Template talk:Infobox fractional-octave: Difference between revisions
→Reasoning for extra rows: agreed not to re-add |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
: 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) | : 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) | |||