Template talk:Infobox fractional-octave: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Explained the extra rows |
m 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. |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | |||
: 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) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:06, 13 February 2025
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.
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. --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. 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. --BudjarnLambeth (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)