Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Things to do

Automatic color names?

Has somebody mused about generating suitable humane color names for intervals and other things? For example, for an interval, one needs to know whether to name it a third, a fourth, a sixth, but AFAIU they are often scale-dependent, and the same interval can have a “(color 1) third” name and a “(color 2) fourth” name. What can be done obviously is to enumerate the most sensible of potential cases (like if the interval is between 5/4 and 4/3, likely it will function more often as a third or fourth and less often as a second or fifth), but one needs to be able to tell for example if 7/5 may called a fourth, or there’s a sense it should be called a fifth way more often than a fourth. I’d try to write some code to guess appropriate color names, but having advice beforehand would be very nice. --Arseniiv (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn’t read the description well enough! The matter is way simpler and there is no guessing at all. --Arseniiv (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Add to the navbar

It would be also worth it to add this page to the navigation close to Help and Conventions, even if later. --Arseniiv (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

We'll do that soon. But I think that we should first have to clarify its structure. I'd prefer dedicated pages one per task (maybe as sub pages). We should have a handful of clearly defined projects available before we link this overview in the navigation. The style of the existing ones will silently work as a blueprint for future projects, so we better limit confusion to a minimum. a bit of styling (for the intro in the header) could also help to make this site as inviting as possible. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Also I agree subpages are a clean way. Some of them may be transcluded, other just linked to?.. Intro styling is good but here I think I used all my style mana on the todo template today, so better someone else. :D --Arseniiv (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we've come a long way and can afford a break, and it's also good to keep gaining distance so as not to get stuck. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

🤝

BTW would be nice to make something to enter a couple of frequent emoji from somewhere near post edit. Does MediaWiki has a toolbar or something for this case?.. --Arseniiv (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Stub

I hope that would be found useful to automatically categorize pages as needing attention (maybe even different kinds of attention?), as well as marking the places needing elaboration. For example, right on this page until it’s “production ready” ;-) I’ll investigate later if I’m up to the task to desigh a nice-looking template but if you know how to do it easily, please feel free to! --Arseniiv (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Before thinking about an appropriate Template:Stub, I think Category:Todo is worth a look, as well as its sub categories, these category developed out of wikispaces tags and are maybe more specific then just stub. --Xenwolf (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, this is a treasure! But a visual rectangular reminder may still be useful? Let it be tunable to include the subcategory of Todo one wants to apply. How do you think? I’ll experiment with that in a subspace. --Arseniiv (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The template with an example of how it looks: User:Arseniiv/TodoTest. It seems to apply the category correctly. Maybe that can find some use still, but if not, no problem. --Arseniiv (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I moved this discussion from Xenharmonic Wiki:Things to do to here, since it's not decided yet whether it should go into the list. --Xenwolf (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that two days have passed and no new things to add or remove arose, maybe we should now migrate the Todo template to the template namespace and start sticking it everywhere :) Also it’s very nice Template:Infobox interval automatically adds todo categories, I think this is a way to go with other specialized templates, should they apper later. --Arseniiv (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox for EDO pages

Let’s list what should be present in the template:

• step count (steps)

• period? (for EDT and several others?)

  [Xenwolf: no need, consider other templates for other EDs]

• step size

  [Xenwolf: size alone isn't clear]

• commas tempered out

  [FloraC: too many stuff]

• notable commas not tempered out? (possibly with an example of distinguished JI intervals?)

  [FloraC: too many stuff]

• family?

• JI subgroup represented fairly well? (and a patent val?)

• notable modes?

  [FloraC: no consensus]

  [Arseniiv: now I come to think including entire modes would also bloat the table]

• related EDOs? (maybe more specific relations, like “refines 11edo”?)

  [Xenwolf: include predecessor and successor EDOs]

Thoughts? --Arseniiv (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The parameters step count (or step size) and size seem indisputable to me, EDO implies 2/1 as period (I'd consider to make other templates for other EDs). What about prime factorization? Relates would be great for navigational purposes (for instance predecessor and successor). As far as the parameters can be filled without headaches and without edit wars they should be included. Maybe we can get a community process started about that. --Xenwolf (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean prime factorization for steps? --Arseniiv (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing only size was a mistake: I corrected that in may comment and in the "working copy" on top. --Xenwolf (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to add yesterday: what do you think about next/previous zeta EDOs (all three kinds of them)? Though all “sequential related page links” should go at the bottom of the template plaque to not steal attention from the properties of the EDO itself. --Arseniiv (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid Commas tempered out and Commas not tempered out are too many stuff. And there's no consensus what constitutes "notable". FloraC (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(To all:) Is there a consensus about patent vals for EDOs? I seem to remember in several cases there were at least two vals which would be as good, so I don’t know if it’s a good for the template. Also the same about well-representedness of JI subgroups.

I added your comments to the list above so they won’t be forgotten if someone would take just the list and make something! --Arseniiv (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Which val is deemed useful is a subjective matter, but the patent val is rigorously defined. FloraC (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

So patent val should be added. Am I right in assuming that consistency of intervals relates to it? Can also a subgroup be deduced from it? --Xenwolf (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The relation between consistency and the patent val seems indirect to me. FloraC (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest listing the # of edosteps that the 3-limit M2 and m2 span. If the best 3/2 of n-edo is m/n, that would be 2m-n and 3n-5m. This instantly gives you the "flavor" of the edo. --TallKite (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe A1 and m2. FloraC (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@TallKite, @FloraC, Isn't A1 := M2 - m2? Why not all three? Maybe also m itself that should probably better be renamed in, say, f or fifth?
Of course a collection of name-values pairs will not look that great, but maybe something like M2=m2+A1: (as label) and 3=2+1 (as value), as a rough sketch?
--Xenwolf (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I could imagine that the 3-limit inconsistency of certain EDOs could diminish the usefulness of this otherwise very illustrative approach. --Xenwolf (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, A1 = M2 - m2, so A1 isn't needed. Sure, we could have all three. If we have only two, M2 and m2 are the most useful for finding your way around a microtonal guitar. For example, hand a guitarist a 31-edo guitar tuned EADGBE and say M2 = 5 frets and m2 = 3 frets, and they can figure it out pretty quickly.

And yes, for certain edos like 6-edo, it's not that helpful. But for most edos it's very useful, so we might as well include it for all of them. Even if the M2 is not the same as the best approximation of 9/8. Because M2 is always the distance between the best approximation of 4/3 and the best approximation of 3/2. --TallKite (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I favor A1 over M2 is that addition is easier than subtraction. Once you have A1 and m2, M2 is obvious; not so the other way around. FloraC (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To all: Inthar has got Template:Infobox ET constructed and has implemented it(!) in many edo pages. Let's move on to Template talk:Infobox ET. FloraC (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am really impressed, but rather not in a positive sense. I left a ping on the user discussion and the template discussion. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Relations of various interval categories

There are Category:Interval, Category:Just interval, Category:Interval ratio and Category:Ratio with different content of m/n pages like 3/2. Maybe someone knows if there was an intention behind that?

Also there seems to be a forgotten todo in the description of Category:Intervals. --Arseniiv (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! This is caused by the migration procedure (from wikispaces to MediaWiki), categories were retrieved from tags. Tags are much more lightweight and community-driven so there is not much consistency. The important question is how to name it, which has to be wisely decided considering relating (super, sub, sibling) categories. --Xenwolf (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. AFAIU, no one here needs ratios by themselves, mathematically, so we would have a simple inclusion Just interval inside Interval, taking both existing categories and reshuffling which page belongs where: rational intervals into Just interval, and remaining few irrational intervals may reside directly in Interval without their own subcategory. (FTR Category:Comma stays as it was.) Now we need more opinions! --Arseniiv (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think Category:Just interval is the best solution here (a more technical term would be something like Category:Interval page, but I prefer your - more pragmatic - solution). --Xenwolf (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the category "ratio" should remain and "just interval" should go, for there's no consensus what "just" really means. I once talked about the concept of "just" in the FB group. Obviously there are people who argue:

1. Rational isn't synonymous with just;
2. Justness is a perceptual property and has nothing to do with the rationality of an interval;
3. Justness contrasts with wolfness;
4. The point of rationality of an interval is neutralized by the Gabor limit. FloraC (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

What about "rational interval" then? It's a technical term that doesn't imply musical quality. I find "interval" and "ratio" too common terms, I'd like to discuss this first before we do a lot of category changes. --Xenwolf (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

My previous suggestion takes the extent of changes into account. If there's no problem with that, I think "rational interval" is better. FloraC (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess Ratio may be simply moved to the new one? Ah, but page texts won’t change with that… Looks like work for a bot. But it seems there will be lots of work anyway, as sometimes for example there are several categories applied at the same time. (When I saw that, I didn’t touch it exactly because of undecidedness which ones are suited better.) --Arseniiv (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

As we seem to agree about the pragmatical usefulness of "Rational interval", I'd say we could add this without problems to uncategorized pages, we could also replace "interval ratio" with it (this one was introduced by me after the migration to MediaWiki to combine "interval" and "ratio", two tags from the wikispaces era - tags were single words). The same would apply to pages that are categorized as both "interval" and "ratio", or written in a more

compact form:

• (none) → "Rational interval"
• "Interval ratio" → "Rational interval"
• "Interval" and "Ratio" → "Rational interval"

But nothing to be done right now. Should we try to get Aura, CritDeathX, IlL, TallKite, and Yourmusic Productions involved? What do you think? --Xenwolf (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course all active people should have a say, I think. :) Also they should see this new page for discussing overarching plans; maybe few of them had still seen it? --Arseniiv (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I do think that a "Rational Interval" is a good idea for a category, and as a target for merging a number of the various categories. However, "Interval" should remain its own category, with "Rational Interval" as the subcategory. --Aura (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aura: What you just suggested is already planned: keep Category:Interval and placing Category:Rational interval into it. --Xenwolf (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. --TallKite (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd incline towards the shortest unambiguous tags possible. The longer they are, the more likely people are to forget or misspell them, resulting in pages falling through the cracks. Yourmusic Productions (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yourmusic Productions: Sorry that I have to correct you about a misconception. There is no tag feature available in MediaWiki. The category feature is comparable but not as lightweight and not combinable (see below). Since the term Just is disputable and Interval and Ratio so little significant, we are searching for a category name that will do a good job in containing all the pages about individual intervals. MediaWiki unfortunately does not support selecting pages by a logic combination of categories (like Interval AND Ratio AND Just), so single words as category names will not be as usable as you might imagine. --Xenwolf (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it'd be good if we have Interval as a regular category with Rational Interval as a subcategory. Its possible we could include irrational intervals on the wiki, though at the moment it doesn't seem clear when we would need those pages. --CritDeathX (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Templates for wedgies, n-vals?..

How much are they used on the pages? If very so, then if n-vals other than bivals are pretty common too, there can be a reason to make a unified template to rule them all and write as many ⟨ and ] as the user decides, defaulting to two. --Arseniiv (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice to have. So why not simply extend Template:Val and defaulting to one? FloraC (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@FloraC: You know that Template:Val does nothing but formatting.

We could do much more if we had scripting on board (see also User talk:Tyler Henthorn #Fwd: Extension request). We maybe should open an own section for this here ... --Xenwolf (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Still even though that doesn’t do more than syntax, I made a test: User:Arseniiv/Val'. And while scripting is a good boon, what’s expected of it to make better for multival notation? Aside from correctness checks (a k-val should have [math]\displaystyle{ \binom nk }[/math] entries), of course. --Arseniiv (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Website for listening to intervals

Does someone understand browsers’ API for sound playback? Reading Talk:62/53‎‎ gave me an idea. Imagine a website which has a small arsenal of samples of various timbres (maybe sampled in several registers but no need to sample extensively) which it can play to you at intervals you choose. You may compare both how the same interval sounds with different timbres and how do different intervals sound. Maybe also chords, and all of it arpeggiated and instantaneous in any combination you wish. (I have a rough idea how it can all be packed into a comfy UI.) And then we could make links from interval pages to hear or compare them at that site. Surely looks great? If you have more ideas of this sort, please share!

(For me the main block here is that I can’t make heads from tails of browser JavaScript infrastructure and APIs (well, I have some rudimentary outdated knowledge). The server part should be very simple: just fetch pages and sample files. all work will be in the browser. Though I have friends that are in better terms with JS, maybe I’ll could make something with their help later.) --Arseniiv (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A browser-based solution (JS, WebAudio) would be really great. This included in Interval pages would be superior to most sound examples we uploaded. --Xenwolf (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Very glad you like it! I also added my view on GUI at User:Arseniiv/Interval player idea. Now I can leave it for a while. --Arseniiv (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I didn't saw something like that. Maybe other xenharmonics have a better memory for that. Here is an interesting resource (provided you are not on IE 😉): JavaScript Systems Music --Xenwolf (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be useful! --Arseniiv (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is what led me to above page: Making Generative Music in the Browser | by Alex Bainter | Medium --Xenwolf (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Shorten editing titles

Say what you think about the change proposed (Xenharmonic Wiki:Things to do#Proposal: Shorten editing titles)?

• I'm for it: I have already tried it for three years in another wiki and can say that it proved to be useful there. --Xenwolf (talk)

New Category?

Would it be possible to have a Kite Guitar category? There's already about a dozen pages about it.

Definitively. Good idea. I'll do it in a moment. --Xenwolf (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: Please, Kite, think of signing your contributions on discussion pages; it's easy, just type --~~~~ (2 hyphens and 4 tildes),
the 4 tildes will be replaced automatically (on saving) by your linked user name and the time of saving. --Xenwolf (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting to sign. Ill try signing before typing in my comment. --TallKite (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Great :) (I sometimes myself forget to sign). I hope the category:Kite Guitar brings the expected benefits, hopefully I got all the pages you meant. --Xenwolf (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks good! By the way, how do I fix a double redirect? --TallKite (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Double redirects (A → B → C) are fixed by changing them into normal ones (A → C). Resolving double redirects is no big effort, I check from time to time if there are any to clean up. The Special:DoubleRedirects page helps with that. I'll leave it for a while in case you want to do it yourself. Please let me know if you like me to do it. --Xenwolf (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, did I do it right? --TallKite (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah absolutely :) --Xenwolf (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming articles

I'd like to write down our collaborative findings and experience about naming. What do you think? Is it reliable, or even correct? --Xenwolf (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Comma tables in EDO pages

If unsure, or in case of disputes, please add suggestions, thoughts about Xenharmonic Wiki: Things to do #Comma tables in EDO pages here, thanks!

---

Here's my experiment: User:FloraC/Sandbox. Does it look better? FloraC (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Flora Your version looks better (BTW: "Name(s)" should be "Name" and "Comments" could be dropped) but that's not important. We should ask what purpose these tables are supposed to serve. I think the practical use of these tables is negligible, but we should let the people who actually get value from them have their say. --Xenwolf (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh, it was you who suggested adding "comments". FloraC (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I meant that this column should be only there if there actually are (useful) comments. --Xenwolf (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the discussion about whether to remove these tables of commas? I don't think they should be removed because they often list lots of commas that aren't given under the "Theory" section of a rank one temperament; in other words they're usually a lot more complete. I find them interesting to look at and I don't think they're entirely useless. If anything I'd argue that we should remove the list of commas under "Theory" and just talk about what temperaments (ones which temper more than one comma) a rank one temperament is good for. Then have a comprehensive list of commas sorted by prime limit as a table, kind of like how we have tables of intervals for some large EDOs. Also, IMO, comments on the commas shouldn't be included, instead, there should be many more comma-specific pages explaining both what exactly a comma allows you to do and listing various temperaments that support tempering it. Godtone (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of monzos for every comma. I don't like having to factor e.g. 352/351 into component primes. Hurts my head :). There should be a ratio column too, but for large ratios, it should be blank or else just say e.g. "9 digits". I also really like having the color name in there, but I'm biased :) The cents is useful too. Don't see the point of deleting all this info. I think if a comma needs a comment, that comma should be discussed in the theory section of the edo page. That will avoid a mostly empty column that takes up lots of room horizontally. I agree with Godtone (cool name BTW) that the theory section shouldn't merely list commas, since the table does that. The prime limit column can be dropped if for each prime limit we have a gray header row that is one big merged cell going clear across the table. The first row says "3-limit commas", next row is the one 3-limit comma, next row says "5-limit commas", next come all the 5-limit commas, etc. This makes the table narrower. That's good because there's always more room vertically, but not horizontally. --TallKite (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I would rather patent vals be octave reduced, so that ⟨41 65 95 115 142...] becomes ⟨41 24 13 33 19...]. Less mathematician-friendly, but more musician-friendly. --TallKite (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplication of information is a severe problem we discussed. The tendency to copy&past from table to table raises the danger of spreading errors and making much more work... That's the problem I have with all that information. I had much hope in your comments, @Kite, but to be honest, I still don't see in how far this information will be helpful for you. Just saying I like it is not enough in my opinion. Can you please explain your personal use of comma information? --Xenwolf (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you want the cents for say 81/80 to only appear on the 81/80 page, and nowhere else? Same for say 5/4 and 3/2?

You asked about the practical purpose of these tables. Many microtonalists are locked into a specific edo because of the nature of their instrument (e.g. guitarists). The comma table tells them what commas they can pump, very important for a composer to know. They are also useful when deciding which guitar to get, and which edo it will be in.

The disadvantage of not duplicating the info is that you have to go to another page and wait for it to load to see the info you need. For example, say I'm looking for a smallish comma that 41-edo tempers out. Without the cents column, I have to do a lot of clicking to find one. With the cents column, it's all right there. I actually did that recently. We're planning a series of videos about the Kite guitar, and in one we discuss how 81/80 pumps cause pitch shifts. I wanted to include an example of a comma pump that not only doesn't require pitch shifts, but in fact would require them on a 12-edo guitar. I knew I wanted one with a small cents for this example, so that a short pump would still be well-tuned. So I went to the 41edo page and ran down the list and quickly found Latrizo. And now that pump is added to the video script. Incidentally, the color names really made my search much easier. Because I can never keep straight the 800 (literally! I counted them!) non-color comma names. This is of course merely my personal preference.

Now if the xenwiki had the hover feature that wikipedia has, then not duplicating info would make more sense. I'm referring to how you hover over a wikipedia link and the first paragraph of the article pops up on your screen. I think it only works on non-touchscreens, i.e. laptops not phones or tablets. Another possibility is for each edo page's table to somehow directly link to the comma page, so that changing the comma page's data affects all the other tables. And maybe even have the comma page calculate the cents internally from the actual ratio and/or monzo? Just suggesting possibilities here. If we could automate everything, there would be no danger of errors creeping in.

I'd also like to point out that wikipedia has tons of duplication. To pick a random example, the page for Barack Obama has a lengthy section on his presidency. It has an even longer page solely about his presidency. Plus another page solely about his first 100 days. Lots and lots of duplication. I mention this because I figure wikipedia knows what they're doing, and obviously they have decided that duplication is not a problem. I also question your use of "severe" to describe the issue. How many actual reduplicated errors have you seen recently? --TallKite (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, seems we have to find another way to do reduce duplication or ensure correctness. In my opinion, we then should leave it for now as it is. --Xenwolf (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The octave reduced version of (patent) vals can easily be added in EDO pages, but in this case the first value would be zero. --Xenwolf (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The first value needn't be zero if you define octave-reduction appropriately. Which we should, because the zero doesn't convey any useful information. --TallKite (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This kind of argumentation does not convince me at all. We don't need to redefine a well-known concept to justify a non-zero cell in a table. If we have the tables about prime intervals (and we have and will have even more of it) all that information will be obvious. I'm planning a layout which has two separate rows (original values and octave-reduced ones i.e. v % edo), it's somewhat like the table in User:Xenwolf/Fifthspan#Separate mod steps (without the fifthspan explained rows). It's possible to produce tables like this automatically. The only thing (after implementing fifthspan calculation in Lua, after having it done in Python) is to figure out appropriate coloring or border styles for better orientation in the then bigger table. IOW: let the patent vals be as they are: we will have a more obvious presentation of the information you wish. --Xenwolf (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Improve accessibility of wiki and present info in a non-technical way

In my and Adam's experience many newcomers to xen are daunted by the math-heavy presentation of basic MOS and regular temperament ideas and tunings on this wiki. I propose we section off all the math-heavy parts of articles (or subpage them as Article_Title/Math). Introductory articles and sections shouldn't use linear algebra terms, perhaps except for the most common RTT terms like rank. Inthar (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)