Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

Good article reassessment for Major thirds tuning

Major thirds tuning has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Audio file verification

Wikipedia requires sources for everything, with few exceptions. At various articles, I have asked whether audio files are exempt from verification. I'm asking the question again here.

This came up most recently at the Just intonation page. A comparison was made to user-made graphics, but such visualizations still require a source.

For instance, when an article includes the user-generated audio file claiming to be "Primary triads in just intonation^ⓘ", how can other readers or editors verify that it is accurate?

The Pythagorean comma article showcased this issue when one user questioned the accuracy of an audio file. What emerged over two conversations was a kind of peer review process where editors worked together to settle on a version of the file that they felt was accurate:

• Talk:Pythagorean_comma#Audio_sample_correct?
• Talk:Pythagorean_comma#MIDI_errors_(2)

This process seems anathema to Wikipedia's core policy of utilizing reliable, independent, published sources. Is there a policy on user-generated audio files? If not, should we create a guideline for them? Trumpetrep (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Re: > "A comparison was made to user-made graphics, but such visualizations still require a source"
   I am another person engaging in this discussion, and I feel it requires resurfacing that this is not entirely true, because the rules also say that "user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should primarily serve an educational purpose".
2. Another of my points IMO worthy of resurfacing is that the difficulty of verifiability of an audio file is not an insurmountable 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.
3. I asked a related question here on Verifiability talk page, because I sense that this could be a foundational Wikipedia problem that applies to any media, where only allowing Verifiabity that amounts to checking that "same work has been published elsewhere" would push the project towards a loss-loss situation: big detriment to its explanatory value and copyright-infringement troubles.

Zlamma (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

For those who are interested, Zlamma's question about this issue has generated a little feedback at Wikipedia's Verifiability talk page. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Now that thread seems to have calmed down, I suggest we work on drafting an appropriate guideline in one of our userspaces? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It got a little hard to follow. It seemed like Zlamma was going to draft something? Trumpetrep (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I did offer to give draft a go, but there was not response, and what followed was others steering the discussion about drafting with other users, where I got named as dissenting, so I took it that a draft will come from others, so maybe time is lost. But yeah, there has since been some accord, I'm still up for providing a scaffold to critique, so i can do it - may need a few days to find a free moment. Zlamma (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do provide a scaffold somewhere, User:Zlamma. Then let's take it to the Village Pump per the recommendation. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry as I was traveling and then got a nasty cold. I nudged the matter a bit now:

User:Zlamma/Rfc:WP_docs_improvement_re_demonstrations

I want to add a tad more before I feel I'm ready to take suggestions on the content itself, but sharing now to let you know it's not dead, and for any first thoughts if the approach can be bettered. Zlamma (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Trumpetrep @UpTheOctave! Hi again. I hope your silence means the approach is viable :)
I have since made some copyedits, especially to the scaffold that should make it hopefully easy to agree or suggest improvements.
I have now also added the section that I felt was needed for making this change comprehensive (not leaving [contradictions/important omissions] in the many page) and give each opinion a place where its persuasion can be perfected: the Targets to be affected by the proposal (it's pretty verbose but that's because I also included suggestions which I don't agree with. In any case the structure in the menu should help and using wiki sections will allow some edits to be done without stepping on other sides toes).
It's a bit late as I added this and I feel I haven't copy-edited this sufficiently. Sorry about that and please help if you spot anything obvious.

Regarding the remaining unfilled section, the Content to introduce/change, I feel that I want to refrain from writing my version of everything before I hear any thoughts. I hope the scaffold gives the idea of what I intended to put there.

When you have a while, please let me know your thoughts! Thanks! Zlamma (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this. I've been very busy the past few weeks and will continue to be for the next. I'll see what I can do, but it might be a while. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. This is a lot to take in, and I've started and stopped it a few times. That might be a sign that it's a little overcomplicated. I'll take another stab at it and try to respond in real detail. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. One reason for the volume of this is because I wanted to represent other peoples' point of views. As far as I'm concerned, the only goal I internalize as mine is to address the lack of discoverability of the whole nuance from the WP:V, which instead makes claims to pertain to 'all material', preventing users from seeking other guidelines.

All in all, given @UpTheOctave!'s long unavailability, I feel it's best to present this to the others in the thread soon (was going to do that anyway, but noticed here an opportunity for early feedback before any mistake I did gets ripped apart by the crowds :) ). I may do it soon, even if you don't find time. Zlamma (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps my today's edits that flattened the headings adds more clarity.

Also, I have now provided places where users can cast some votes, individually for each suggestion, to see where the sticking points actually are. (CC: @UpTheOctave! if you find any time at all, consider to just add your name to any of these) Zlamma (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI: Seeing your inavailability in this who-knows-how-long-a-window of my time, I now decided to bite the bullet and decided to start garnering feedback on the discussion page. Zlamma (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Equal temperament

Our article for "Equal temperament" was another hodgepodge of original research and jargon. It was not what the general reader should expect when searching for the term on Wikipedia. As per policy, I applied the title to the correct article, which is substantially better but still needs improvement. An editor objected, and a discussion has begun. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)