Template talk:Interval table: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Asked about this possibility |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* [[636edo]] | * [[636edo]] | ||
For each of these pages, I’m wondering if I should move the interval table out into its own separate page (e.g. “Table of 238edo intervals”) so that it doesn’t affect the loading time of the edo page itself | For each of these pages, I’m wondering if I should move the interval table out into its own separate page (e.g. “Table of 238edo intervals”) so that it doesn’t affect the loading time of the edo page itself? | ||
Does this sound like a good idea? | Does this sound like a good idea? | ||
--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:19, 21 January 2024
Moving tables >200 to their own separate pages instead of keeping them in the main edo page
I have noticed that, when used on pages for edos 200 or bigger, Template:Interval table noticeably slows the page’s loading time.
Currently, the pages of this size which are using it, are:
For each of these pages, I’m wondering if I should move the interval table out into its own separate page (e.g. “Table of 238edo intervals”) so that it doesn’t affect the loading time of the edo page itself?
Does this sound like a good idea?
--BudjarnLambeth (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)