Template talk:Infobox regtemp: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
: I don't think the reduced mapping is useful at all, and even if it was it doesn't have a wide enough support to justify it being in the infobox. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 10:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC) | : I don't think the reduced mapping is useful at all, and even if it was it doesn't have a wide enough support to justify it being in the infobox. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 10:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC) | ||
: I find the reduced mapping to be very useful. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 00:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:02, 31 July 2025
Non-octave stuff
This is a bit of a nit, but would be nice if the box said 'edt join' instead 'edo join' for tritave temperaments (and similarly for other equaves). See e.g. Mintaka. – Sintel🎏 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- What would be chosen as the equave? -- VectorGraphics (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Banish "reduced mappings" to the shadow realm
Make this infobox not completely break if you don't supply the precise "reduced mapping" format it wants, because I can't understand the Reduced mapping page and am not figuring allat out and it's probably the main thing that's been putting me off adding these infoboxes. -- VectorGraphics (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Fyi my initial version of the Reduced mapping article was perfectly readable. Then hkm changed it to something that no one understands. Guess it's time to review it. FloraC (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)