Template talk:Infobox fractional-octave: Difference between revisions
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. |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | |||
:: 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) | |||