30-May-2007: Similar to unprintable middots ("·"), which appear as bracket-boxes ("[]") on some PCs running the IE 6.0 browser, the unicode symbols for flat/sharp just don't work for many browsers. Instead, please leave the universal #/b (using the pound-sign and the lowercase "b"). The issue of unprintable sharps/flats has been reverted several times during 2006: only February, September, and October had visible #/b; the other 9 months of 2006 displayed "[]" for all sharps/flats. Apparently some people, regardless of others, insisted on the "[]" approach, but don't let a few stubborn people keep the music articles screwed up all year in 2007, just contact them directly, and warn them pronto that the unicode characters are get-a-life crap to many browsers. Believe me, no one on Wikipedia really wants the music articles to appear as spasticated, fubar trash any longer. Wikipedia doesn't have to be a joke. Only a few people make it suffer. Again, CONTACT THEM ASAP PRONTO to cease and desist reverting #/b into "[]" garbage characters. -Wikid77 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01-June-2007: Again, for many users, the sharp/flat unicodes are completely unprintable, and both sharps and flats appear as bracket boxes ("[]") everywhere (no matter how many times they are scattered through an artice). That means the sharps and flats look the same, and the table is not merely inconveniently skewed, it is, for many Wikipedia users, absolutely, utterly, and entirely useless with unicodes in the table. Something other than unicodes must be used, so I will convert the symbols to printable superscripts; however, at this point, reverting the table to unprintable unicodes, which many WP users cannot display is just no longer an option, in any shape, form or fashion. To emphasize, "What part of unprintable do you fail to comprehend?" Unicodes are a recommended guideline, and NOT, repeat NOT, a mandatory formatting directive of Wikipedia. If you are seeking a concensus to use unicodes, you DO NOT HAVE A CONCENSUS, at all. Many, many users have complained about the unicodes. Cease and desist forcing unicode sharps/flats on people who see them as absolutely unprintable anonymous boxes. -Wikid77 03:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get the MOS changed before you do this again. Just because it's a guideline doesn't mean those who agree with that guideline won't take issue with the change. This is not the place to discuss the unicode issue, as it affects hundreds of articles, not just this one. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music). The way you are going about this amounts to systematic vandalism. - Rainwarrior 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hold on there, User:Rainwarrior. What is your attitude all about? Do you realize you just alluded to me committing "systematic vandalism" (a VERY serious charge which can get you barred from Wikipedia), when I explained (in detail) that my changes are to support many people who could not see the unprintable unicodes. This is not just my isolated opinion, as is obvious when looking at numerous unicode complaints in the MoS talk-page ("Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)"). On the contrary, I have spent hours reading people's concerns about the unprintable unicodes (such as "Use of Unicode sharps and flats is an access barrier", 28-Aug-2006). At this point, you are clearly beyond acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. You are trying to force a guideline, as though it were a mandatory rule, onto other WP users who are complaining that they cannot even see a visible display of unicode sharps/flats. This is not just a matter of style of musical notation, it is a matter of total loss of information: those users cannot distinguish unicode flats from sharps. Beyond forcing users to obey an optional guideline, you are accusing me of vandalism. Sorry, but that behavior is totally unacceptable here at Wikipedia. Please show some respect for the Wikipedia project and be more cooperative with other users. -Wikid77 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take this discussion to the appropriate place. I understand the problem you are having, and I think there are better solutions to it than using the wrong symbols, and I feel strongly about that (and I also think you are taking a view of the issue that is too black and white, but again, let's discuss this ELSEWHERE). This problem should be discussed (and at various times it has). I didn't suggest that your intention was vandalism, merely that the result of your actions is. There is a guideline, and this guideline reflects the consensus of the editors who have put it together. It is not written in stone; it is changed when needed. If it doesn't change, but you insist on converting articles anyway, you are vandalizing. I didn't intend the suggestion as an insult, I am merely voicing my opinion of your actions. You may think I am disrespectful toward you, but I do not intend it as a personal offense; from the standpoint of respect, I think you are being disrespectful to the many editors who have worked to put together a manual of style and maintain that style through Wikipedia's articles by undoing it; however, respect is hardly the issue here. There is a problem with rendering certain glyphs, and it should be discussed, so please, please, discuss it at the place where it should be discussed. Don't just start transforming articles into your own style, talk it out, and wait for a few other people to share their opinions (rather than making assertions based on a few stale comments scattered through old discussions) before you decide to go back to it. - Rainwarrior 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[ Discuss unnamed issues here. -Wikid77 ]

Why is there a 'redisplay' link? Either the template should be transcluded onto the circle of fifths text table (if that article should be kept), or, more than likely, the contents of that article should be merged into Circle of fifths, the article be deleted, and the template be transcluded into that article. It seems that the circle of fifths text table is a self referenced explanation of the template, and this should certainly not be in the article namespace. In my opinion, the following should be done:

1. Merge any salveable information from the article circle of fifths text table into the article circle of fifths or, if relevant, the Template:Circle of fifths.
2. Delete the article circle of fifths text table as a self referenced explanation of an internal template.

ck lostsword•T•C 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replaced the old picture with a new one. The template should look much better now. If you have any thoughts about the changes, feel free to comment. Hopefully you'll like the new design. Thanks. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 12:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't that image be an imagemap anyway?

¹³⁸La (talk)

07:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you add the nonexistent keys of B major, G♭ minor, E major, C♭ minor, D♯ major, B♯ minor, A♯ major and F minor to the Circle of fifths template? I thought the keys of F♭ major, D♭ minor, B major, G♭ minor, E major, C♭ minor, D♯ major, B♯ minor, A♯ major and F minor do not exist in theory, just like A major, F♭ minor, D major, B minor, E♯ major, C minor, B♯ major and G minor.

47.20.0.160 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]