Talk:Just intonation

Conflict of Interest

Is User:MrOllie implying that User:Epixix is Marc Sabat? When MrOllie removed all of the Extended Helmholtz-Ellis JI Pitch Notation material, I didn't object because the edit was well within Wikipedia's guidelines. When he removed the External Link to Plain Sound, I undid it because the bar is much lower for External Links. The Plain Sound website is a far better resource than some of the other links I removed during the overhaul of this article.

When Epixix restored some material about Sabat and Schweinitz, MrOllie undid the edit and commented, "This was added by the author, citing his own website. That's clearly selfpromo." It's unclear what MrOllie means. So, I am asking about it here.

The article's focus on Extended Helmholtz-Ellis JI Pitch Notation was far too extensive when I started overhauling it. It's hard to argue that the system shouldn't be mentioned, however. If a conflict of interest is the only impediment to its inclusion, we can easily handle that problem. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the single purpose account who originally added the material (and the link to plainsound.org). The content is entirely based on sources written by Sabat as well. If a new version could be rewritten based on secondary sources, I wouldn't have any objection. MrOllie (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Resonate?

The article begins saying "Just intonation is the tuning of a musical interval without beats. The result is an acoustically pure sound that resonates within the harmonic series." I have at least two problems with this statement: can a "musical interval" result in a "pure sound," and what is the meaning of "resonate" in the second sentence? Any explanation would be welcome. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

"Just" and "pure" are historically interchangeable descriptors for the sounding of an interval without acoustical beats. Those words reflect the sources.

The resonance aligns with the harmonic series. When it doesn't, you get the beats. I thought the Wikilink to the acoustical beat article sufficed to explain that, but I'll add a citation. Wendy Carlos goes into great detail about it in her article. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I keep wondering how a musical interval could result in a pure sound. My problem is not so much about "pure" than about "sound." Doesn't an interval necessarily imply two sounds?

Just (or pure) intervals may beat, if the difference in frequency is less than about 30 Hz. That is to say that, e.g., a just major 3d would beat if the lower sound is below 120Hz. The definition given in our article refers to the New Harvard Dictionary, but Apel's definition in the Harvard Dictionary (1950, p. 384) refers only to simple frequency ratios. James Jeans, in Science of music (1937, p. 176), also defined just intonation in terms of frequency ratios. And one could easily find other sources which do not refer to the absence of beats.

As to sounds that "resonate" within the harmonic series, this reminds me of Rameau's idea that harmonic partials results from a résonance, misunderstanding Sauveur's experiment which evidenced harmonic partials with resonators. I am afraid that to say that "the resonance aligns with the harmonic series" sort of reproduces the same misunderstanding and I don't see any explanation of this "resonance" in the Beat (acoustics) article.

The harmonic series itself is defined as a series of integral multiples of a fundamental frequency. Do not these "integral multiples" bring back to the definition of just intonation as resulting from simple frequency ratios. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The Harvard Dictionary definition which is cited in the article reads, "The beatless tuning of an interval, one that brings it into agreement with some analogous interval in the harmonic series. Such intervals are considered to be acoustically pure."

Perhaps this is a language issue. The interval itself has a sound. Yes, there are two notes, each with a sound of their own. But the pure sound of a justly tuned interval is the sound of the combination of those tones, just as a chord has a sound, a band has a sound, and an instrument has a sound. It's a malleable term.

I'll take a look at the beats article. Perhaps it needs to be clearer? The same combination principle applies here. Note A has its own set of overtones. Note B has a separate set. When they are sounded together as an interval, if their overtones resonate together (or agree per Harvard), the interval will sound pure or just. If they don't, they will beat.

I hope this is a clear answer to your concerns. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Trumpetrep,

1) I thought of the difference between "sound" and "note" (or, better, "tone" – a note, strictly speaking is a written tone or pitch). You are right on this point, but I feel nevertheless that it might lead to confusion.

2) The matter of beats is more important. The question may be whether "Just intonation" defines the tuning of possibly one single interval, or the attempt at tuning several just intervals in a scale. The New Harvard Dictionary first definition considers that all intervals between adjacent partials in the harmonic series form a "just intonation", but that includes intervals of a semitone or less, which indeed may be beatless, but which might not be "just" in the usual sense, while intervals that belong to just intonation, such as the major third of 5:4 frequency ratio, in some cases may beat. In other words, the meaning of "just intonation" may have changed between, say, Apel's Harvard Dictionary of 1969 (2d edition) and the New Harvard Dictionary of 1986 – or, to say it otherwise, definitons 1) and 2) in the New Harvard Dictionary may contradict each other. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I should add that intervals that are "just" in the first definition of the New Harvard Dictionary may beat. As a matter of fact, any harmonic series of which the fundamental is lower than about 30 Hz has beating intervals between its own partials. Or we must conclude that Helmhotz was wrong... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

There are two definitions for just intonation. We discussed this during the overhaul. One of the first things I changed was to introduce to the article the primary definition of the term, which is reflected in the Harvard citation above. That history was entirely absent from the article.

The article now conveys that the pursuit of an entire tuning system that replicates just intonation of certain intervals has been a Holy Grail for some musicians. What comes first is the natural phenomenon: just intonation of intervals.

The attempt to replicate that natural phenomenon across an entire chromatic tuning system is how you end up in 7-limit land. It's like vulcanized rubber: the attempt to industrialize a miracle of nature.

Perhaps the article could use a few more words about the impulse to systematize just intonation? My focus was on simplicity, given the myriad issues with the article's sprawl. I think the text is clear, and neither the Harvard or the Grove entries for just intonation are particularly long. When an article starts trying to be all things to all people, it ends up being the kind of mess we just had to clean up. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

An additional problem is that Just intonation is described in our article as a "tuning," as it also is in the New Harvard Dictionary. One may sing in just intonation, without "tuning" anything. Apel described it as "A system of intonation and tuning," which makes more sense. That "just intonation" merely is "a system of intonation" seems ... obvious. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following you. The article gives two separate definitions for just intonation. It is the tuning of a musical interval. It is also a tuning system.

Those two definitions do not entirely overlap.

That is why it's important for the article to articulate both of them, which it now does.

It's hard to know if I'm addressing your concern, because it's unclear to me what they are. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I see that the article Musical tuning also is unclear on this point. It says that "Tuning is the process of adjusting the pitch of one or many tones from musical instruments to establish typical intervals between these tones." I agree with that: tuning is adjusting the pitch or the scale of an instrument. If you sing, say, in equal temperament, you don't need to "tune" your voice, but you attempt at matching the tuning of some instrument. Indeed, "tuning" is also used (once) in the article in the meaning of "matching" when it says "Tuning to a pitch with one's voice is called matching pitch."

This all to say that I feel that these articles are not strict enough in the meaning of the terms used. I admit that the common English usage may not be very strict, but I think that we should avoid that on WP. I don't think that "just intonation" ever is termed "just tuning," which indeed would mean something entirely different. Apel's description of just intonation as "a system of intonation and tuning" (I'd have written "intonation or tuning") is more cautious than the New Harvard Dictionary when it describes just intonation as either "the beatless tuning of an interval" or "any tuning that incorporates [...] acoustically pure types of intervals." In either cases, this concerns tuning instruments, not singing. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oof, that musical tuning article is a mess as well. The quote you pulled is the kind of unsourced riff that is all over our tuning articles. They read like someone ad-libbing a pre-concert lecture instead of writing a Wikipedia article.

I agree completely that our articles should be more precise. I do think there is a language gap at play here, though.

When you said, "One may sing in just intonation, without "tuning" anything", I didn't understand what you meant. Based on your latest post, it seems that your definition of tuning is limited to some kind of mechanical adjustment that the human voice is unable to make, such as adjusting a slide or a tuning peg.

Singers tune just like everyone else, though. Their mechanism is their voice. A classic example is Stimmung which can be translated as 'tuning'. It requires constant vigilance of pitch, and any rehearsal of it will include ample stretches where the singers focus on tuning their intervals.

I think I've understood you now, and I hope you'll clarify if I haven't. More importantly, I'm not sure how to address any concerns you have about the article. The language in it is a clear reflection of its trustworthy sources. If there are still points of confusion in its copy, let's focus on them. Trumpetrep (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 Overhaul

User:lowercase sigmabot III leapfrogged the rather expansive discussion of this article's much-needed overhaul into the Talk archive. Please consult that discussion to see how this article's manifold problems were addressed. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Re your edit that removed the information that Pythagorean tuning is a 3-limit, and the Ptolemy's is a 5-limit:

Why are you insisting that concepts introduced in this sections aren't classified by the limit class they belong to?

You claim the overhaul discussion contains some rationale on this referred to as "thus", but I can't see a real reason why removing a top level information (which is also prominent as a "Musical tunings" template's hierarchy) is an improvement. Zlamma (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, re this edit that moved the limit classifications back to the end. I find your change detrimental. You say history is somehow important in this section, but history section is just above. This section is titled "scales" and IMHO should focus on laying out the taxonomy. The concept of limits give a very good high level classification which helps to digest what is to come. Whereas the current picks from history, with the current removal of information of limit classes, gives no structure to the section and makes it prone to further creep (this part of 5-limit article shows how there can be plenty variants of this just intonation class). Zlamma (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zlamma, thanks for reading through the Talk page.

As to the structure of the Scales section, it is chronological like the rest of the article.

No article benefits by writing history inaccurately. The previous incarnation of this page had anachronistic statements like this, "During the second century AD, Claudius Ptolemy described a 5-limit diatonic scale in his influential text on music theory..."

Harry Partch's concept of a limit comes after thousands of years of history. Using it as a structural concept for a page about just intonation is like using the 426 Hemi as a frame for the history of transportation.

The Grove article on just intonation doesn't mention limits. A recurring feature of the improvement tags and the Talk page of this article was that readers didn't understand it. A big reason general readers and professional musicologists found it unintelligible was its myopic preference for limits instead of first principles.

The easiest thing to do when I started overhauling the article was to remove forked content. Let the limit articles speak for themselves. As to that, the Five-limit tuning is the same kind of shambles that this article was prior to the overhaul. It would be fantastic if you could find some quality sources for it and get some of that original research out of there!

Regarding the first edit you asked about, it removed two unsourced statements. In addition to not having citations, they blurred the chronological progress of the article. It moves gradually towards limits and the current state of the art. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

> As to the structure of the Scales section, it is chronological like the rest of the article. ... myopic preference for limits instead of first principles

While our recent edits found a way not to pour the baby with the bath, I will leave my thoughts here that find the preference for chronology in every section - even where history section exists - subjective, whereas, contrary to your tacit presupposition, understandability for modern reader is a first principle, arguably a very important one. Chronology may actually introduce chaos especially when expanding to cover cultures which didn't build on each other (possibly why pentatonic scale uses are not really chronological). Laying out modern understanding of a subject beforehand can help systematize a concept better than sticking strictly to the timeline (see, again, pentatonic scale's types, whose structure relies on modern classifications).

Regarding few other claims:

> No article benefits by writing history inaccurately.

Surely deciding to not write chronologically is not the same as "writing history inaccurately", and thus surely I have not introduced historical inaccuracies.

> anachronistic statements like this, "During the second century AD, Claudius Ptolemy described a 5-limit diatonic scale in his influential text on music theory..."

I'm not sure if I see this as a true anachronism, in that I'd be surprised to see readers take-away from such a statement that Ptolemy was necessarily aware of the limits classification, instead of thinking that the statement about historical fact is viewed through the lens of modern understanding, in the service of understandability by the modern reader. That this is a classification is evident due to the use of indefinite "a", and statements classifying a system are not statements of the system's literal content. As such I wonder if pointing this out isn't too nitpicky. In any case, I feel any confusion can be avoided simply by putting the classification in a clause that doesn't use Ptolemy as its subject, but more as a conclusion, like I actually did in the statements you removed ("thus *it* was a X-limit scale"). An extra care would be just informing about when the concept of limits was introduced, but really, because the concepts on Wikipedia are linked, the chronology can just be left to easily discover for the reader interested in it.

> A recurring feature of the improvement tags and the Talk page of this article was that readers didn't understand it ... A big reason ... was its ... preference for limits

Looking there, I feel it was mostly poor writing - written sloppily (not distinguishing with a consistent language the harmonic numbers present in interval ratios), but also possibly facts being random - a stuff of superfluous detail before a good overview has been distilled. Zlamma (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Re your edit that removed my parentheticals, claiming that parentheticals mean that their content doesn't belong to an article, and that people should "stop adding them".

I found instructions in the Manual of Style that:

• outright encourage using parentheticals to explain technicalities inline instead of relying on linking: "Excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) can result from trying too hard to avoid putting explanations in parenthetical statements, like the one that appeared earlier in this sentence" (Wiki Manual Of style > Technical language)
• prescribes their use for content like: (see "some other wikipedia term") : '"See" and the like can be used to internally cross-reference other Wikipedia material. Do not italicize words like "see". Such a cross-reference should be parenthetical' (Wiki Manual Of style > Grammar and usage)
• condones using them along punctuation to clarify sentences: "Dashes can clarify a sentence's structure when commas, parentheses, or both are also being used" (Wiki Manual Of style > Punctuation)

And I found no statements discouraging them.

Can you point at a source of your claims? Zlamma (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to discuss the article here. Parentheses certainly have their place on Wikipedia, as your citations support.

In this article, they have been misused. A big part of the overhaul was removing such conversational asides and tics (such as "Thus..."), because it was reading too much like someone's attempt at a music theory lecture rather than an encyclopedic article. The opening sentence was a classic example:

• "In music, just intonation or pure intonation is a tuning system in which the space between notes' frequencies (called intervals) is a whole number ratio."

Leads "should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." Clarity is concise. Barring dates and translations, if a Wikipedia article can't get through its first sentence without a parenthetical, something has gone wrong. Worse still, that parenthetical set the table for what was to come. It opened the door to far too many digressions that bewildered both readers and editors.

In the following instance, there are two problems:

• "When justly tuned fifths are stacked to generate all twelve chromatic tones, the final note in the series is short of its destination (the initial note, but an octave higher)."

First, the destination is not an octave higher but seven per the cited source. Second, confining the definition of the destination to a parenthetical is unnecessary. It's fair to explain what the destination is, but there is no reason to cloister it behind parentheses.

In another article, that stylistic choice might not be an issue, but this article tends towards illegibility. Our job is to prevent it straying from the path. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Re your edit that removed my redaction that helped to see that Ptolemy's scale is actually addressing the same problem as the solution before, do you really feel that the reader doesn't benefit from this information? Notably, you claimed earlier that chronology and historicity is important, while the "solution to add 5:4" has been hanging there completely without identifying which scale it even relates to, and its source is actually modern. My edit was actually helping to solve the problems your flag, by not making the "5:4" solution a separate concept and making space for its first chronological application. Justifying the removal by claiming that basic maths need to be sourced is IMO making it harder for this content to be accessible to the general reader (the intervals listed are actually opaque to them, and probably even most technical reader). Zlamma (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for talking through all of this. Your latest edit was bang on. It elegantly brought the past into the present, instead of the reverse.

There is probably already a source in the article that can support the statement you would like to make about 5:4.

What's important is not to misrepresent history. Further, this article does not need to cover everything. There already is an article about Ptolemy's intense diatonic scale. Have you looked at it? It's a total mess. Wright's book is only cited once in the lead sentence!

I would love to see some other editors pitching in to clean these messes up. I've been asking about this recently, and there hasn't been much interest. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Re:

> Wright's book is only cited once in the lead sentence!

Wright's book doesn't even mention Ptolemy, so I fear the citation is just misplaced there. But that's just because 5-limit scales have many variants depending on where to place the just thirds (as observed here), and Wright was describing the entire class. I may try to find a source for the claim that Ptolemy's scale can be considered to be using the 5:4 third, but in the light of this being evident through basic mathematics over what's already well sourced, I can't think of anyone who would find it unhelpful if the simple fact was shown. Zlamma (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

To quote our old friend, "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it." Trumpetrep (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the source (while I also found one).

I do feel that somehow joining the paragraphs about "5:4" and Ptolemic would still improve clarity so do consider achieving it again. Otherwise, I will refrain from making the change unless more editors opines here. Zlamma (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Audio Files

Two cents on the revert dispute about whether audio files should have sources in the article. (CC: @Yangchengu)

1. Media files have source stated in the metadata, e.g. File:Primary triads in C just.mid , as such, I find it wasteful to require the information in the article.
2. If this is about "verifiability", then yes, if you inspect the metadata of the said files, many (all?) is "Own work". Nevertheless, I feel some files should be just considered multimedia part of the wikipedia's content. Just like graphical visualizations of concepts created by users. Some may have sources, but some may not but will provide encyclopedic information, just graphically. I was trying to look for any clear prescription about such cases in Wikipedia:Verifiability and its archive but I guess it needs a deeper dive, or just creating a talk subject. The closest I found was pertaining to images here, that "User-made images" and that "Technical data is uncopyrightable" which I feel kind of makes sense for generated sine waves, midi-recordings and such. @Trumpetrep do you really think there's no place for audio demonstrations created by users? Should Beat (acoustics) article's demonstrations be removed if not shown to be coming from some published work?

Zlamma (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think audio demonstrations should be verifiable just like everything on Wikipedia. I wish there were more audio (not MIDI) files on Wikipedia. In an article like this, audio files could be extremely helpful, but how can we verify that they are accurate? Without such an assurance, why would we include it in the article? Trumpetrep (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Trumpetrep

Specifically, what course of action (or lack thereof) and what medium, do you propose then for those intending to contribute to Wikipedia an audio demonstration of an audible phenomenon based on a audio file from a publication, that allows them to not infringe the copyrights of the publication, and at the same time allowing verifiability that the audio correctly contains the waves that demonstrate the same phenomenon?

Are you saying people should publish audio bitstream formats like WAV/FLAC and expect others to be verifying these (programmatically? or rely on aural senses?). Or do you expect the community to only use way lesser known file formats which only contain few basic sine-wave components and these to be verified.

BTW, Not sure why MIDI would be discouraged for musical concepts, as it is at least a widespread format allowing verifiability of notes. Zlamma (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zlamma,

I agree with your view. User-created audio files (like MIDI demonstrations or sine wave examples) should be treated as primary sources – similar to how we treat user-made diagrams or visualizations. The metadata already states "Own work", and the content itself is a direct illustration of the concept being discussed.

Requiring an external published source for such self-evident audio demonstrations seems excessive. As long as the file accurately represents the described phenomenon (which can be verified by anyone listening or analyzing it), I think it has a valid place in the article, just like user-generated images.

Thanks for making this point clear. Yangchengu (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

An article that uses MIDI to demonstrate musical passages is better off without them. For theoretical examples like the ones in this article, MIDI can be useful.

The verification problem still exists. "Own work" satisfies nothing. It just tells readers who made a file. How are they to know it is accurate?

Saying the file is "self-evident" runs right into the core tenet of verifiability, "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it".

User-made diagrams or visualizations require sources just like everything else on Wikipedia. Why would we exempt audio from this policy? Trumpetrep (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Re:

> An article that uses MIDI to demonstrate musical passages is better off without them

Can you elaborate? Do you really think a general reader does not benefit from having the score playable? The example you gave is actually using the <score> format which guarantees that the audio files match the sheet, so I am especially intrigued why the general reader is "worse off" by being able to listen to a midi rendition of the notes?

Other than this, just making sure, I hope you can answer my specific question on how to ensure verifiability and no copyright infringement of audio bitstream formats (best to do it in appropriate thread). Zlamma (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the article is improved by access to real audio of a Boccherini performance, rather than a MIDI realization.

As to verification of user-generated audio, I don't know the answer to this problem, which is why I have asked about it a few times at various articles.

I was just perusing the inarticulate mess that is the Pythagorean comma article, and this very issue came up on the talk page. It spread over two separate conversations:

Talk:Pythagorean_comma#Audio_sample_correct?

Talk:Pythagorean_comma#MIDI_errors_(2)

What emerges is a kind of peer review process for audio samples which I doubt anyone would recommend given its violation of Wikipedia's ethos. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I see where you're coming from, but I think there may be a misunderstanding.

You've been arguing that user-generated audio files need to come from a published reliable source to be verifiable. But Wikipedia already allows user-made diagrams and visualizations to illustrate concepts, as long as they accurately represent what they're supposed to show. A MIDI file demonstrating a just intonation triad is essentially the same kind of thing — anyone can listen and verify whether it's correct.

WP:V states that information must be verifiable, not that it must already be "published" in the traditional sense. For simple audio demonstrations like sine waves or MIDI examples, the file itself is the demonstration, and verification is straightforward: anyone with basic music theory knowledge can check it against the description.

The Boccherini example feels like a different situation. A MIDI performance of a complex classical piece has limitations — I agree. But that's not what we're talking about here. For basic intervals and chords in just intonation, MIDI works perfectly fine and is genuinely helpful for readers.

Could you clarify how you would handle this scenario: If a user wants to create an audio demonstration of a basic acoustic phenomenon (like a beat frequency or a pure interval), what would be an acceptable way to do that without violating copyright or relying on existing publications that may not exist for such elementary concepts? Yangchengu (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The Image use policy still requires a source for user-made diagrams, "In such cases, it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images."

To answer your specific question, it seems to me that a user shouldn't want to "create an audio demonstration of a basic acoustic phenomenon", because it violates Wikpedia's basic requirements that facts be verifiable. The demonstration should be tied to a source.

If there isn't a publication to support the demonstration, then why would we demonstrate it? This isn't wikiHow. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear, none of my hundreds of mathematical images have such verification. I'm not even sure what “the original data” would be. —Antonissimo (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Those are lovely, User:Antonissimo.

The policy is clear enough, and it tracks with the rest of Wikipedia's verifiability requirement. If there's no source, it doesn't belong in an article.

The biggest issue with this article when I overhauled it was that it lacked sources for statements. Editors were just spitballing. When I reset the article to a baseline of verified statements, the only thing that couldn't be sourced were the audio samples. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Re:

> "The Image use policy still requires a source for user-made diagrams, "In such cases, it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images."

That just refers to diagrams visualizing data. What the policy is also clear about is that:

"user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose" (source) Zlamma (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Re:

> a user shouldn't want to "create an audio demonstration of a basic acoustic phenomenon", because it violates Wikpedia's basic requirements that facts be verifiable. The demonstration should be tied to a source.

I feel this is something that would be worth discussing with the wikipedia community, because ultimately the first principle is for Wikipedia to be more valuable, and better at explaining concepts to the user. Not all best explanations are symbolic.

Also take note that the difficulty of verifiability of an audio file is not an unsurmontable problem and may very well be a temporary technical limitation. Not only verifying a synthetic WAV file may become possible (especially with the advent of AI code generation), but also it's also an option to introduce a data format that leaves the waves out in the open (here one file format I found, but simply JavaScript code could be another option), and generates the sound programmatically. Given that I feel that doing today the best possible (so, e.g. relying on users catching buggy files) and in the process scaffolding the best encyclopedia to be, while solving technical problems later, is an approach that the community would actually benefit, rather than suffer from. Zlamma (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Re:

> Yes, the article is improved by access to real audio of a Boccherini performance, rather than a MIDI realization.

You earlier said:

> an article that uses MIDI to demonstrate musical passages is better off without them

which is a different claim. Zlamma (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for the constructive response, Zlamma. I have asked the music theory project about this issue. Any other suggestions about where to take it?

You are right about the feasibility of verifying audio files. The ad hoc peer review that happened at the Pythagorean comma article is a window into how it could work. The question remains, is such a peer review process compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines?

My main concern is simply creating the best product we can for readers. In a lot of these articles, there are sloppy, unexamined assertions and audio examples that detract from the subject, rather than illuminate it.

Regarding MIDI and audio, I've described both sides of the coin. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks.

I also decided to action my take on it - to me, this is a foundational problem that applies throughout Wikipedia, related to lack of rules' distinction between verifiability of base claims and verifiability of correctness of works demonstrating the claims, so here I asked to consider even hinting at the distinction in the Verifiability rules. Zlamma (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)