Talk:Fractional-octave temperaments

The list of temperaments

I don't see the benefit of this open list, given how difficult it is to maintain. I think it's better if it's a closed list with only the most representative entries, or removed entirely. —FloraC (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC) (updated FloraC (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC))

I think that many of these temperaments do not seem notable (e.g. feel like the result of data dredging, or otherwise fail to show musical relevance), so I actually wonder if in fact the big list at the end of this page is what should be kept, instead of the dozens of pages with little useful content that need separate maintenance if new temperament families are created. The big list helps navigate between existing temperament families sorted by the fraction of the octave they're associated with. For that matter, this makes them closely related to an edo, so if it turns out the information is already repeated on each edo page, then we have the information in three places, and maybe then just the edo pages are enough. --Fredg999 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The entire idea of fractional-octave temperaments as is presented in the article is more of less Eliora's project, and last time (a few years ago) I questioned its notability I was faced with fierce opposition. Anyway, the big list mostly collects temperaments from families and clans, and I would say those temperaments are more notable as they do tend to fit a family or clan, than those in the n-th-octave temperaments, which are often named just for the sake of having an n-th-octave period.

But you reminded me that the list is indeed duplicated in each n-th-octave temperaments page. So, if we can't get rid of the n-th-octave temperaments pages right now, I still think it's perhaps best to cut the big list.

As for relocating them to the edo pages, I'm less sure. Sometimes just becuz a temperament has an n-th-octave period doesn't mean it's best used as an n-form. E.g. ennealimmal is notoriously difficult to use as a 9-form since it's only supported by an esoteric val of 9edo.

—FloraC (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Good point about the edo pages. As for the opposition regarding notability, I'd say if it's mostly a personal project and it's not really recognized by the community, then it should be moved to the user space. Fierce opposition isn't an argument in itself, and while I know that Eliora usually provides arguments when defending her project, I don't think they are sufficient to justify notability overall. It's a lot of pages though, and I'm tempted to find a better way to organize this, but I suppose I shouldn't meddle too much in someone's personal project. Maybe we should have a closer look at the individual pages to confirm if it's indeed largely non-notable temperaments, and if that's the case, then I think moving to user space and keeping the big list is the best move. --Fredg999 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Well I think there are two kinds of temperaments we put in an n-th-octave temperaments page. The first kind is demonstrated by gothic (17c & 34d) in 17th octave, or meanmag (19 & 57) in 19th octave. Temperaments like these fix one or two primes of the edo using a superset. Their utility is needless to say, and they fit those pages more than anywhere else. The other kind is demonstrated by nitrogen (140 & 1407) in 7th octave. It's there cuz its commas are too complex for all the families, clans, or collections pages we currently have. Even worse are the temperaments of an esoteric subgroup, which I find most questionable.

As such, I wouldn't say all of the pages should go, but many of them prolly should. Such pages should be created as necessary, rather than as a norm. This also means we should get rid of the navboxes as the expectation of there being a page for every n is no longer valid.

—FloraC (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Since I don't feel too confident to distinguish the notable temperaments from the ones that aren't, maybe it's simpler to keep the pages and work through them as necessary. We can get rid of the big list if the individual pages already cover what's needed, and we can recover it from page history if we realize we want it back I suppose. --Fredg999 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)