Talk:Minor scale

message: I intend to make a few ammendements to this article.  I thought it best to explain my reasons here and to add that I don't wish to offend anybody by doing so, I'm just building on the work you people have already put onto this page.  Naturally I expect you to correct any mistakes I make and if your opinions differ I would appreciate some discussion before or after changes.
My first change will be made to the opening sentence: 
"A minor scale in music theory is a diatonic scale with a third scale degree at an interval of a minor third above the tonic."
The problem is that minor scales can be derived from sets of pitch relations other than those of the diatonic scale. The paragraph then mentions the Harmonic Minor scale which is not a diatonic scale, containing, as it does a minor third interval).
I will also mention the Dorian and Phrygian modes which, however infrequently they are used in classical music, are both valid and widely used elsewhere.
Furthermore I would suggest, following a brief introduction to those minor scales which cannot be derived from major scales by modal changes alone (Harmonic and Melodic Minor[ascending form]) creating links to other pages (yet to be authored) which cover the properties of these scales in further detail.
For those of you who might think this is overkill allow me to explain my reasoning as follows:
By altering just one note in a scale you can also alter the nature of every possible chord formed containing the altered note.  This leads to radically different requirements for the harmonisation of the scale concerned and how a piece or fragment of music might be resolved.  
To illustrate this take the Harmonic Minor scale (I choose this partly because it is widely used and hence familiar).
By sharpening the 7th of an Aeolian ("Natural Minor") you introduce two sets of chords which are effectively rootless, the Diminished 7th (4 notes and four equally valid roots) or the Augmented triad (with its three roots).  Neither of these properties exist in the natural minor (Aeolian mode) or the other minor modes derived from the major scale, the Dorian and Phrygian modes.
Melodic Minor (ascending form i.e. Aeolian #6 and #7 for instance) is again very different from the Aeolian modes.  Personally I think it is simpler to regard the Melodic Minor ascending form as a derivative of a Dorian because then you only have to alter one note (=Dorian #7).
I hope that this is acceptable.  Feel free to contact me.  Andrew F. (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some changes 

message: "In other words meantone tunings the semitone is not half of a tone, but a somewhat larger interval."  This is not an English sentence.  (Nor, by the way, does it semantically follow its preceding sentence).  Please fix.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: There is also a minor blues scale, as heard in such songs as "Why don't you do right?" by Lil Green and many instrumental blues, but I am not competent to do more than point this out on the talk page.  Basically the third note is flattened, but I wouldn't dare write about it myself, too ignorant.  Ortolan88 01:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Jazz scale and Blues scale. That's where such a thing would belong. --Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor blues scale

message: "A natural minor scale, is a scale without any accidentals in it."  This language is confusing at best.  The scale of A Minor is the only one for which this is true.  Could someone please replace it with a better definition of "natural minor"?  Also, shouldn't natural minor be listed before the other types?  --LostLeviathan 17:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: An accidental is not just any sharp or flat, but a sharp or flat that's not in the key signature. A# minor has seven sharps in the key signature, but there would be no accidentals in the natural minor scale. —Keenan Pepper 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural minor 

message: The following was removed:
*Note. Since the augmented f-g# interval reminds the Western listener of Arabic or Middle Eastern music, harmonic minor is sometimes used to create an "exotic" effect. As an example, listen to "Naughty Girl" performed by Beyonce.
Earlier the article points out intervals in a scale which remind one of some kind of music, so that seems appropriate. My only question would be is "Naughty Girl" really in harmonic minor? Hyacinth 08:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "Naughty Girl" is actually in the Phrygian dominant scale. —Keenan Pepper 20:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Naughty Girl"

message: How can we write D-flat minor?? There is no relative major key. Georgia guy 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its relative major is F-flat major. You feel more comfortable with the enharmonic equivalent of C-sharp minor, which has E major as its relative. — Gareth Hughes 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  D-flat minor 

message: The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "chromatic", is the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged!
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diatonic and chromatic

message: I'm just throwing this out here -- would anyone object to a List of songs in minor key? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would. The list would be much too long to be useful. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, it might not hurt to have a comparison (or two) to listen to. For people who may understand what the article is saying but don't "get" what the difference is in how it actually sounds, maybe it'd be nice for them to hear what a song in a minor key sounds like compared to a song in a major key (preferably like a snippet of two well-known classical songs). Just a thought--I'm not a hardcore wiki discussion person and don't know the ins-and-outs or the plausibility of this like some of you others do. 70.57.113.4 08:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I was unfamiliar with the term, but it does seem recognized on guitar sites on a quick google search. As it's the same as the harmonic minor scale, it seems like it could be merged there (with simply a brief note of the name). Rigadoun  (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of it, but I'd say do it. If you can, add some information describing in what context this term would be used instead of harmonic minor. - Rainwarrior 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Mohammedan Scale article definitely needs to be merged according to Wikipedia policy, as it is no more than a different name for the natural minor scale. There is actually a stronger argument for separate articles on "natural minor scale" "harmonic minor scale" and "melodic minor scale", but these are probably best as sections, so as to best contrast them with each other. 82.21.244.201 12:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Mohammedan scale 

message: The article currently says:
The C major scale is C D E F G A B C, so the A natural minor scale is A B C D E F G A (A is the 6th scale note of the C major scale).
In other words meantone tunings the semitone is not half of a tone, but a somewhat larger interval.
I don't see how the second statement is rephrasing the first "in other words". I don't think the article says anything at all about temperament before this mention of meantone. Plus, the "in other words" sentence doesn't seem grammatical; "...meantone tunings the semitone is not hald of a tone..", huh? I'd just delete the "in other words" bit, but am not quite confident enough on my music theory. Can someone explain? Pfly 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In other words (something quite different)

message: The explanation in the article of how the descending and the ascending melodic minor scale, respectively, is obtained from the harmonic minor scale, is as follows: "either the subtonic is used, or the sixth scale degree is raised". I was much confused by the part "either the subtonic is used" and it was only after a good while that I realised that the descending melodic minor scale contains the exact same notes as the natural melodic minor scale. For clarity, I really think this should be pointed out, and I'm asking someone with a better grasp of the theory than I have!
:Thanks for your question or concern. Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to improve the explanation of the nature of the descending melodic minor scale 

message: In my opinion, this is one of those articles that has WAY too many cross-references to be useful.  I have a very strong music background, including some training in formal theory, but even I had a hard time with terms like "subdominant," "common practice period," "subtonic," etc., so I can only imagine how a person with little training might feel if he/she were to come to this article (as I did) for a basic explanation of the harmonic minor scale (with which I was already familiar).  While I understand that it isn't desirable to re-explain every term of art that appears on every page where such a term is used, clicking back and forth between the article and the pages for the various terms gets confusing and frustrating (particularly when the linked pages also contain terms of art that require explanation).  Even where parentheticals are used (in this case, e.g., with the term "dominant"), the parentheticals contain terms of art.  As it is now, the article reads like something out of a scholarly journal.  I think it might be helpful if the first paragraphs of each section were written in more of a "plain English" style.  I could do this, but I don't feel confident enough in my formal theory knowledge to do so.
Also, there are a number of things like the following that just don't make sense:  "Thus, for purposes of melody, either the subtonic is used, or the sixth scale degree is raised; either way, there is a whole step between these two scale degrees, considered more conducive to smooth melody writing."  WHICH two scale degrees?  And considered by whom to be more conducisve to smooth melody writing? Zddoodah (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have some great concerns, including Wikipedia:Explain jargon. However, "subdominant" is not a rare term and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Hyacinth (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is more confusing than it should be 

message: I have added some audio examples to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested audio

message: link that shows the circle of fifths quite well: http://www.i-love-guitar.com/circle-of-5ths.html
I am writing a book that explains all of these minor scale discrepancies, stay tuned! Microcosmmm (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Keys, Circle of Fifths

message: "A minor scale in music theory is a diatonic scale with a third scale degree at an interval of a minor third above the tonic." This sentence is incomprehensible to almost anyone. I've attended music school and know my theory, so after reading it three times I was able to make sense of it. I strikes me as written by someone who wants you to know that they are a master of music theory, more than they want you to know what a minor scale is. Someone who doesn't know what a minor scale is, clearly doesn't know much about music theory and most likely will not want to read anything more after failing to understand the first sentence. I won't try to rewrite it but here is an example of something someone without extensive knowledge of music theory might understand "A minor scale is the equivalent of starting on the sixth note of its relative major scale and then continuing until you reach that note again, one octave higher. For example, if F major contains the notes F G A Bb C D E 'F' then its relative minor scale would be D minor which contains the same notes but starts and ends on D (D E F G A Bb C 'D')." I understand that it goes on to explain that, but if they don't know what a minor scale is, how likely is it that they will know what the Aeolian mode is? Saying that makes sense only if you are explaining music theory to someone who already knows music theory, which is illogical.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.72.51 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on the term relative major, which only makes sense once you already know what the major and minor scales are. Also, it's a bit of a circular definition. — Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what is so hard to understand nor do I see how the sentence, "A minor scale in music theory is a diatonic scale with a third scale degree at an interval of a minor third above the tonic," is boasting. Links are provided to diatonic scale, scale degree, and minor third if one needs to read about those terms/subjects. It is certainly better than a circular definition and nothing. Hyacinth (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The first sentence

message: Might just be me, but where is all this information coming from? I would be whacking a great big [citation needed] on the whole article...? What's the go with that? Sorry that was poorly posed, I guess my real question is... is all the information coming from that one book Studies on the Origin of Harmonic Tonality‎?
124.170.186.64 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By "you would be" do you mean to ask if you should? By what's the go with that do you mean to ask what the proper procedure is? Hyacinth (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References...

message: THIS ARTICLE NEEDS A FREQUENCE PROPORTION RUNDOWN, AS IS PRESENT ON THE MAJOR SCALE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.211.235 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the Harmonic properites section? Hyacinth (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency Ratios People!!! 

message: to me , it is just notes borrowed from the major key so the 5th degree of a minor key becomes major (V7) for a perfect cadence (V7 - I) . A good example is autumn leaves. in the real book (for guitar) it is in E minor (F# sig of G Major). the 5th degree is B which is minor (phrygian) in G. It needs to become major for the "cadenza V-I". You then just borrow the notes (from the key of E major) D# for harmonic and C# - D# for melodic. remember that this is western music explanation...  198.103.221.51 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My point of view on harmonic/melodic 

message: The section "Harmonic and melodic minor" starts out with 'the above considerations of chordal harmony led to the harmonic minor scale'.
There aren't any above considerations, and apparently haven't been for several months. Somebody take a look at that, eh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.86.75 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Above Considerations" 

message: The Lydian Minor scale (fourth mode of Neapolitan Major) is an interesting exception to the rule that a "minor scale" contains the tonic, minor third, and perfect fifth, thus making the tonic chord a minor triad. Lydian Minor is based on the Lydian mode with a minor sixth and minor seventh--the third, curiously enough, is major (the "minor" moniker is likely based on the minor sixth and seventh, which are also flattened in the natural minor scale). What is even more surprising is that the most likely candidate for the name "Lydian Minor" would be Lydian b3--the fourth mode of Harmonic Major. That scale is the Lydian mode with a minor third. You would expect that to be called Lydian Minor, but this is not attested in the literature (Kadmon, 1997, pp. 50, 102). Anyway, is this "notable" enough to bear discussion? I figured I'd ask here first because these scales seem to be fairly obscure. I'm afraid it might just confuse most readers.
Kadmon, A. (1997). The guitar grimoire: A notated intervallic study of scales. New York: Carl Fischer.
MetalJon (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lydian Minor 

message: Harmonic Minor Scale: 1 2 ♭3 4 5 ♭6 7 8 (?) when you have the A minor scale just described below? A B C D E F G# A'. Shouldn't it be tone, semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tone and a half, semitone? Therefore 1 b2 3 4 b5 6# 7. Or an I not understanding what you guys have written?
122.107.131.46 (talk)
:The first number refers to the tonic itself. So 2 is a whole step above,  ♭3 a half step above that (a minor third above the tonic), etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this Correct?

message: The three chords germane to the discussion are shown correctly, but the B-D-F triad is diminished http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_triad and should be represented by "iio," not "ii." As such, the image needs to be regenerated. Ddunkman (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Hyacinth (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonic Minor image incorrect 

message: There is a heading 'Natural minor scale', but the text under it refers to the 'Harmonic minor scale'!
So two things are missing:
1) The actual text about what the natural minor scale is.
2) The correct heading for the harmonic minor scale.
This should be corrected!
Lowbop (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Hyacinth (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section on 'Natural minor scale' and the heading 'Harmonic minor scale' are missing 

message: Standard music texts will discuss natural minor scale, harmonic minor scale, and melodic minor scale. A reasonably brief discussion about minor key is also appropriate. It may also be appropriate to talk about the modes that have a minor third (Dorian, Phrygian, Aeolian, Locrian), although that's not really necessary as it's not clear that the term "minor scale" really has significant meaning outside of a tonal system. What is clear, though, is that all this stuff at the end--two relatively long sections!--about "chromatic-minor system" and whatnot is idiosyncratic and relies on a single source that may or may not be very good. In my opinion, those sections should just be removed--they do nothing other than give the impression that some oddball "system" apparently devised by one particular author is a standard thing when it's not. Someone reading this article should come away with an understanding that there are basically three types of minor scales in tonal music (natural, harmonic, and melodic). The "chromatic minor system" stuff is a distraction. It is more than unnecessary--it's presence does the article a disservice. SlubGlub (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am frankly amazed by Ken Stephenson's writings.  Yes, they are what one could call "idiosyncratic", but they are such uniquely accurate observations.  Rock music, as does the blues, loves the grey area between major and minor.  In addition, many have come to believe that these blues-based/post-blues genres of music are more simple-minded, or that classical- and jazz-based soundscapes are more sophisticated.  Stephenson's "chromatic-minor system", likewise, the other systems of his, is a clear proof of how rock has its own conventions (and subversions) of harmony, sometimes delving into the intricate, whether noticed or not.  They are very useful for those who want to learn; they deserve attention.  --CPGACoast (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is entirely possible that Ken Stephenson may be an amazing writer and uniquely accurate observer whose contributions are useful and deserve attention. However, that does not change the reality that entire sections on his chromatic-minor system and natural-minor system have no place in a short article on minor scales. SlubGlub (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I had not realized your reply until just now.  I see that the section has since been removed.  Nonetheless, I feel that the information delivered in the removed sections on  and  systems is quite valuable, or at least of interest, to anyone working creatively with music or studying blues-based music.  If anyone would like to see the old sections, the archived revisions are listed above. --68.192.114.243 (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiosyncratic "system" material given undue weight

message: Someone with a willingness to follow Wikipedia process (really, just takes a tiny bit of patience) should nominate the redirect of "Natural-minor system" and "Chromatic-minor system" to this article for deletion under reason #8 at WP:R#DELETE. That reason is: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." "Natural-minor system" and "Chromatic-minor system" are, as far as I can tell, novel and obscure constructs from Ken Stephenson's What To Listen For In Rock: A Stylistic Analysis. Redirecting them to the article on the minor scales is wrong for that reason, but also because it's just wrong! What Stephenson apparently describes is a harmonic system, not a scale. SlubGlub (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural-minor system and Chromatic-minor system redirects

message: "A minor scale in Western music theory includes any scale that contains, in its tonic triad, ..."
I do not see anywhere a definition of "tonic triad".  Links to the separate articles on "tonic" and "triad" are not adequate to define "tonic triad".  The reader is unable to understand "minor scale" because its supposed definition uses an undefined term.CountMacula (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonic triad is undefined 

message: "A minor scale in Western music theory includes any scale that contains, in its tonic triad, ..."
Then certain scales are included among the minor scales.  Are these the only scales included?  Are these exactly the scales that are included?  Are any other scales included?  Let's make it easy, not hard.  Please don't leave the reader wondering.CountMacula (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point, 11 years later. This is an internal conversation between Music theorists, not qualifying as an encyclopedia article, right? 148.69.193.46 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is everything a minor scale? 

message: The article should serve to show the incorporation of 3 component scales into one hybrid flexible-melody, functional-harmony whole.  It shouldn't contain, in the exclusive sense, the 3 component scales.  
Melodic minor, for instance, has modes, which are treated only in an article on jazz.  Melodic major, of which melodic minor could be said to be just a mode, is missing entirely from the wiki.  Harmonic minor exists only here, but leaves no parallel place for corresponding harmonic major.  Natural minor, melodic minor and harmonic minor are also components of the larger (n=6) set of ancohemitonic heptatonic scales, those scales accessible by the Western key signature system, and should be available as independent pages for reference from that (coming) page, too.
Thus I propose removing the redirects for natural, melodic, and harmonic minor, and segregating those sections into separate pages, while reinforcing the main thrust of this page as the historical and functional fusion of those 3 scales.     173.172.210.42 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Harmonic major? Melodic major? Minor is "just a mode" of major? We can't organize our page based on fringe theories. Time to lay off the 4:20, my friend. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

text: If anything, the reference to Jazz scale#Modes of the melodic minor scale should be strengthened. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Hmm, pretty sure I remember hearing about "harmonic major" in Rimsky-Korsakov... Double sharp (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repair False Conjunction by Page Split 

message: This article currently says that the ascending melodic scale is the same as the natural minor and the descending scale has two altered notes, compared to the natural minor. This is backwards. It's the descending scale that is the same as the natural minor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbomania (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh? Looks right to me. The numbers are being presented relative to the major scale, so of course the ascending melodic scale has "5 6 7 8" and the descending one has "5 6 7 8", just as it should have. Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge mistake under Melodic Minor 

message: What do people think of the diagram at the very top with the white and black keys (File:MinorScale.svg)? My instinct is to delete it. In the very least, I think it's too small to read. Squandermania (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you are objecting to, though on my computer screen the diagram does not seem too small to read. It looks like a woodwind fingering chart, and it takes some time to work out what relation it has to the subject of the article. Does it contribute to an understanding of the subject, or hamper it? I'm inclined to think the latter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete. Not helpful to readers. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram at the top 

message: 'Scale formation' is used in the first sentence as an underlying concept -- but it is not explained or linked. 37.99.61.154 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I changed the first one to "scale patterns" and the second one just to "scales". If someone prefers "scale variants" (or "variations") I could live with that. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a 'scale formation'? 

message: Let's discuss the criteria for which this link: https://www.fachords.com/tools/scale-finder/?key=3&scale=21&position=3 has been removed (an interactive tool for learning scales), while other links really similar to it are still there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianca1976 (talk • contribs) 
:If there are other links that don't meet the external links guideline, that is a reason to remove those links, not a reason for a COI editor to add more nonconforming links. - MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  but those links are still there  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianca1976 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links removed 

message: The introductory section states that the 1st, 3rd, and 5th scale degrees form minor triads i. All minor scales rather than major triads as compared to major scales.
Looking at the example scales shown in that same section this does not seem to be true (also isn't true for the major scales). Instead the 1st, 4th, and 5th form minor/major triads in the minor and major scale(s) respectively.
To clarify what I mean: the chords constructed from the notes in Cmaj in order are C, Dm, Em, F, G, Am, Bdim. How is the third scale degree form in a major triad here? What am I missing? 2001:16B8:49FD:C00:7494:5666:AC3A:425E (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Scale degrees are single notes, not chords. The first, third, and fifth note of any diatonic scale make a triad, whose character depends on the intervals between those notes in a given scale. In minor scales, 1-3-5 make a minor triad. As you know, in a minor scale, triads using those scale degrees as root notes may be written i, III, and v in roman-numeral notation, where upper case means a major chord, and lower case means a minor chord. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor triads in intro 

message: I don't mean to be rude (ironic, maybe) but the introductory paragraph of this article is a virtuoso performance in the Art of Explaining Things Really Badly. Nothing in it has any resemblance to a definition — definition being defined, according to Wikipedia, as "a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols)". Of course, there's no point in writing an article that only people already familiar with the topic can even start to understand what is writen, right? 148.69.193.46 (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the contributors know the definition of "definition"?