.
The reaction to my proposal was lukewarm support. No one was passionately in favour, but no one opposed it at all, just a few people said stuff along the lines of “yeah, I guess that could work, I wouldn’t mind that”. Critically, it seemed that people across the aisle were okay with this idea, so it seemed like it could be the path to a successful compromise consensus.
So that is why I went ahead and made this mockup of what the page might look like, to get feedback and also to hopefully recruit others to tweak it.
I especially hope for someone else to have a crack at editing the Beginner and Comprehensive subpages because I need others to come to a decision on what the systematic rules for inclusion will be for each of those (and I’m happy for anyone to edit those pages and just implement their own preferred criteria: I have no preference so I’m just going to let whoever is passionate enough to take time to edit the page, have their method win out. That seems fair to me).
--BudjarnLambeth (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)