Your last edit was a clearly intented act of vandalism. I will announce it, if you like to engage further in this kind of edit war.
The template had to be changed, because the form on which you like so much to insist, was based on a one-sided terminological base of Western music theory, which had often a problematic, misleading, and ahistoric approach to the issue.
The correct Greek terms and a historical dimension were added by referring names of theorists and the sources. As example the category genus (music) was completely missing in the last version, as if somebody punished us with verdicts of the Carolingian reform which excluded the chromatic and enharmonic genus entirely (in Latin theory, but not in modal practice). The article about Phthora (music) will be created soon.
Medieval Greek and Latin theory do not mean the same modes. The Byzantine Mixolydian mode corresponds rather to Glarean's Ionian one than to the Latin concept that official music theory is used to take for the Mixolydian, while the Guidonian concept of Lydian corresponded to the enharmonic phthora nana.
The "other modes" were added by the Renaissance theorist Heinrich Glarean and their impact on composition practice is a matter of musicological discussion, while the tonal reinterpretation of "diatonic and minor modes" in the framework of Rameau's Harmonics are products of Western music theory as it is taught at academic institutions as conservatories today. Who says that they are the only authorities of music theory and that the monodic modes have to be reduced to its use in modern tonal harmonies, which has nothing to do with their use between the 5th and the 18th century?
I agree that there is still a gap to fill between a lot of articles and the topic modes (especially articles of Ancient Greek philosophers or scientists), but this way the template will encourage authors to fill it, as soon as it is added. Please feel welcome to do so, if there is an article of your interest.
What about the medieval Arabic and Persian reception of Ancient Greek theory? If we also integrated these, we could abandon the title "church tones" that you obviously did not like. But this is, what Latin and Greek Christians did: identify the octave species with a concept of a certain tonus or echos!
The fact that so much sources have now published online (by important libraries) allows a new direct approach to knowledge which has been never possible before.
If you insist to keep this template untouched, I will remove it from several articles and create a more useful one, because it will not fit any longer to them. But I expect that the reduced version will collapse soon.
The better way might be, that you feel welcome to contribute with more constructive edits. The modes template needs still a lot of improvements, and I will appreciate, if you are ready to improve mine.
I am ready to discuss every edit, but I am not ready to tolerate your uncommented vandalism which you liked to mark as a "minor edit".
When you click "rollback" it automatically marks it as a minor edit. So that's petty to call out.
Please try to use "preview" when making edits. It seems it took you something like 2 dozen edits for the treatise above. :(
This page isn't very highly watched (very few template pages are, in reality) so you probably want to take this up with the relevant Wikiproject talk page (Wikiproject music? not sure) or another discussion venue.
Please do not make threats about removing this template from articles and replacing it with your own version. That's petty and doesn't help.
Your additions, while in good faith, may have over-complicated this template. I'm not sure yet what opinion I have of them. But let's behave, yeah? Killiondude (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is there a comment addressed to Giacinto? Hyacinth (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giacinto is just the Italian form, my dear (that is where I am). By the way, a maqam is not a scale, a naġām (how it was called before 1400) neither. That is what I already tried to explain... But you can leave it as it is, because you have now the present and the theory of modes, which is a long history and a quite simple template for its length.
Thank you that you recognize all the love and passion behind my presents ;) I assure that it is not an opinion, but an offer for those who are too light. It does not matter, as long as you take a chance to learn.
What do you prefer? A stupid war which ends in an easy competition, or a relaxed discussion? Platonykiss (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be careful about accusing users of committing vandalism. That may be taken as a personal attack.
Definitely feel free to create a version of the template as you would like it to be displayed. Create a subpage of your homepage or see WP:SANDBOX.
My attacks are never personal, you just got here a very nice present. A personal attack is, if I write that narcicism might often be an obstacle towards true knowledge. You can study the work which has been done on this template, if you would like to find out who of us respects more the work of the other. There is either a team or just a pack of cannibals eating each others' work. Both is possible in wikipedia, and you decided clearly for one of it. Vandalism is vandalism, and this is a Platonykiss (talk).
You shouldn't be talking about other users at all. Per WP:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." You have yet to provide a single reason why you think my edit may have been vandalism, and if you read Wikipedia:Vandalism you will see that it was not.
Why don't you talk about the template and why you would like to see it changed? Present us with your version and tell us why its better. Hyacinth (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already did (and somebody called it a whole treatise, but what do you expect about 1200 years history!!!). If it took me time to write here for you, why don't you take your time to read it?
Don't hesitate to ask, if you have a question. Until now you just destroyed a whole day's work within a minute without any thought, and you did not follow my request to improve my work.
Quite an interesting history despite of all those predictable reactions. I am curious what you will do with it... I will leave it to you, because it seems that you regard this template as a kind of personal property. The problem of the content is not the most serious one, even if it looks like it on the first sight, what makes wikipedia look like the Tower of Babel is the way of how the contributed is treated by the contributors with all its consequences. Platonykiss (talk)
The section named diatonic is a misleading as it implies that the other modes on the infobox are not diatonic. I suggest changing to modern. --kupirijo (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]