Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hooray!
[edit] Gratuitous assumption of 12 equal temperament
These are articles which can, or have been, cleaned up to make them more general. I just did pitch class.
- Everywhere went today I found this gratutious assumption. People writing these articles are pig-ignorant and don't even know it. Barf!
Here's something I put on the talk page of Diatonic scale.
- === Balzano stuff ===
- I think this very controversial claim:
-
- These unique relationships are as follows: Only certain divisions of the octave, 12 and 20 included, allow uniqueness, coherence, and transpositional simplicity, and that only the diatonic and pentatonic subsets of the 12-tone chromatic set follow these constraints (Balzano, 1980, 1982).
- belongs in a Balzano article, not a diatonic scale article. It's hardly NPOV to put it here. If no one objects, I'll remove it. Gene Ward Smith 08:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hahah. Yeah, I would definitely disagree with the quote. You should remove it. Rainwarrior 19:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keys
Does this project encompass the articles in Category:Musical keys? — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not inherently. There is a property of many tuning systems (equal temperament being the big exception) that causes different keys to have distinct sounds, but these properties change from temperament to temperament (other key differences stem mostly from timbral aspects of individual instruments). We could, I suppose, start adding information about this to each Key page... but I don't think it's really that worthwhile. If it is interesting to you, though, go for it. - Rainwarrior 22:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 88 Equal Temperament
-
- Didn't someone write a 55 equal temperament page? If so, what happened to it? Gene Ward Smith 08:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you're thinking of 88 equal temperament? —Keenan Pepper 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- That was it! Thanks. Gene Ward Smith 19:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you're thinking of 88 equal temperament? —Keenan Pepper 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't someone write a 55 equal temperament page? If so, what happened to it? Gene Ward Smith 08:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tuning theory
A Tuning theory article just popped up. I'm not sure what I think about its existence... it seems to me like if it takes off it should overlap too much with stuff that belongs on Musical tuning... any thougts? (My tought at the moment is that it probably deserves a category... but not another content-filled page.) - Rainwarrior 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, seems like it should be a section of Musical tuning. —Keenan Pepper 00:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intun MIDI tuning program
I finally put my MIDI tuning program called Intun back up on a webpage. I don't know how many of you use Windows, but I thought it might be of interest to some of you. I wrote it four years ago but it still serves me well. (It's freeware, by the way.)
Available here.
- Rainwarrior 04:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] name of project?
Must all project names start with "Wikipedia:"? --CKL
- The name of the project is WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales, but this project page is in the Wikipedia: namespace because it is not an encyclopedia article. —Keenan Pepper 23:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More keys
Ortgies' list has about 50 organs, Wraight about 25 Italian harpsichords, and I found about the same in reed organs, compiling an editable chronological list would be useful but could it be trouble deciding what makes it or not so it doesn't become uselessly big? Mireut 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Undertone series
I added a page on the undertone series. I know it wasn't on the list but I still think that it's still important musically. I have put everything about the undertone series that I know and to my knowledge it's all correct. If anyone would like to go over it, some more stuff to, and just make sure it's correct I would appreciate it. Thanks. SN122787 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine, you can start an article on any subject you want. The only major problem I see is that you didn't cite any sources for the information. I'll try to find some sources and add them so you can see how it's done. —Keenan Pepper 23:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links to music
Many of our articles about tuning systems have external links to recordings of compositions in them. This is not explicitely forbidden by WP:EL, but it's not an ideal situation either: people reading Wikipedia on a CD because they have no Internet access are out of luck. Ideally we should have freely licensed examples uploaded to Wikipedia, but sometimes external links are necessary.
Here are my recommendations:
- I strongly encourage everyone to write a little ditty in their favorite tuning system and upload it to Wikipedia in Ogg Vorbis format under a free license. If you want to do this but have technical problems, talk to me and we'll work it out.
- Per WP:EL, external links should definitely not link directly to audio files. They should link to HTML web pages with links and preferably descriptions.
Anything else? Comments? —Keenan Pepper 19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- My thought is that these are all good links. Being able to listen to them definitely aids understanding of the temperament. They improve the article with their presence; this, I think is reason enough to keep them, against the WP:EL caution. Right now what we have is pretty good, it says "MP3" or "OGG" or "MID" next to all of them at least, so the reader should not be surprised when the click opens a program. They are definitely external, though, which is why when replacing them I moved them all into an "external links" section. It would be nice if we had some of this content stored at the wikimedia commons, but that's maybe a longer term goal. If at some point in the future so much good material has appeared there that the external links are outnumbered, maybe then they should be removed. (Also, I have invited User:Gmaxwell to join this discussion, as he was the one who initially removed all of these links.) - Rainwarrior 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- For the record, I found your 'invitation' rude and condescending.. it was all the worse because you made a mistaken allegation about the talk pages, this is no way to invite someone to help. What is currently in the articles, thanks to your discussion-less reverting, is quite simply unacceptable. Please read our policy on external linking WP:External links. I'd be glad to help out creating recordings for these articles, the equal temperaments are easy at least... but for more complex temperaments I'd need scala files. I am pretty sure I can program one of my synths with arbitrary temperaments, although some of them only support 12 tone temperaments. --Gmaxwell 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Rude and condescending? I... I'm genuinely shocked by this reaction. I'm sorry to have caused it, though it was by no means intentional. You removed a lot of material from a lot of articles at once, and I thought it such a sudden change was unwarranted without prior discussion, and said as much, but I didn't realize saying this was rude or condescending. Again, sorry if it was. As for WP:EL, it is covered in "Links normally to be avoided", or "Rich media", neither of which forbids these links, only discourages them, meaning that there is room for discussion. - Rainwarrior 21:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- If you'd like to not cause a negative reaction you could avoid mass reverting before discussing, and you could avoid making incorrect accusations about reading the talk page. In any case, why are you opposed to including the content in Wikipedia rather than linking to it externally? Our external linking policy is written to be general so it can be applied rationally, it is not written softly to encourage people to use it as a loophole to avoid our requirements on copyright and formats. --Gmaxwell 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I reverted a mass deletion (I could say the same about mass deletions before discussion... isn't any deletion technically a reversion?). At any rate, we're discussing it now, at least. As I said, I think these links are a benefit to their articles. I am not opposed to including their content in Wikipedia (I think I mentioned this above), and I do think that would be better than linking it externally. I also think it would be better to link to HTML pages that describe these pieces. However, I don't think it's better to just delete them all right now.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I did not add any of these links originally, so I do not know their copyright status, but many of them were created by Wikipedia contributors (e.g. Gene Ward Smith, or Joe Monzo), so at least in those cases a migration to the commons may be possible. If you wish to argue that they are copyright violations, I cannot defend them, and on that basis I would understand their mass deletion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think I have a solution: I will remove all of these links from their articles, but place them on their respective talk pages instead. That will leave the authors of these articles a list of links to clean up, rather than have all this content just disappear. - Rainwarrior 04:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I've checked out the claim that Wikipedia does not allow such links, and it seems to be false. Unless I hear a reason not to I am reverting. Unless [User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] can support his claim, he may have to be blocked from reverting back. Gene Ward Smith 23:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- WP:EL#Rich media doesn't specifically say "don't link directly to audio files", but the spirit of the guideline is clear. A simple, helpful thing you could do is to make an HTML page on your website with links to all these files (and ideally descriptions of some kind, with copyright information). Then no one would have a case for removing the links. —Keenan Pepper 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Musical Color' Temperament?
I recall reading that Leonardo da Vinci formulated a tuning system based on the frequencies of the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. I tried looking stuff up on this online but couldn't find much. Anyone know what I am talking about or perhaps what this type of scale was called? SN122787 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know about da Vinci's (I am curious, though), but I am familiar with more recent attemps at this sort of thing. The problem with them (in my opinion) is that vision and hearing work in very different ways and in very different domains. For example, the visible light spectrum is less than an 'octave', additive/subtractive color does not work like harmony, etc. -CKL
[edit] Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
- User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
- User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
- User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
- User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cris Forster
I don't know if everyone saw this article is nominated for deletion - Mireut 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regular numbers
As I'm not a music theorist, I'd appreciate it if someone from this project could look over the music-theoretic material I've included in the regular number article (related to just intonation) and make sure that I haven't said anything stupid there. —David Eppstein 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
