Talk:Sharpness - Revision history

TallKite: /* Sharpness table coverage */

2026-04-16T19:55:38Z

Sharpness table coverage

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 16 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Sharpness table coverage ==		== Sharpness table coverage ==
	Tables on this wiki have a tendency to grow indefinitely, and we need a solution. Maybe we should find a consensus right here for this particular case. Since if someone decides to expand the table to cover 99edo cuz it's useful, why stop there? Someone else might argue 171edo is very useful and should be included too. I for one think this table is meant to be an illustration of the concept, so as the user understands it, they can make their own tables instead. For this reason, I think 72edo is more than enough, tho I wouldn't oppose to setting the limit to 99edo, which is consistent with ''Consistency limits of small edos'' and similar pages. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 19:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)		Tables on this wiki have a tendency to grow indefinitely, and we need a solution. Maybe we should find a consensus right here for this particular case. Since if someone decides to expand the table to cover 99edo cuz it's useful, why stop there? Someone else might argue 171edo is very useful and should be included too. I for one think this table is meant to be an illustration of the concept, so as the user understands it, they can make their own tables instead. For this reason, I think 72edo is more than enough, tho I wouldn't oppose to setting the limit to 99edo, which is consistent with ''Consistency limits of small edos'' and similar pages. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 19:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

			: I agree about bloat. 72edo seems like a good stopping point. --[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 19:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

FloraC: Created page with "== Sharpness table coverage == Tables on this wiki have a tendency to grow indefinitely, and we need a solution. Maybe we should find a consensus right here for this particular case. Since if someone decides to expand the table to cover 99edo cuz it's useful, why stop there? Someone else might argue 171edo is very useful and should be included too. I for one think this table is meant to be an illustration of the concept, so as the user understands it, they can make their..."

2026-04-14T19:17:54Z

Created page with "== Sharpness table coverage == Tables on this wiki have a tendency to grow indefinitely, and we need a solution. Maybe we should find a consensus right here for this particular case. Since if someone decides to expand the table to cover 99edo cuz it's useful, why stop there? Someone else might argue 171edo is very useful and should be included too. I for one think this table is meant to be an illustration of the concept, so as the user understands it, they can make their..."

New page

== Sharpness table coverage ==
Tables on this wiki have a tendency to grow indefinitely, and we need a solution. Maybe we should find a consensus right here for this particular case. Since if someone decides to expand the table to cover 99edo cuz it's useful, why stop there? Someone else might argue 171edo is very useful and should be included too. I for one think this table is meant to be an illustration of the concept, so as the user understands it, they can make their own tables instead. For this reason, I think 72edo is more than enough, tho I wouldn't oppose to setting the limit to 99edo, which is consistent with ''Consistency limits of small edos'' and similar pages. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 19:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)