Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales

message: These are articles which can, or have been, cleaned up to make them more general. I just did pitch class.
* 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)
replies: text: Hahah. Yeah, I would definitely disagree with the quote. You should remove it. Rainwarrior 19:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratuitous assumption of 12 equal temperament 

message: Does this project encompass the articles in :Category:Musical keys? — ßottesiηi (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Keys 

message: ::Didn't someone write a 55 equal temperament page? If so, what happened to it? Gene Ward Smith 08:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're thinking of 88 equal temperament? —Keenan Pepper 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was it! Thanks. Gene Ward Smith 19:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  88 Equal Temperament 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, seems like it should be a section of Musical tuning. —Keenan Pepper 00:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuning theory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intun MIDI tuning program 

message: 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)
thread_title:  name of project? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More keys 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undertone series 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I don't know if everyone saw this article is nominated for deletion - Mireut 14:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cris Forster]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regular numbers 

message: I have added this article to the list in this project page. The aim of the article is to show the many meanings that diatonic and chromatic have accumulated (in connection with scales, etc.), and to show something of their evolution and current applications. This seemed like a good idea, especially since editors themselves use these terms in different and incompatible ways in Wikipedia music theory articles. Much has been done; more sections need to be added. Members of this project may like to take a look.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Diatonic and chromatic]]

message: ::::--☑ SamuelWantman 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know anthing about this instrument? 

message: I want to contribute to some articles within the scope of this project, and I'm wondering if there is a preferred way of expressing the names of pitch class sets. Allen Forte has a naming system in his The Structure of Atonal Music, which I believe to be notable, but pitch sets can also be referred to by naming the pitches contained within the set (024579E being either C Major or A minor with no transposition or inversion, or the so called "prime form" of all major and natural minor scales, for example.), which is also notable. I'll work on some articles, perhaps if the manual of style people object to something, we can come up with a standard for when to use either naming convention. --Kento 12:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred Style for Pitch Set Theory 

message: I just nominated Hexany for deletion. I thought you folks might have a better sense than I if it was worth keeping: I'm a equal-tempered sort. :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hexany]] AfD 

message: Both the 22 equal temperament and 31 equal temperament claim that the "Orwell tetrad" exists within them, but neither article explains what it is (beyond being a possible sonority), and there is no article. I can't find anything on it anywhere. Does anybody know its significance? Does it have anything to do with the (redlinked, stated as 1728/1715 but otherwise unexplained) Orwell comma?
And speaking of redlinked intervals, what's the gamelan residue? It's mentioned in both the 31-EDO and miracle temperament articles, but nothing beyond the ratio is mentioned. Not even what it has to do with gamelans. — Gwalla | Talk 07:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orwell tetrad and unexplained small intervals 

message: Currently, tuning ratios in Wikipedia articles are inconsistently expressed as ratios (3:2) and sometimes as vulgar fractions (3/2), sometimes both within a single article. Which notation should be preferred? — Gwalla | Talk 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I usually see the colon used: 3:2, so that's what I would go with. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. It's easier to make those look good, too. (Fractions look best with the fraction template, but that results in really messy wikicode) — Gwalla | Talk 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratios or fractions? 

message: The kleisma article, a sad little stub, needs love. (Awww.) Specifically, it needs a citation for that name (even better, the etymology of the term and who gave it that name), and more detail on how it is important to tempering the Bohlen–Pierce scale (the latter article doesn't even mention it). I've been able to find it in online catalogs of microtonal intervals, but nothing beyond simple listings of frequency ratio and size in cents. — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The kleisma needs help 

message: Who marked this project inactive?  I'm removing the mark.  Before adding it again, explain yourself here. beefman (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  inactive? 

message: No remarks here since beefman questioned the inactive tag 10 months ago.  Prior to that the last discussion took place over 18 months ago...  Kleinzach was probably right to tag with inactive, therefore, but I'll give people a chance to comment here before I go that far.--Jubilee♫clipman 18:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiactive

message: Just giving everybody the heads up that I've nominated Lucy tuning for deletion. If you can make an argument for or against, please make it at the deletion discussion. — Gwalla | Talk 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucy tuning on AfD 

message: What is the desired way to notate unusual (typically non-western) tunings? I don't quite see a common style across the articles I've encountered so far. Personally I would prefer a physical/mathematical approach - like frequencies in Hz - rather than trying to modify a western 12-note based notation into describing these tunings. Is there an official Wiki recommendation that I didn't notice? JoaCHIP (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation of "weird" tunings 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live!