Talk:72edo: Difference between revisions
→Comma table: 9-digits would be better |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
::::: In my opinion also a 8-digit (or <abbr title="9-digits would be better, in this case the numerator would start with 1 anyway">9-digit</abbr>) limit would look good in the comma table. See [[41edo#Commas]] for an example. The 10-digit limit was also in use for naming interval pages and redirect lemmas to them. Maybe also this could be changed? BTW: I think for finding a new consensus, we should move this discussion to a better place. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 20:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC) | ::::: In my opinion also a 8-digit (or <abbr title="9-digits would be better, in this case the numerator would start with 1 anyway">9-digit</abbr>) limit would look good in the comma table. See [[41edo#Commas]] for an example. The 10-digit limit was also in use for naming interval pages and redirect lemmas to them. Maybe also this could be changed? BTW: I think for finding a new consensus, we should move this discussion to a better place. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 20:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
:::::: I like what you did with the 41edo table, --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
: I heard these tables are generated by scala, aren't they? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC) | : I heard these tables are generated by scala, aren't they? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC) | ||