User:BudjarnLambeth/Survey of 100 random wiki pages
Using the "random page" button, I took a random sample of 100 pages from the Xen Wiki on 20 Sep 2025.
These were the results:
Raw results
Intervals (commas) --14 pages ••••• ••••• •••• Edos --12 pages ••••• ••••• •• (Mostly edos in range 100-999.) Abstract MOS scales --10 pages ••••• ••••• Scala files (individual) --10 pages ••••• ••••• Edonoi --9 pages ••••• •••• (50% were edts.) Intervals (not commas) --7 pages ••••• •• Composers --5 pages ••••• (Most were stub pages.) Terms (eg "fifth complement", "7-limit symmetrical lattice") --5 pages ••••• Chords --3 pages ••• Scala files (multiple on 1 page) --3 pages ••• Lists of chords --3 pages ••• Complexity measures --2 pages •• Foreign language pages --2 pages •• Musical instruments --2 pages •• (Most were stub pages.) Pieces of music --2 pages •• (Most were stub pages.) Afdos --1 page • Edo regions --1 page • Galleries of tunings --1 page • Individual temperaments --1 page • Interval regions --1 page • Lumatone mappings --1 page • Notation systems --1 page • Placeholder/WIP pages --1 page • Smart redirects --1 page • Tables with no description --1 page • Temperament families/clans --1 page •
Commentary
Pages about a tuning/scale (48/100)
- Overall state - Equal tunings are well-represented, other types of scales lack description under their pages/subheadings
48 of the 100 pages were about a tuning/scale or a handful of related tunings/scales.
Generally, equal-step scales and MOS scales tend to get their own pages (albeit often barebones).
By contrast, JI scales and well temperaments tend to be relegated to just being a Scala file with no or minimal description, while regular temperaments tend to be relegated to just one entry in a list with just statistics listed but no description.
Perhaps adding description - even just a paragraph - to some of these temperament data page entries and Scala file pages - could help readers to understand what these scales can actually be used for in music practice, beyond just a sheet of numbers on a page.
Easier said than done of course, given just how many scales and temperaments there are to describe. Where to even start?
Pages about an interval (21/100)
- Overall state - Mostly pretty good
Interval pages actually tend to be pretty high in quality. Most of the intervals discussed are esoteric, but they have as much description as is reasonable given their obscurity, usually at least a paragraph or two.
And those intervals that do have more to be said about them, like 11/10, tend to have long and healthy pages full of useful discussion of the subject matter.
Pages about practice (composers, instruments, pieces) (10/100)
- Overall state - Pretty dire, mostly stubs with 1-3 lines.
These tend to be the most under-developed type of pages. Almost all of these are stubs.
This is the probably the area of the wiki that is in the most serious need of more love and attention.
On a more positive note, the best practice-related pages are the Lumatone mapping pages. The existence of these pages is extremely useful for musicians wanting to dive in and start actually making music, and the pages are laid out in a very readable, visual manner.
Pages which are unusable (2/100)
- Overall state - Several WIP pages have been left floating around, but situation isn't too bad
1 out of every 50 pages was unusable in some way. That is to say: either a WIP/placeholder without any useful content yet, or a table or graphic with no context or description.
To be honest, 1 in 50 isn't that bad, but still it would be ideal to move these types of pages out of main space and into user space instead until they are in a useable state.
Others (19/100)
- Overall state - Mostly pretty good, some older pages need to be polished
The most common problems with these kinds of pages tend to occur with pages that haven't been updated in a long time, which are often huge scary walls of equations and maths jargon, and/or look late 90s/early 2000s in their formatting style. More of the scary walls of equations need an "advanced" infobox at the top to convey to new readers 'it's okay, you don't need to know this to make microtonal music, don't panic'.
But for every miscellany page that does fall into those traps, there are two that don't. For the most part, miscellany pages are readable and contain enough relevant discussion of the subject.
Summary
If the pages I saw in this survey are representative of the wiki as a whole, then:
The pages most in need of improvement are pages/sections about a tuning or scale, about a composer, about an instrument, or about a piece. And the most common issue with these pages is not enough prose describing the topic.
The pages in the healthiest state are pages about intervals, about terms/concepts, about chords, and about small or medium edos. These aren't perfect but they're largely useful and easily readable.