Template talk:Infobox fractional-octave - Revision history

BudjarnLambeth: BudjarnLambeth moved page Template talk:Fractional-octave navigation to Template talk:Infobox fractional-octave: It has been attempted to be deleted twice because people think it is doubling up navbox fractional. I think a rename could help separate and distinguish them better so it stops happening.

2025-02-13T02:06:28Z

BudjarnLambeth moved page Template talk:Fractional-octave navigation to Template talk:Infobox fractional-octave: It has been attempted to be deleted twice because people think it is doubling up navbox fractional. I think a rename could help separate and distinguish them better so it stops happening.

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:06, 13 February 2025
(No difference)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Reasoning for extra rows */ agreed not to re-add

2024-11-30T22:57:26Z

Reasoning for extra rows: agreed not to re-add

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 30 November 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:

	: I see two problems with that. First, it could mislead readers to believe that ''n''-edo and (''n'' ± 3)-edo are in some way related. For reference, Template: Infobox MOS has a two-dimensional navigation box where moving horizontally or vertically changes one component of the signature. Second, since it was pointing to edos up to ''n'' ± 4, at ''n'' ≤ 4 you'd run into trivial edos and we don't have the code to filter them yet. If we're only showing ''n'' ± 1 it should be easier to work out. So my answer is no, I don't think you should add them back. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)		: I see two problems with that. First, it could mislead readers to believe that ''n''-edo and (''n'' ± 3)-edo are in some way related. For reference, Template: Infobox MOS has a two-dimensional navigation box where moving horizontally or vertically changes one component of the signature. Second, since it was pointing to edos up to ''n'' ± 4, at ''n'' ≤ 4 you'd run into trivial edos and we don't have the code to filter them yet. If we're only showing ''n'' ± 1 it should be easier to work out. So my answer is no, I don't think you should add them back. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

			:: Alright, I won’t add it back. I initially wanted to try to copy paste the MOS infobox into this but don’t know how to code so I couldn’t figure out which bits did the things I wanted. So I think I’ll give up for now. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 22:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

FloraC: /* Reasoning for extra rows */ re

2024-11-30T14:39:01Z

Reasoning for extra rows: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 30 November 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:

	If there is no reply after a week I will add them back again. However if you remove them again after that, then I will leave it alone permanently and not re-add them again. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)		If there is no reply after a week I will add them back again. However if you remove them again after that, then I will leave it alone permanently and not re-add them again. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

			: I see two problems with that. First, it could mislead readers to believe that ''n''-edo and (''n'' ± 3)-edo are in some way related. For reference, Template: Infobox MOS has a two-dimensional navigation box where moving horizontally or vertically changes one component of the signature. Second, since it was pointing to edos up to ''n'' ± 4, at ''n'' ≤ 4 you'd run into trivial edos and we don't have the code to filter them yet. If we're only showing ''n'' ± 1 it should be easier to work out. So my answer is no, I don't think you should add them back. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Reasoning for extra rows */

2024-11-30T01:21:23Z

Reasoning for extra rows

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 30 November 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Reasoning for extra rows ==		== Reasoning for extra rows ==
	The extra rows were added because usually there is a gap of 1 or 2 nonexistent pages in between every page. This means that the immediate left and right are usually red links, which is useless. The extra rows allowed further reach, so that the box can actually take you somewhere instead of just red links. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)		The extra rows were added because usually there is a gap of 1 or 2 nonexistent pages in between every page. This means that the immediate left and right are usually red links, which is useless. The extra rows allowed further reach, so that the box can actually take you somewhere instead of just red links.

			Please reply to this to say yes or no whether I should add them back now that the reasoning has been explained.

			If there is no reply after a week I will add them back again. However if you remove them again after that, then I will leave it alone permanently and not re-add them again. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: Explained the extra rows

2024-11-30T01:15:58Z

Explained the extra rows

New page

== Reasoning for extra rows ==
The extra rows were added because usually there is a gap of 1 or 2 nonexistent pages in between every page. This means that the immediate left and right are usually red links, which is useless. The extra rows allowed further reach, so that the box can actually take you somewhere instead of just red links. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 01:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)