Talk:Map of linear temperaments
|
This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion. |
Splitting the table in four
What's the basis of this split? I'm afraid it introduces bias. FloraC (talk) 10:36, 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. --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 so we're good).
- So I see no cause for concern of introducing bias there.
- What I am concerned about in terms of bias is some temperaments being given many fewer example tunings (fewer rows) than other equally important temperaments. Of course some temperaments are much more notable than others, so it's normal for them to have more rows. Anything from 'Middle Path' should have lots of rows for example. But what I'm talking about is two similarly notable temperaments where one has way more rows than others. That introduces bias by making it look more impressive. I'm gradually working on fixing that. In a recent edit I reduced the number of rows for porcupine to be more in line with similar notability temperaments like tetracot or Superpyth.
- What I'm also concerned about is which tunings get listed at all in the first place, as that's also a source of bias. The page description, which was here long before I was, says every linear temperament should appear on this page. That's not possible of course but I like it as an ideal to strive towards. We should just add (within reason) as much as we can. Eventually I'd like to add every temperament from the 3 Middle Path table pages and every temperament from Survey of efficient temperaments by subgroup to this table. I think excluding any of those is a form of bias, and once they're all added the bias will be less, as only niche tunings will be missing.
- --BudjarnLambeth (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to review the details at some point.
- For now I just added a note on the split.
- Thank you, the explanation you added to the page is good :)
- --BudjarnLambeth (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've prepared this to help, for whenever you wish to review the details. In the mean time I'll also keep chipping away at the page, mostly addressing the issues I found in here:
- --BudjarnLambeth (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Frost
Should be treated as taken by 2.5.7.11-subgroup {245/242}, the minimal prime subgroup temp of the frostma. FloraC (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what this means, sorry. I took my quetiapine a couple minutes ago so my brain is very foggy. --BudjarnLambeth (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- I get it now. Gordon named frost, not me, but I did encourage him to come up with a name, and I was very encouraging of "frost" as a name when he came up with it (see the 343edo thread in the forum channel of the XA Discord). Before I did, I did search the wiki for "frost" and there were no results that seemed to indicate it was taken so I gave the go ahead. Maybe it can be renamed to "frosted", "frosty", etc. Talk to Gordon and whatever he says, do that. --BudjarnLambeth (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)