Contents

Template talk:Chord progressions

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music theory This template is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles

width of template[edit]

This template is wider than the article even on a 1280x1024 display with the browser window at full-screen. --Jtir (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that is a bad thing. I split the template in half. Hyacinth (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that works fine. WP:MOSMUSIC#Images is what I was thinking of. --Jtir (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon. When my browser window is resized to 800x600, some horizontal scrolling is needed. For comparison, I tried {{Musical notation}}, and it dynamically resizes so that the box fits perfectly at 800x600. --Jtir (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like cells don't resize that way and we'd have to implement the navbox "list1" feature, see Template:Navbox. Hyacinth (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if it can be converted to a navbox. Will report back. Do you have an image for it? --Jtir (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a version using the {{Navbox}} template. You can name the groups if you like. --Jtir (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bare-bones version without groups or an image. This sets {{{state|uncollapsed}}} for ease of comparison. --Jtir (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that we push ahead and make the change? Is there any reason not to do so? (It might be good if there good be some structure to the progressions, such as classical/jazz distinctions, but might that set unnecessarily artificial barriers?) Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't understand why this template has an entry for I–V–vi–IV ("pop-punk") piped to I–V–vi–IV progression. When you reach the I–V–vi–IV progression article, there is no mention at all of punk; similarly, the Pop punk article makes no mention of this progression. I feel that we should remove either the confusion, or the reference. At the moment it is a bit weird to follow a wording which then vanishes. What do you think? DBaK (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? This template doesn't contain the words "pop", "punk", or "pop-punk". Hyacinth (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before you wrote that did you look at the revision history of the template? DBaK (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you curious why the template used to have such a link? Hyacinth (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ermmmm - should I be? :) DBaK (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't need to be curious "why this template has an entry for I–V–vi–IV ("pop-punk")" when it doesn't. Hyacinth (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your Talk page. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]