Reduce comma tables on EDO pages
Please have a look at Xenharmonic Wiki: Things to do #Comma tables in EDO_pages. Thanks --Xenwolf (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Re: Abbreviation lemmas
- Oh! That's a good idea to switch the redirects. No, I don't see any downsides. Thanks for thinking of that. I only thought to add the redirects at the end of my day's effort to transfer all the recent discussion about this topic from Facebook to the Wiki.
- Although I should note for some of those there are multiple expansions of the acronym. Prefer "utonal sequence" to "undertone sequence", "otonal sequence" to "overtone sequence", and "ambitonal sequence" to "ambitone sequence".
- I am aware of the preview function, yes. Why do you ask?
- There are two main things which majorly impede my competence on the Wiki:
- 1) I cannot figure out how to use these Talk pages. This is an experiment I've been trying this week: adding a new topic in order to respond. It still doesn't do the nice thing where it timestamps me and adds a link to my profile, plus it forces me to add "Re:" in the title and essentially starts a new topic when it should be part of the other topic, but at least it's better than looking like I'm just a continuation of what the most recent person said.
- 2) I can't figure out how to get email notifications turned on. If I can't get that working, there is a very high chance someone will ask me a question on this board and I will never notice it, or at least maybe not for many years.
- If you could help me with either of those I would really appreciate it. I may not be the only person struggling to accomplish those basic tasks.
- Great you like the idea, I'll rework the redirects soon. (ambiguities will be handled close to the Wikipedia way)
- I saw that you made a lot of consecutive edits, some of them following the same pattern, and I think writing speed doesn't pay out in the long term. That's why I think it's better to do one too many previews beforehand than too many post-processes afterwards. ;-)
- 1) New topics should be started in a new section. To reply, most do the following: open the section for editing, leave a line blank, and then indent the text by one level (if there are too many levels, say 15 or so, e.g. in long discussions, you can start indenting again at the far left). Signing (name, links, current timestamp) isn't done automatically when you save (maybe just a weakness of the wiki software, but a well-known in all Wikipedia sites). You trigger it by writing four tildes (~) directly after each other (most users write
--~~~~), the replacement is then done automatically, each time you invoke the preview function as well as when you save.
- 2) Change Notifications are turned off. You can keep track of pages by adding them to your Watchlist. You can also configure that pages you edit are automatically added, this is what I use and find most helpful concerning feedback. On your Watchlist, pages with unseen changes are displayed in bold.
- --Xenwolf (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the tips! I'll be more methodical in general. Yesterday I was on a bit of a rampage, rapidly attempting to keep in mind and distribute our determinations about these related tunings across 18 different pages I think. It felt a bit like a private effort that would have no impact on anyone else, but I see now that other people were getting alerted of all the little edits I was making. Perhaps I should have left all the windows open in preview/draft mode until I finally satisfied with literally everything. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's operators like me who have an eye the wiki's recent changes, to detect spamming and vandalism early. I think it's best to resist mass stylistic polishing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with editing pages where you feel something is wrong. However, when it comes to micro-editing for the sake of "absolute perfection", albeit with the best of intentions, without actually giving others some time for feedback, you're probably going to miss neutral quality criteria, unfortunately. So no problem so far... --Xenwolf (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
MODMuddles and Standardization of Muddle Listings
Hello, we've been talking about MOSes on the discord, and I'm interested in cataloging muddles that resemble well-known MOSes. So far, I've found that my preferred preferred Ionian scale- 1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 27/16, 15/8, 2/1- which I call the Dualharmonic Ionian Scale, is related to Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale in that they share the same three step sizes, but put two of the steps in the latter half of the scale in a different order. Because of that, I'm thinking of using the term "MODMuddle" to describe the relationship between these two muddles. Since I'm trying to catalogue all of the good diatonic muddles at the moment, and since the Dualharmonic Ionian Scale and Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale are essentially MODMuddles of one another, I'm trying to decide which one I should use as the standard muddle.
I mean, on one hand, the Dualharmonic Ionian Scale, as per the name, has every scale degree in the Tonic's overtone series or undertone series and also uses two identical tetrachords just like the Pythagorean Diatonic Scale. What's more, the Dualharmonic Ionian Scale actually seems to be the optimal form for the Ionian scale in terms of harmonic construction since the 27/20 wolf fourth is placed between the third and sixth scale degrees, and this has the effect of creating both a really strong VIm-IIm-VM-IM cadence and a really powerful deceptive cadence using the VIm chord, while the IVM chord is in some ways less likely to be accidentally tonicized on account of it having a more tense sound. On the other hand, Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale has been known for a really long time, even though it is the Lydian mode of this scale that is harmonically optimized rather than the Ionian mode, which is unfortunate since Ionian mode is seen as the default diatonic mode.
- Hi Aura. Um. Was this message meant for someone else? What do you mean "on the discord"? I don't know about muddles (or any of this) really. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I just wanted to make sure you didn't intend the message for someone else who wasn't going to receive it then.
- I'm sure someone I know knows about muddles. It looks like the page for them was started by my old friend Andrew Heathwaite. But he's a bit reclusive.
- I think I've joined this Discord you speak of. Thanks for bringing it to my awareness!