Talk:Superparticular ratio
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Link relevance edit
What has the first link got to do with superparticular numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.125.190 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2006
- Who knows what "the first link" meant in 2006? Today (2015), the first link is to the ratio article, which is obviously related. Can we delete this talk section as having been resolved? 38.86.48.38 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Subarticles edit
The subarticles sesquialterum, sesquitertium, sesquiquartum, and sesquiquintum were proposed for deletion as "dictionary definition" articles. No comments were made in favor of their keep. Just before they were to be deleted, I made them into redirects to this page. So the previous versions of those articles are available in their respective histories, in case anyone wants to merge it here. Please don't recreate the previous articles before discussing it here. CMummert · talk 14:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Regularizing Examples edit
Thanks for a nice little article. I have a small issue with the audio examples. In some of them the chord is sounded and then the two separate notes whereas in some only the chord is sounded. For example compare major second (9/8) and minor tone (10/9).
May I ask how these examples are made? If a tip/link is put here I can try to regularize this. Rpm13 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
definition and Throop edit
The paragraph quoted from Throop is awkwardly worded and seems to me not worth its length. Why keep it?
Also – it might be clearer to the layman if the definition expresses the "ratio" as a ratio, (or the reverse). —Tamfang (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
