Template talk:Infobox fractional-octave: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 14:39, 30 November 2024
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)