Talk:33/25: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
→128/99: re |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:: It is indeed the case that [[128/99]] is more of a subfourth. However, if you look in the infobox for [[33/25]], you will see that 33/25 is dubbed the "undecimal sub-fourth". Therefore, the name in the infobox for 33/25 ought to be changed. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC) | :: It is indeed the case that [[128/99]] is more of a subfourth. However, if you look in the infobox for [[33/25]], you will see that 33/25 is dubbed the "undecimal sub-fourth". Therefore, the name in the infobox for 33/25 ought to be changed. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
::: As can be seen on [[Gallery of just intervals]], "unedecimal forth" isn't already taken. So I'd suggest to remove the ''sub'' prefix here. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:28, 17 December 2020
128/99
Okay, we need to work out how to distinguish this interval from 128/99 in terms of nomenclature. --Aura (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- You mean both (33/25 and 128/99) are undecimal fourths? But the other is much more a subfourth ... --Xenwolf (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- As can be seen on Gallery of just intervals, "unedecimal forth" isn't already taken. So I'd suggest to remove the sub prefix here. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)