Talk:List of works designed with the golden ratio

Untitled

Needs to be reworked for formal tone and general flow, a B otherwise. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

I hate that this sandbox has to be placed in my user page. If somebody knows how to make it as public as any article, please let me know. Meanwhile, just imagine it is just as any other article and feel fre to modify it as much as necesary.--20-dude (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuff to be added

Stuff I'm missing: the Porch of Maidens in the acropolis, Apolon statue, The Meallion of Saint Benedict (I can't we don't have this article, 4goshsake!!! shame on the humanity!) , the self portrait of Leonardo da vinci, the Crucifixion (painting), Renbrandt's self portrait, Albrecht Dürer's self portrit, La Parade, several works of Mies Van der Rohe, some stone henge like structures, various paintings of mondrian, and I still have to check out the work of Vitruvius (after all there is some reason they aclled it Vitruvian man), the work of acient mayas and other pre-hispanic cultures. I'm also sure I read something about asian works, I have to find out the properties of the ken.--20-dude (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• The work of Villard de Honnecourt
• es:Cristo crucificado (Velázquez) Cristo Crucificado
• Beating of infants, by raphael

The plan

For those interested in knowing the plan I figured, it could go as follows: I'll create a sandbox somewhere related to the golden section (any ideas where?), indicate sources for each listed item, move the sandbox into a list article, write the sourced information that explain their geometric properties, copy/move the sourced info to the articles of each item, categorize them as "Artistic works designed with golden ratio" (ideas for a possible sharper name will be beforehand requested in the talk page of the list) and that's it. Of course, we are talking about a very sourced, published, limited group of artistic items.--20-dude (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Double sources

There are many references that work at many points in the article. How do I use named referendes?--20-dude (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Edificio Barolo

source Avenida de Mayo 1370

El Palacio Barolo fue construido por el arquitecto italiano Mario Palanti para Luis Barolo, un poderoso empresario textil. Inaugurado en 1923, fue el edificio más alto de la ciudad de Buenos Aires hasta la construcción del Kavanagh en 1935. Cada piso tiene un diseño distinto y la cúpula central está a la altura de un piso 24. Desde hace muchos años, es un edificio de oficinas. En su cúpula hay un faro de 300.000 bujías que se usaba para difundir noticias. Palanti era un estudioso del Dante Alighieri; el edificio, de estilo neogótico romántico, está lleno de analogías y referencias a la Divina Comedia. La planta del edificio está construida en base a la sección áurea y al número de oro. Como la Comedia, el Palacio está dividido en tres partes: Infierno, Purgatorio y Cielo. El faro representa los nueve coros angelicales. Sobre el faro está la constelación de la Cruz del Sur, que se ve alineada con el eje del Barolo en los primeros días de junio a las 19:45. La altura del edificio es de cien metros y cien son los cantos de la Divina Comedia. El Palacio Salvo, en Montevideo, es hermano gemelo del Barolo.

Temple of Jerusalem

This page ties the Temple to φ¹² (one phy factor for each of the 12 tribus). But I'm not sure about its references and wich version of the temple is it talking about.--20-dude (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) The actually worthy point of Noah's Ark here is its building instructions in the Genesis and not the still mythological objet per se which could have never actually existed and it still wouldn't matter. To ilustrate my point better think of the plan of st. gall: there is no actual monastery, it was never built, but what's worth here is the instructions.--20-dude (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dividing the list

I'm thinking of dividing the list in two parts. The first with the works explicitly designed with golden proportions, like:

• Great Pyramid of Giza, Acropolis, Parthenon, The Porch of the Caryatids (On the south side of the Erechtheum), Phidias' sculptures, Saint Benedict Medal, Plan of Saint Gall, Cathedral of Chartres, Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Laon, Notre Dame de Paris, De divina proportione, Vitruvian Man, Leonardo da Vinci's self portrait, Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, The Holy Family (painting), David, Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral, Cristo Crucificado, The Roses of Heliogabalus, Une Baignade, Asnières, Palacio Barolo, Palacio Salvo, The Sacrament of the Last Supper‎, Farnsworth House, Villa Stein, Villa Savoye, Unité d'Habitation, United Nations Headquarters

...and works that have golden proportions, have been studied by academic or *recognized* (be careful) researchers in the field, but their authors didn't leave evidence that they gave them these properties methodically or on purpose:

• Stonehenge, Pyramid of Djoser, Khesi-Ra's tomb, The instructions for Noah's Ark in the Genesis 6:15, Ark of the Covenant, Venus de Milo and the 5th. Symphony.

--20-dude (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion of the arks

Well that's it. I had it sourced. Authors are making the connection, it's all googable, but this is the second time somebody complains about the arks. To me 3:5 is just about right if we're talking about written instructions, but whatever. Here is the text with it's sourcing, just in case somebody can provide a better sourcing or connection.

Some author believe that the instructions that for Noah's Ark in the Genesis 6:15 (the earliest retelling text is from XVII BC), explained in the text by God to Noah, are realted to the divine proportion God's instructions indicate: three hundred cubits length, fifty cubits breadth and thirty cubits height. This design inscribes the frontal section plan of the ark in a 5:3 rectangle, that's a 0.666 coeficient of proportion. Three and five are the second and third numbers in the Fibonacci series in which the limit coeficient (as numbers go higher) is 0.618... or phi.
Actual evidence of the ark has not been found, so it is still a myth. However, being the earliest retelling text of the story is from XVII BC, and taking in consideration that Noah was sedentary, and the earliest city (or evidence of a sedentary community) in history is Jericho, located in the palestine zone and founded around 9000 BC, the construction of the mythological object could have happened at any point in between. One of the greater floods, for instance, is believed to have happened around 5600 BC (the Ryan-Pitman Theory), also, a historical tsunami caused by the Thera eruption happened around 1630-1600 BC

Ark of the Covenant (Built around 1050 BC, after the people of Isralel left Egipt, during the reign of Ramses II; lost after the Babilonians destroyed Jerusalem) is believed to held the proportion with almost the principle as Noah's Ark, (which is proportianally like ten Arks of the Covenant put together), according to the Exodus, it God told Moises to make it 1.5 cubics tall and wide and 2.5 cubics long (about 130 cm x 78 cm x 78 cm or 4.29 x 2.57 x 2.57 feet, for Egyptian royal cubit was most likely used). 2.5 x 1.5 is 5:3, as Noah's ark section.

The temple of Salomon is olso believed to be designated with golden proportions by some authors.

The Colors of the Tabernacle.

NOTE: If the connection was used and some point and it has been proven wrong, it is still worth mentioning, with more enphasis on the "proven wrong" part, of course. That means that there was publicated hipothesis that was then proven wrong in subsecuent publications. --20-dude (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

3:5 is not the golden ratio, and there's nowhere any suggestin that this ratio is motivated by Fibonacci numbers. If you want to make an article listing things designed with small-integer ratios, or ratios of consecutive Fibonacci numbers, that would be different. As to sources for that list of things in the Universal Principles... book, you went way beyond what the book said by including them in this list. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

stuff removed, and citations needed

The cited source (here) does support that any of the ancient things mentioned was designed according to the golden ratio. If you want to mention them for "exhibiting" the golden ratio, you need to be clear on whose observation you are reporting; correct words and correct source to verify might make inclusion of these things OK. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

mmm... that sounds right. Which source is the one you don't like, I have to take a second look at it. I thik it does. However, Partenon, Stonehenge and Giza are sure as hell verifiable things. I think that with a {{fact}} tag would be more than enough. Khesi-Ra migh be tricky and that's another ticket. To be honest I'd like to make some sort of public (for editors) but not publicated /sandbox for everybody to contribute with that and a couple of other samples that would be interesting to confirm from good sources, but perhabs it's not in the best interest of this article to exhibit yet (especifically, the genesis and exodus texts, khesi-ra, djoser and the temple of salomon).--20-dude (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

citations needed indeed. I'm plenty aware. And the article won't be left without them. But it is just in an "embrionary state" (maybe we should make a category of the sort: as in stubs, embrions, ctations needed, -regular articles-, and featured articles). I also have the stress that I think it wouldn't be right to do it all myself: It would look bad. I think I need constance rather than brute volume in order to aloud everyone to contribute and make this article much richer in terms or encyclopedic, sourced, verifiable, quality investigation. Erasing obvious stuff isn't the way to go. We could go crazy erasing stuff stating "Colombus discovered America" that happens to be unsourced unsurced (that's why we have the cn template for!)--20-dude (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you add disputed material to Wikipedia, you must cite your sources when you add it. Otherwise, Wikipedia risks publishing misinformation. PLEASE spend some more time learning Wikipedia's policies and standards. People here are trying to help you. Please accept our help. Finell (Talk) 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You have indeed been helpful. I have never denied so and you know I encourage and appreciate your kind and useful help. But I don't see how erasing stuff that is intrinsecally related to the relation amomng phi and arts can help (that wasn't you, of course). As you know, the Parthenon and Phidias are basic, duh-obvious, examples. (then again, nobody argues that citations are needed). By the way, I'm not a rookie. I'm a returning wikipedian that was absent three or so years. Not that reading again policies would hurt, but I aready do that on a regular basis. It's just that you're always going to see what you want to see in the policies because of their oversensitive ambiguous tone. However, If you read my post again, you'll see that I'm all pro-sources, It's just that you seem to expect Rome (or the Parthenon in this case, :)) to be build in one day by one person. You also like sourcing and you also like the theme and know a great deal about it, I think you could also add some sourcing and we'd also be even more thankful to you.--20-dude (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing stuff helps by getting rid of unverifiable and incorrect information, and by motivating the finding and citation of sources for disputed information. Why won't you tell us your sources? Is it perhaps because you're writing off the top of your head, and don't actually have any sources? Did you actually read the source you had cited before for all those places you listed? It did not claim they were designed according to the golden ratio; if you want to list them, make it clear what the source supports, and don't go beyond it. We've been over all this 2 years ago in the main article, which is why we may be more impatient than usual with a well-meaning newbie editor. Dicklyon (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "duh" about about the Parthenon or Phidias. Of course, lots of claims are made about them and the golden ratio, but the analyses are not conclusive. I've explained the dispute concerning the Parthenon in another post (concerning the project logo, I think). Personally, as I said, I find the case for the Parthenon fairly persuasive, but others don't and it certainly cannot be presented as settled fact. When dealing with human or other irregular figures, as with Phidias's sculptures or Leonardo's figure paintings and drawings, the analysis becomes much more subjective because, after the fact, people can superimpose golden rectangles almost anywhere, of any size at any angle, and say, "See, golden ratio proportions!" I've read about 6-8 books devoted to the golden ratio, and a few dozen shorter works (entries in books or reference works, journal articles, Web pages, etc.); Jossi and Dicklyon and perhaps others who have worked on these articles have also read extensively. So it is not as though you are bringing enlightenment to the unread or uncaring. Also the heading of your first messages to me and to others, "Golden emergency", understandably provoked skepticism: What "emergency"? Finell (Talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You take things to literal, of course it is not that much of an emergency.

Your commentd denotes perhaps you need to read certain "claims" a second time. You always seem to come from the math angle, Mark Barr is perhaps the most prominent of those "claims" about φ-dias. But you know what, it's my mistake, perhaps you know more than Mark Barr.

The parthenon on the other hand, is the most studied example of Golden Ratio, the impresive amount of vertexes, border lines, limits and arists of its volume and composing elements perfectly coincide with the regulating lines that come from the golden section of the global volumetry. In this case, we're not talking about perception but about clear undeniable matching.

I have have also studied the matter for years.

By the way the Phidias claim is also in the Golden ratio article, why don't you erase it there? Actually, you know what... done... I'm using the same source, so the "claim" can't possibly be coherently bothered ("as if"... we all know it has been nonsense all along).--20-dude (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we were pretty happy with how that article represents Barr's contributions and claims; it's well stated and well sourced. Use it as a source of examples of the right way to do things. And please don't resort to personal sarcastic remarks like "perhaps you know more," as they do not promote progress toward what we are all trying to achieve together here. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice attacks Dickylon, you live up to your nick. You really make this a pleasant constructive experience. "Newby", thanks for the condescendence, I appreciate that. Some might think it was a plain pejorative expression but not me. By the way. "veteran":

Certainly no attack was intended; "newby" is a fairly objective term for someone who hasn't yet learned how to be a constructive part of the wikiepedia community; we're trying to help you get through that phase, while protecting good content from dilution by unsourced hearsay. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page. Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons.

-WP:SOURCE

And you're more than aware than Phidias or the Parthenon is not an "I heard it somewhere situation". I'm sorry about not owning a personal library with all the books on earth like you apparently do, it's all my fault. You're right about needing sources. However, you do know you are the opposite of constructive, you are doing it on purpose. Psychological transference of frustration, perhaps?... I'm not claiming this is a perfect article ready to be featured, it's by far just under construction, and a tag should state so. Rome wasn't built in one day. I don't see you sculpting rocks either. Again, that why the --fact-- templates are for. If you don't care to research, limit yourself to use them. If wikipedia’s policy was to erase everything. I'm sorry for my obnoxious tone, I can't help it, you've caused me a great deal of frustration, and it's not like you can't get the same results(getting the sources) with a more constructive method. We want the exact same for this article, only I'm working hard while you're destroying with little effort, and that's frustrating.--20-dude (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, good progress; we now have sources and sensible statements for the Parthenon and Phideas. I've gone ahead and removed a couple of other sections for which no sources have been forthcoming and for which the linked articles have no mention of divine or golden. I'm sure you'll be able to find sources for some, and then can put them back; like the pyramid at Giza (you can copy some content and sources from the main golden ratio article, or find your own). But you can't just list them as if they were designed with the golden ratio; you have to attribute that claim to somebody. Dicklyon (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dude: Dicklyon can be abrasive at times, and I would prefer that he weren't, as I have told him more than once. However, YOU are not the one to complain. Look at your insulting edit summaries and Talk page posts. YOU wrote to Dicklyon: "rv. what? are you just reading about golden ratio for the first time in your life?" Hardly! What have you read on the subject? Please give us a list, before you accuse everyone else of ignorance. Based on what you have contributed to Wikipedia on the golden ratio thus far, you are the one whose knowledge of this subject is limited and shallow. No one said you have to own a large library to become knowledgeable, but that does not stop you from doing research in public or academic libraries like the rest of us have. I have tried to be patient and understanding with you and to give you some guidance about how this community operates. Now I will be frank: You have a lot to learn. You need to change your attitude and your behavior if you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia; otherwise you will continue to meet frustration. Learn to collaborate. Stop being so combative and try to accept what others say. Newbie is not an insult (see WP:BITE), but you certainly act like one. Compared to the Wikipedians that you are constantly tangling with, your experience on Wikipedia is minimal; again that is not an insult, but it is a fact. Stop your amateur psychoanalysis of those who disagree with some of your actions, and stop ascribing hidden motives to others. Stop apologizing for your obnoxious tone: change it! This community has standards. Learn them, and try to follow them. Finell (Talk) 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Finell: The fact that some people don't apologize for being rude, doesn't mean they are not. I apologize when I need to make a point that might perhaps be too strong. My analysis is by far, very amateur. Whether I'm a newby or not, it doesn't matter, the fact is that Dicklyon's tone was peyorative and condescending. You for instance, never fall in talking in a peyorative tone, but sometimes can be too condesending and somewhat negative and cold (the last too are kinda up to how do you want to be perceived). My tone is not brilliant at all either, specially when I feel cornered and situations are frustrating.--20-dude (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move (change of title)

So far as I am aware, there is no literature on the conscious use of the golden ratio as a design principle until the Renaissance. Therefore, I propose that the article be moved to (i.e., renamed) List of works with golden ratio proportions. There will still be some disputes about which works belong on the list, but at least the standard for inclusion will be more objective, and we can avoid post hoc reasoning. Comments, anyone? Finell (Talk) 20:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think it's safe to say it is all up to you. Just take in consideration that I put the word designed to avoid having to list matchboxes, book covers, etc. I say it's your call.--20-dude (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So you actually do believe that all the things you listed were designed according to the golden ratio? By whom? Extraterrestrials, perhaps? Dicklyon (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dick: Please resist your impulse to sarcasm. Finell (Talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe sarcasm isn't my sharpest rhetorical tool, but the point is serious. It would be useful to know what Dude believes, if he sees an important distinction between ancient and modern things that exhibit the golden ratio. There are those who believe in extraterrestrials as the explanation for how ancient structures came to exhibit mathematical relationships beyond what could have been done by human cultures of the time; I wasn't seriously proposing that he is one of those, but who knows? Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that is your sharpest rhetorical tool, but a counterproductive one when directed at a colleague, particularly one with good intentions. I specifically asked you not to bite. Finell (Talk) 04:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, your worry was justified. But I'm not ready to call him a colleague yet, even though he did promise to kiss my ass. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude: Are you saying that "matchboxes, book covers," and we might as well throw in credit cards, are not "designed"?? Industrial designers make a career of designing manufactured artifacts. The design of book covers, and books, is an art with a long history. In a comment elsewhere you said that you do not take yourself, and we should not take you, seriously. However that may be, please do be serious about what you contribute to Wikipedia (including its Talk pages), because Wikipedia is a serious project and because unthoughtful contributions (even on Talk pages) waste other people's valuable time. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

With the recent changes in format and the inclusion of substantial text, this isn't a list anymore. So how about Works with golden ratio proportions? On the other hand, is there anything that would belong in this article that either isn't or shouldn't be in the Golden ratio article? That is, is there a reason for this page to exist? Even it this page is deleted as redundant, the work on it would not be lost because in can be used to improve the Golden ratio article. Finell (Talk) 18:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much point in this page, but it's OK with me if we leave it, moved or otherwise. Taking designed out of the title does leave it open to a lot more junk like credit cards and matchboxes and every other place that someone sights a near golden ratio. It does have a few more items that could go into golden ratio, including some in the false sightings section. On the other hand, if we restrain ourselves to only reporting the published observations of others, we can say who thinks the golden ratio might be relevant to what, and that should be OK. Like this book that talks about credit cards and the UN building. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't want to invite junk; please don't put me in that category. Where a human-made work closely approximates the golden ratio, there are 3 possible explanations: (1) it was purposely proportioned according to the golden ratio (if the design history is not documented, attribution of intention depends on analysis of the design itself in conjunction with whatever other known facts bear on the question); (2) an artist's sense of proportion resulted in golden ratio proportions without deliberate measurement or calculation; (3) pure coincidence. In my opinion, both 1 and 2 are relevant to the golden ratio as an aesthetic principle; 3 is the least likely reason, since we are speaking only about deliberately designed works. Finell (Talk) 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And once again I'd like to remind everyone, math calculations have litle to do with phy in art, which is the theme of this article and is acomplished by perception and geometry (or the geometric aspect of math, without relying on irrational numbers). The tools are string, compass, something to mark.

A very personal opinion is that even the use of Fibonacci numbers above 3 counts. To me, when the artist decides to go with these specific combination of numbers, it means he recognizes the harmonic value of the divine proportion and tries to approach it. However, as I said it is my point of view and I could't impose it.--20-dude (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

This is the second time I prove Dicklylon support his erasings against procedure in an odd way:

1. He said that "Rhetorical Prototypes in Architecture: Measuring the Acropolis", didn't propose the acropolis as an item using Golden Ratio... Not only you can read the book online stating so, but wikipedia already had the source statign the very same in two other articles.
2. Likewise Divine Proportion: Phi In Art, Nature, and Science. supports the work of Phidias. The source is still being used to prove the same in the Golden ratio article and it's not that easy to believe he didn't know.
3. Now I just proved the same with Universal Principles of Design [1]

Each case was reverted 2 or 3 times by Dicklyon, consider this a 3RR warning.--20-dude (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If I removed things that were sourced, I apologize. I've just now done a ton of work to say what I can find in sources about a lot of your items that didn't give a clear picture of what the sources said. I hope you can see from this work what I've been trying to get out of you. That is, tell us what the sources claim; don't just make claims and list sources that don't quite say what you're saying. For example, p.96 of the book you link above merely lists a bunch of things as "exhibiting" the golden ratio, which is something that you can attribute to that author; he certainly doesn't claim that they were designed according to the golden ratio, and it is widely known that they could not have been, according to scholars of mathematics. So, as I've been saying, tell us your sources, and tell us what they say, and don't go beyond that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On review, I see that I did remove the Greece bit that was sourced to "Rhetorical Prototypes..."; sorry about that. Now, it would be great if you would also let us know exactly what that source says; but as you say it's the same as in golden ratio, so maybe it's not you who had read it and contributed that statement. Anyway, sorry again, I over-generalized the lack of sourcing to the whole section when I should not have. When Finell put it back with just the sourced bits, it was much easier to build on. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed a bunch more things from other sections. Dude, keep track of them, and don't rush; there's really no need to have them in the article unless you have sources, and if you have sources you can add them. No rush. Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your later edits, we finally agree on the way to go. It's not my style but I can totally respect that work. I didn't like when you limited the prench Gothic buildings to Chaflon olmos. Universal Principles of Design [2] also supports (and Im sure several more sources) "his" alegations. Same with Barolo, I used the government page, but there are many more, you also accidentally erased the Montevideo building, if the same source states so, there is no real good reason for that.

I think you finally got my way of thinking and you spotted the flaw. You're right there is no rush. However I'd like to have a list of items to research. I think all the weird not sourced items to the Wiki:project as a task. With the results, we could then decide whether the item does not fit at all in this list, fits as something that has been asociated or fits as something explicitly designed with golden ratio, like the works of Le Corbusier. --20-dude (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

you would also let us know exactly what that source says; but as you say it's the same as in golden ratio, so maybe it's not you who had read it and contributed that statement.

I think this is the third time I put this link go to page 96 It works for Parthenon, Giza, Chartres and Stonehenge. By the way, it would be wrong to claim that Chaflon pointed aout any of those buildings have golden ration. For instance, the analisis of the Catedral de Mexico was done by Jose Villagran Garcia (lets over simplify him by saying he is a Mexican, more theoric, Le Corbusier), and the others were also taken from some m. lund (I don't have the bibliography of Chaflon book, only the parts that interested me the most, but the point is still there... Actually I should go get the entire book, I remember it is a grat source for sources for researching.--20-dude (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See, this is why we want you to tell us what your sources say. I made the wrong repair of your work re Chaflon, since I don't have it. And you've again asserted that the "Universal Principles..." book supports something, but you don't say what (please review what I wrote about that and see if you agree).

Thanks for the apology, man... I have also put you in an uncomfortable situation and i apologize about that. I know you also mean well, but I should have told you so more often. Sorry about going to the A Notice board, I'll now tell them you changed your editing style and everything seems ok now.--20-dude (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about my comfort; just work on getting the article right. Dicklyon (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaflon takes the images of gothic buildings from this guy: Frederik Macody Lund, who studied the geometry of several gothic buildings.--20-dude (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So write that up. Attribution to the guy making the claim is what's key; exceptional claims need exceptional sources. We can't have statements of people designing according to golden ratio before that concept was popularized to artists and architects by Pacioli unless we put them in terms of who says so, and preferably even why they say so; obviously, it's all empirical, with no direct evidence of design involvement, and even the empirical stuff is quite a stretch, and many scholars have repeatedly pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see what you mean. We need to explain how the source relates to the item. I didn't want to elaborate too much on Chaflon's writing because:

• a) It's in Spanish, and as per WP:SOURCE, it makes it hard to verify for those that does't speak it.
• b) He isn't the primary source in 90% of his samples (the other 10% are clearly specified as so, like El Cristo de Velazquez).
• c) It'd be better to elaborate on his sources and not him (Frederik Macody Lund, Jose Villagran . But I don't have his bibliografy, just part of a chapter.

I only included the reference because I planned to include his imagery since the beginning and as graphic material it's very ok according to wikipedia's guidelines (WP:SOURCE). In conclusion, I need to find a copy of the entire book, and specify how each source link the item to the golden ratio.

As for the Gothic structures, they were designed with golden ratio. That's why that period is part of the dark eras or obscurantism, all of the technological advances were handled and kept secret by the church. The architects of the Gothic churches are rarely known. Besises, each period has a different way to aproach golden ratio. The use of arabic numerals was only popular in Europe after Fibonacci wrote about them in 1202. The metric system and the use of the decimal point was "invented" by the Flemish mathematician Simon Stevin in a small pamphlet called De Thiende ("the tenth") published in 1586. In consecuence, the greeks, the medieval church, the reinassance men, the egiptians and le corbusier had all different methods to approach the golden ratio. Even in the reinassance, the most common method to built was the use on strings as "flexometer" (which they didn't have).--20-dude (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like some interesting stuff on your mind. Just don't ask us to take your word for it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Course, that's why in the end I like working with people going against my edits: you make me sustent everyting. For instance, to state the above comment about measures in the article i'd have to research matila Ghykas's work, who acording to es:Carlos Mijares Bracho (told me in person, so it's unquotable and impossible to mention, of course), links the measurement issues to the use golden section. That's why many authors have problems linking pre-reinassance works to those proportions. Besides, by definition the reinassance takes its main influence from the greeks and romans from a catholic perspective.

According to Ghyka, to analyse those works we can't rely on our current measurement systems or the 0.618... coeficient (which in the end will will be there), but rather use pure geometry like those early artist did. I'm seriously thinking of hiring a mathematician to teach me how to do it.--20-dude (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the impresionism examples directly from the Golden ratio article. --20-dude (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed; it was unsourced there, too. Never trust wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good policy. We'll just have to remember to bring the examples back with the right sourcing. If some other sources deny the connection, we could mention them too.--20-dude (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Chanfon Olmos, isn't as obscure as I thought. He is very googable, he is considered a big authority in architecture and his books are available in amazon. He has strong ties to Jose Villagran. --20-dude (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC). Some additional info might come from checking if a copy of the dictated course "Los trazos reguladores de la proporción arquitectónica", by Villagran in 1969; is actually be available in English (which is very possible taking in consideration even Chafon Olmos has been translated.--20-dude (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Googable ≠ reliable, by a long shot. Exactly what are his academic and other qualifications? By whom is he considered "a big authority in architecture"? What else has he published? Where is there an authoritative biography of him? Where does the book's publisher rank on a quality scale from Vantage Press to Oxford University Press? Everything is on sale through Amazon.com, so that means nothing. On the other hand, you can look up what libraries have copies of the book; holdings in prominent university libraries would be some indication of notability. Finell (Talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is aguing about the meaning of googable? I'm juts saying so as a relative reference, which is way better than non googable by a long shot. Af the reference states itself, Chanfon's writtings are published by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, that's more than enough in terms of academic value. However if you want to know more, he was:

born in Mexico City in the year 1928. After studying classical languages and philosophy, he obtained his bachelor’s degree in architecture from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). He began to work at Ricardo Robina’s office when he was still a student, from 1953 to 1956. Later, as a professional in his private practice, he won a bidding to design and build the dining and kitchen areas of the Instituto Francés de la Laguna, in Gómez Palacio, Durango. He completed this project between 1957 and 1960. He also built several houses and residences in Mexico City.
He gained considerable field experience by working at the Salvador Guerrero y Alonso company, during which time he built several hospitals in various states of Mexico, including the Farms for the Mentally Ill in Villahermosa, Tabasco (1961), and in Reyes Mantecón, Oaxaca (1962); Durango’s Regional Hospital (1963); a health care centre in Pátzcuaro (1964), among others.
In 1965, he founded the Teca S.A. company, with which, together with his associates, he built Tijuana’s InternationalAirport, between 1965 and 1967; the Autopsy Section and the Dining Area of the Institute of Livestock Research, in Palo Alto, Mexico City, in 1967; the residence of Mr Rodolfo Choperena, located on Paseo de la Reforma, between 1965 and 1967. In 1968, he took up his post as Director of Historical Monuments at INAH. In those days, he led restoration and maintenance projects at the grand Conventos Mendicantes built in the 16th century, such as Alcoman, Actopan, Epazoyucan, Tlaxcala, Cuauhtinchan, Huexotzingo or Churubusco, in addition to organizing and leading important projects aimed at rescuing the gypsum kilns of Tlacochahuaya, Oaxaca; the façade of San Felipe Neri el Nuevo, in Mexico City; Cortés’s Castle-Palace, in Cuernavaca, Morelos; and he also led the first stage of the National Palace project. In 1974, he was appointed as Director of the Churubusco Centre, a centre engaged in research and restoration, including training intended for restorers, sponsored by the Mexican Government, UNESCO and OAE.

During his tenure, he organized and led groups of students and professors with the aim of rescuing Cacaxtla’s Murals, and those of Xoxoteco’s Chapel, and also with the aim of restoring the Ánimas de Cristobal de Villalpando work of art, in Tuxpan, Michoacán; the 7000 objects found in the excavations of the Templo Mayor, a restoration project of which he was the director. As a consultant working for UNESCO and OAE, he has participated in several missions to various countries of the American Continent, such as Santo Domingo, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Guatemala, Jamaica, Cuba, the United States and Canada, where he has collaborated as consultant in restoration projects and programmes intended to train museographers and restorers.

He has been a professor at UNAM since 1953, teaching courses such as descriptive geometry, stereotomy, history of architecture, and theory of monument restoration. He has also been a guest professor at several universities in other countries and Mexican states. Today, he is a corresponding member of Madrid’s Royal San Fernando Academy; member of the National Architecture Academy and the Mexican Architecture Academy; member of Mexico’s National System of Researchers (1985), where he has recorded more than 150 publications including books, articles and learning packages used in the courses given by him. He has been a full-time professor since 1985, and the coordinator of doctorate courses given by the Faculty of Architecture. His current research focuses on Mexican architecture and urbanism in the 16th century, as well as literature on architecture.

He is also an Emeritus Professor at the University of Guanajuato (1987) and UNAM (1989). In 1990, he was awarded the UNAM Prize for Architecture and Design. He has been a member of UNAM’s Governing Board since 1990. In 1995, the MexicanArchitectureAcademy declared him Emeritus Member, and presented him with the Annual Architecture Award.

® Derechos Reservados 2006. Consorcio de Universidades Mexicanas.

Quite a life--20-dude (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) And you know I meant that sort of curriculum by calling him "authority", from the beginnig. Besides, this is the talk page, not the article. I'm just throwing info for further researches. Jeez. His work is kept in paris along many writings about Vilard honecourt, but I'd need to go back fing the link and I don't think it'd be of some use other than proving you wrong--20-dude (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Then again, it's a pleasure to prove people wrong so: Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale MS Français 19093. Villard de Honnecourt. Wilars de Honecort: Su manuscrito. Carlos Chanfón Olmos. Mexico, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Facultad de Arquitectura, 1994. Davis Library: NA350 .C47 1994. Old French. Paraphrasing a TV character, imagine the big ben bells: wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong (going higher) wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong (going lower) yourewrong, yourewrong.--20-dude (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you need to adjust your attitude and your edits; you're making yourself overly obnoxious with your personalization of the issues. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. However, my point should have been, lets start over with our tones. For instance, you really have to stop assuming I'm unfamiliar with the policies of wikipedia and that I don't know my sources. Read finell's previous comment, that's now way to talk to a fellow wikipedian either. The correct way to go would be just asking "why is he considered an authority" instead of just assuming otherwise with a tone that's is probably a bad choice of words but ends up sounding arrogant and underestimating, it's unpleasant and antagonist. Besides, that was like the fifth time I prove somebody wrong about my sources, and I getting tired of it. Despite so, in the end you're right, an eye for an eye only left blind people. Maybe I was blowing some steem, maybe it wast just my psychological transference of frustration, hehe, who knows, right? I'm sorry anyway.--20-dude (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if you review Finell's question, you'll see that he was just asking for why you consider the guy an authority, not assuming otherwise. So lighten up. It's not about whether you know your sources, but whether you'll share them with us. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is fine, the tone is unpleasant. His general tone is unpleasant. One time is fine, but it's getting old. But fine, I'm not precisely an example either, so whatever, let's just forget about it and move on.--20-dude (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. I thought I was the unpleasant one. Oops, is that sarcasm coming out again? Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Chichen Itza and other interior designs

Dude, you don't have to violate image copyrights to reference books; try this way. This particular book is obviously phi-happy, and doesn't provide a shred of a reason to believe his assertions, but if you're going to write that it "has golden proportions in its interior" then you have to mention in that sentence who is making that outrageous claim. I'd rather you not use this flaky book at all, but if you're going to talk about common Egyptian objects, give a more balanced reading of what he actually said; you could even quote his absurd statement that it seems certain they knew about phi, to clarify that he is disconnected from scholarly thought. And if you like the page on the Bangkok Royal Palace, read it again and see that you followed the flow of text wrong and make up a complete fabrication out of those pages. Give us a break. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to desing using phi? The possibilities are unlimited and at the same time they don't necessarely add up the way you'd expect. Let me elaborate, for instance: φ = φ² + φ³ = φ³ + φ³ + φ⁴ = φ⁴ + φ⁵+ φ⁴ + φ⁵ + φ⁴ which means you can also use φ⁴ + φ⁴ + φ⁴ + φ⁵ + φ⁵, φ⁵ + φ⁴ + φ⁴ + φ⁴ + φ⁵ or φ⁴ + φ⁴ + φ⁵ + φ⁵ + φ⁴ and it'll still ad up the same. You might also want to consider in which way are you planning to use phi: inner proportions of a building or outer. On one side, by using inner proportions (I mean, without counting the thicknes of the materials of the walls or floor) you get the user to relate to the proportions of the building once inside (like Le Corbusier, who decided to make every ceiling 2.2m from the floor at some poin in his career, which I personally think it's a terrible idea); on the other you might want the general object to have golden dimensions, like the cube in which the Parthenon is inscripted (which by the way, you always knew has golden proportions...I just remembered I some of the material from the main Golden Ratio article, which agreed, *might* not be that well sourced).

The interior design guy (john pile) is not phi-happy, he mentions very specific examples of golden section which is not the first time I heard of. Besides, controversial cases are not supposed to be ignored, anyway. If you believe Pile is lying or exagerating, you source your counterpoint. That way our readers get to find out the reality of what *according to you* is a myth. I'm sorry but I'm not going to take the word (a guy that so far denied the strong linkings of golden proportion with Gothic Architecture, the Parthenon, and oh-for-God's-sake, PHIdias - yes, I'm using argumentum ad hominem here, just like you did to Pile) over Pile's, a Pratt Institute design proffesor. You don't buy it, I relatively do, then, YOU SOURCE YOUR COUNTERPOINTS.

Besides, if you don't like my quoting, you can change it, I'm fine with it.

I'm warning you, you tend to break 3RR, and I won't let you. Don't ever blank rv again in the middle of my edits that's just childish. Firstly it seems lack of common cortesy on your part; seconly, blanking it's lazy, inconsiderated (thus you're being twice as rude) and againt the policies (or recomended behavior, whatever).

--20-dude (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave you pretty specific reasons for everything in that series of edits that you messed up. Read it again. I'll cite counterpoints when you've done a more nearly tolerable job of telling us what your sources claim. But I don't see how you can think he's not phi-happy after I pointed out what he said about the Egyptians. It seems clear that you are in the same boat, which is why you will need constant back-pressure to prevent the spew of so much of this garbage into our encyclopedia. But please, slow down, look at how we edit things to be sensible, and try to learn to do it yourself so we don't have to clean up after you so much. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in the same boat. That's why it is grat to edit along with somebody like you, who clearle prefers the counterponts. Despite the fact that you're too rude, the truth is... I'm... IMPRESSED. The finished work after your edits is really good and I'm pleased (for whatever that matters or is worth). Then again, I'm about to reintrouduce Chichen Itza and that Bangcok thing...

The Boat: I actually think every approach before Fibonacci was purely geometrical and that, given the tools the old masons, designers and craftmen used, it was somewhat easier to calculate. To them golden ratio was just the thing they get when they nail a string to the bottom of a perfect square in middle put the marker tool in the other extreme, which is at any of the upper corners and draw a circle. The subsecuent exponential "phis" are done by repeating the operation with the resulting rectangle. It's as easy as that. Another easier way to approach it is simply by using the human body as reference: a hand, an arm, an arm and a hand, the entire body, from the belly bottom up or down, etc...Two techniques very common even in contemporary craftmen. --20-dude (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Before you re-add the Bangkok thing, read those pages again, being careful about how the paragraph flows from one page to the next. Apology accepted. Now let me go see if I have Da Vinci's arm in my toolbox... Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

None of us has apologized (at least in this section). That doesn't mean that I don'd believe your edits are great when you want. I didn't get the Da Vinci joke. :P--20-dude (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job. It has been a pleasure to work with you today. I salute you, oh, great anti-phimite editor (joke). Good night. Ps: Can you explain to me why the image was a copyright infriction? I thought that by including the original thumbnail of the book I was actually giving more credit to the book. I'm honestly interested in finding out what the administrators dealing with such issues think in general about it.--20-dude (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was accepting in advance your apology for screwing up your reading of page 88 of Pile. You'll get there. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. You're getting funnier. Yes, that's one apology I would give. I'll make you a deal, you explain me the 88 page screwing like I'm an idiot (which I might turn out to be) and I'll apology and kiss your ass for a day. You know I'm tough, but when proven wrong nobody accepts it more than me, so you know I'll be honest about accepting I'm wrong.

So what, do you take the challenge, or are you gonna wuss out on me? Ha ha.--20-dude (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...Oh, poop. --20-dude (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I interpret that to mean that you have now re-read the page 87/88 transition and interpreted what page 88 says? Or do I need to re-type it all for you to read again? Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see you did. I also see you fell for Piles bullshit: "It is interesting to note that the number of terraces–five plus three–eight in total, relates to the pattern 3–5–8, known as a Fibonacci series, in which each number is equal to the sum of the preceding two numbers." Now, this is just absurd, to infer a Fibonacci sequence from a 3 and 5. Maybe if an 8 followed there would be, barely, some reason to speculate about such a sequence. But the fact the the sum of the two numbers is equal to 8, with no other 8 to be found, should only make you wonder what this guy was smoking. Why do we even allow this crap? Shouldn't we just flush that source as obviously not reliable, and focus on getting real information instead? Anybody? Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The book is fine. Everybody can make a bad relation like that, it's not like it's a pivotal afirmation for the book. As I said, for the rest of the day I'm basically your bitch, I'm keeping my word. hahaha.

Here are two presents: a) The 3,5=8 thing was not bull but... how to put it? intelectual manual self loving, but there is something about that example that makes me not care too much for it. I'll leave it up to you. b) Think what you want me to do about this:

The early medieval designs with golden ratio are linked to the Order of Saint Benedict, which uses the Saint Benedict Square as the regulator for both the Saint Benedict Medal (after which it takes its name) and the Plan of Saint Gall. The exact time and date of the making of the first St. Benedict Medal are unknown as well as for the plan. The first copy known was drawn in a scriptorium in Reichenau in the third decade of the 9th century, dedicated to Abbot Gozbert (816-836) of Saint Gall and, according to Paul Frankl and Erwin Panofky's Secret of Medieval Masons (page 49), its regulator lines come from the Saint Benedict squere, which is composed by several inner squares joined by their diagonals, which are in ascending and descending golden proportion according to what would be later knownas the Fibonacci series.

It has to stay. The works of the benedictine order are pivotal. Let's say we don't coun't with that sourced piece of information. You really think such work as Chartres came out of the blue with no previous theory?

I have a lot of respect for the Benedictines. I sent my kids to a Benedictine school, even though I'm not religious. But I can't find a single mention of them in relation to golden ratio. I can't even find anything on this square you mention. Your source is not easily accessible to me; can you send me a copy? And check the book title, which you got wrong. Is there any reason to believe that this books of "secrets" is scholarly, as opposed to made up? Does he cite sources? How did he find these "secrets"? Why do you believe it? Give us a clue. Why should we accept such nonsense, given your history of including errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of your sources, bitch? Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the parthenon pic?? You really think all the other images from books in Wikipedia have better copyright? How come?? None have real author's permission. NONE. Being a book scan this actually seems to be better than the usual taken-from-some-site wikipedia picture. There is no violation.--20-dude (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument carries no weight. Stick to policy. Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. I know. But it's hard to make sense out of it. Especially when picking among the tags. Actually, I aready read the WP:COPY and related articles, and still don't follow (I mean it like in understanding) the logic. I also can't find anything specific about book pages or part of them. This not-understanding, not-finding-the-specific-image-copyright-rule situation has already been too much of a pain to me in the past. I'm looking foward to finally get it. In that sense its a good thing you nominated those images.--20-dude (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the simple version: copying stuff out of copyrighted books in not OK in wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not making sense. Forget about the images that are already on wikipedia and about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Strictly about the policy: Why are screenshots and comic pages ok? How is it any different? How? Specially with comics, it doesn't make sense. It hurts!! (btw, I'm not arguing, just looking for guidance {which you can take as a compliment}, it's not like I'd oppose the erasing of the images if decided necesary or anything)--20-dude (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Pick a screen shot or book cover; look at where it's used and what the rationale says; then ask if it's unclear why that constitutes fair use. It should be clear that using a book cover or screen shot in a article about a program or book is not the same as using an image from inside a book to illustrate an article about something that book talks about. There's no parallel. That's all that's relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if the article is not about the book (or work), an image of that book can't be used to ilustrate a related topic, right?

And in comics it doesn't mater because, say, the article about Superman, is kinda part of the Superman related articles, which kinda constitute a book, right?

I think I'm finally seeng the light!! hahaha.--20-dude (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So what can I do, should I find a free image of the plans of the parthenon, modify it to indicate the golden ratio as per some source? There has to be away to ilustrate our point.

Dude: There are no extant plans of the Parthenon (if there were, that might resolve some of the present controversy). The ancient Greek builders did not generally make plans for a building before they built. The planned the parts of the building as they worked, scratching sketches on the walls. What we do have are modern (i.e., copyrighted) drawings with golden rectangles superimposed. If a copyrighted book included an image of the building with the rectangles superimposed that was public domain, you could probably upload that, but it is your responsibility to find the facts and state a legitimate rationale for a non-infringing use of something from a copyrighted work. Finell (Talk) 08:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jackpot!!! The Gothic Cathedrals are free!! Lumb has years death and certainly published them before 1925!!!--20-dude (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed some images from other articles. I don't mind if you pick which to keep. I'm not crazy about them. Anyway, do you know something that works as google books but with better books?? I'm kinda tired of nit picking among tarot and UFO crap--20-dude (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

References

http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_06_04.html

this is a good source. However I believe he makes it all black or white and is a little weaselish. For instance, he discredits the artist that aproximate GR because they din't get the exact number, but also the ones that did because they did it "on purpose" (well, duh).

In my thesis, for the same reasons, I'm actually coining the term Fibonacci proportion, which is using proportions that tend towards golden proportion. Tend is a key word here, phi is a tendency in mathematics and I think it's the same with nature and aesthetics, just a tendency.

I've always known phy is not going to be exact on the human body and wondered what's the tendency on supermodels.

It is also logic that phi evolved from Fibonacci proportions, that's why I originally considered the arks.--20-dude (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that last bit. The "extreme and mean ratio" was known a long time before the Fibonacci sequence, was it not? It certainly did not come from the limit of ratio of fibonacci numbers. Tell us more about your thesis; a Ph.D. thesis, or what? Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also logic that [in some ways] phi evolved [or evolves] from [what I'm coining as] Fibonacci proportions--20-dude (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC) No, it's just my career thesis. I have benefit a lot by our edits here, mainly because of the sources I have found out, but also because you and finell have opened my eyes when something is mere speculation or just no worth putting in a list among the real examples. I have learned a lot from understanding your particular criteria.

Of course, we all understand that it's not in my best interest (or Wikipedia's) to include my conclusion or theories in this article. I Can honestly say I have never tried to.--20-dude (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"self published" links

What's so wrong with that. I what would the other sort of publishing be? Where can I read the regarding WP policy?--20-dude (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EL. The line that's most relevant, in terms of links to avoid, is probably "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." The links I removed seemed to be essentially personal, by non-authorities. Also avoid "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." If you think some of the links that I removed are appropriate to have, please do mention them individually. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I see your point. I think some were actually linked to universities. I have to check it out. I guess I'd have to check if the other authors are really credited somewhere else.--20-dude (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I challenge this:

(...) and the pyramid calculations found in ancient Egyptian documents were based on purely rational slopes close to but different from the golden ratio.(Eli Maor, Trigonometric Delights, Princeton Univ. Press, 2000).

Where the hell does that book state so? IF NOBODY ANSWERS THAT, I'LL TAKE IT OFF THE ARTICLE.

On a related topic, by in ancient Egyptian documents, I think whoever wrote that line meant the Rhind Papyrus, which is qute famous and easy to quote. It obviously makes no mention of phy, because Egyptians din't know irrational numbers back then. However, they were no strangers to fractions (Maor does indicate), and 440x279.79x355.925 royal cubits is the same as 1xφxsqrt(φ) (as Ghyka indicates) which is inscribed in a root-phi dynamic rectangle... After all, even Pythagorians, Romans and Medival Freemasons, didn't have decimal numbers; a nail, a pencil and a string is more than enough to produce golden ratio.--20-dude (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Same thing with (Eric Temple Bell, 1940), he doesn't even talk about phi in his book, much less in page 40. I find that cite extremely unethical.--20-dude (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I provided a link the to Maor page so one can see what he says. And I made the text attributed to Bell more explicit (the page is not visible on google book search). Not clear what you mean by a cite being "unethical", or extremely so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, you're going to extremes to prove your point this time. Those sources suck. The bell part, which is talking about the Rhind Papyrus (which would constitute a much better reference), doesn't even mention the golden proportion. You're almost doing first hand research there. I'll check out your link, but it's real funny how you used to say my sources were weak and now I'm the one with the academic imprints backing him up and your points are not even explicit on your not-as-academic sources. I've got to tell ya, man, you're getting softer (kidding :). You'll have to come up with better stuff.

Btw, I rememind you, decimal numbers are not necesary to produce golden ratio at all. Even the Rhind is moot.--20-dude (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had checked out your link before your post. It sucked back then and it still sucks. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, but the author doesn't really talk about golden ratio. As far as I know that can be the way they produced the golden ratio, if you're sure it produces something that has nothing to do with G.R., the paragraph of this article could state that Maor has proposed a design method that leaves out G. R.--20-dude (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Even I could use your tecnique of contucting wikipedia readers through deductions tangentially based on some statements of these sources instead of using direct cites. For instance that this line: for example, they did not know the Pythagorean theorem and the only right triangle shape they were aware of numerically was the 3:4:5 triangle; and ad: "however, the shape of the pyramid is not 3:4:5, so it is possible they still used golden ratio". Or take the part about rational slopes and ad: "however, the slopes of the pyramid are not rational, so it is possible they still used golden ratio"... You're making phi-enthusiasm too easy for me :) --20-dude (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by almost unethical, I meant that you're too smart to not know you're doing original reasearch by using tangential non-explicit references.--20-dude (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Chanfon

I just got a copy of the Curso de Proporciòn of the late UNAM Ph. D. Carlos Cahnfon Olmos. It features some work of his own as well as somoe of the drawings of other authors. I believe that he is more realistic an reliable than Lund or Amabilis, since he doesn't force the Hipocrates Pentagram on everithing but rather just use regulator lines that show proportion... I'll elaborate: Lund and Amabilis do prove that their objects of study have golden proportions but, in doing so, they speculate too much on the original regulator lines with no real proof.

Curso the Proporsion has been translated and a copy is kept at the Museum of Paris (whatever that means) so anyone interested should try to read a copy (I'd be as dificult to you as it is for me to read Lund in Spanish).--20-dude (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a copy? Do you have PDF? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed again

Dude, please review your recent edits and try to fix them. A few basic points to keep in mind: 1. put footnotes (refs) AFTER punctation like period and comma, not before. 2. Use an English spell checker to help find all the non-words, and try to turn them into words. 3. Pay attention to what to capitalize. 4. Do not say someone "proved" or "showed" something unless a secondary source has said so; you can say he "claimed" or "asserted" or "described" or such instead. 5. Repair sentences that you turned into nonsense, like "Some historians and mathematicians propose alternative theories that are not based on geometry ralated to the golden ratio (for example, they did not know the Pythagorean theorem...). Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That formating information I did not know, thanks. The only think I don't follow is "showed" I used it because the guy is litereally showing, as in showing the drawing and then the regularor lines on it, do you know what I mean? How would I state so otherwise?--20-dude (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Doesn't that depends on whether the reference is backing a word, a sentence, part of it or the entire paragraph?? I'm confused here. If you put it after some periods it seems the reference is backing the next sentence. I don't like that (in those cases, in most I'm totally with you)--20-dude (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What else is there to fix?--20-dude (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I answer myself. That introductory paragraph (in the introduction context) sucked ass big time. It has nothing to do at the begining of the article placed like that. Think about it, who the hell is that guy compared to what, Albert Einstein, Johanes Kepler, Durer, Le Corbusier, Pacioli, da Vinci, Mies, Michaelangelo, Plato, Ghyka and the rest of the heavy weight hitorical figures (or even the vast majority of contemporary authors backing them and published by kick ass university presses, all referenced in this very article) has to say? The poor bastard (figuratively) doesn't stand a chance in front of the written word of all the aforementioned (Notice I'm specifically bad mouthing the quoted "bastard" not the wonderful people who have contributed to get this article beyond my original expectations)

Of course, of course, placed on the right context, as I think it should, the comment can actually work. I'd suggest a creating a conclution paragraph at the bottom of the article with different published POVs. The way it was placed seemed like an elegant "warning you're about to read supersticious crap", if you get what I mean.--20-dude (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

After explaining the broad context of this list (in which, at this point, should be clear that, as I've always said the phi 1.618yaddayaddayadda digit is pointless and geometry is way more relevant), I thought of putting back the Stanford guy quote, but it still doesn't work. In orfer for it to work it should state wich misconceptions is he talking about. Otherwise we're just putting infinite words and implications in his mouth that he might not meant.--20-dude (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "cleanup" tag to remind us to work on this. As I've looked through your recent 20 edits, I can't find any that don't have significant errors, or unsourced junk, or unwarranted removal of sourced stuff, etc. But I don't have the patience to go over it all with you right now. Dicklyon (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

One very minor cleanup I did, based on WP:V, was to remove the UN building stuff. The cited source says that Corbusier worked on the design, but not that it is based on the golden section. Le Corbusier himself says he didn't get to do what he wanted; use of the Modulor got vetoed.[3]

If there's a source that says the UN building is designed with GR, just show us the source, and all will be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Careful, Devli's andgle is BS

And I quote:

Having found this number, the story continues, the Greeks then made extensive use of the magic number in their architecture, including the famous Parthenon building in Athens. Inspired by the Greeks, future generations of architects likewise based their designs of buildings on this wonderful ratio. Painters did not lag far behind. The great Leonardo Da Vinci is said to have used the Golden Ratio to proportion the human figures in his paintings - which is how the Golden Ratio finds its way into Dan Brown's potboiler.

Having found that number?! Perhaps he didn't choose his words carefully, but the greeks didn't find it at all. They rather used figures based on the square and the pentagon, as hambidge exposes. What a deutch (Devli, I mean) Besides, gr is present in works that predates the greek mathematician: because of the square.

Leonardo da Vinci "is said"?! I'm writting a thesis on the topic if somebody quotes me as "is said to have investigated on the GR topic" after I die I swear I'll comeback to hount the bastard.

Dan Brown's potboiler?!... Well perhaps that one is OK, the plot is full of it. Then again, Brown just did his homework and crated fiction with it. He might be no umberto eco, but I get what he was trying to produce: Fiction based on his homework.

It's important to quote this guy to be impartial, but be careful, he is full of it.--20-dude (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that since Devlin refers to the GR as a "number", his historical points about the total lack of evidence of its use are valid? But if he had called it a ratio or a proportion we could take him more seriously? Or what? And what do you refer to when you assert "gr is present in works that predates the greek mathematician"? And as to "Da Vinci is said to...", who are you thinking that should be credited for saying that he used the Golden Ratio? I haven't seen any credible source for that, and apparently Devlin also didn't find any credible when he "did his homework". Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Finell

I have to admit, your last edits in this article constitute a work of art. I'm impressed how this time you managed to express exactly what I meant in better, more elegant words and phrases (far beyond my current possibilities). I have studied as feedback the changes to made. I'm also very satisfied with the way you managed to respect the original meaning of the source material this time (in contrast with that other time at the root rectangle article). Great work.

--20-dude (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Then again, you erased old, messy, new and even good paragraphs, all verifiable and sourced, that were not necessarily my contribution (if that's what you were targeting). That's not the way to go in Wikipedia. If *you* feel a paragraph doesn’t go, you must remember you're not a chief editor at all and be respectful to all the writers. If there is a problem with a paragraph, there are a few tags you can place at the section. You must avoid information censorship or partiality, and when you erase sourced verifiable paragraphs, it *looks* af if you're hiding information and shaping the article after your personal perception. Next time, if you can't replace what you want to erase, please use the tags at the top of section or article.--20-dude (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to get confused by the writing. The "possibly" you talk about, was added by someone who influenced by Devlin (Dicklyon?), who is influenced by Markowsky, who came to that conclusion doing a mediocre phone call insted of researching properly...The clueless fellah actually thought he would find one rectangle in the overall shape. --20-dude (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do get confused by confusing writing, but not by clear writing. We Wikipedians, not our sources, are responsible for Wikipedia's content, and it is our responsibility that its content be clear, even when we rely upon or paraphrase sources. Similarly, for the sake of clarity, Wikipedia's terminology within an article or group of related articles should be consistent, even where our sources use different terminology. We also opt for internal consistency where some sources say φ = .618, which we know is equivalent to saying φ = 1.618, but which would confuse readers who did not understand the math, just as it confused you when you were introduced to the subject.

I was never "targeting" your contributions or anyone's contributions. My only target is to try to improve Wikipedia in areas that I follow, as I have time to do so. Tagging is an option, but not one that an editor is obliged to use. The accusation of censorship is just silly. And, there is a limit to how much work can reasonably be expected of others to try to improve material that is beneath Wikipedia's minimum standards. Weighing the relative importance of the material, how much work it would take to fix it, how much time the editor has available, whether fixing it based on what is written is possible or whether it would require a trip to the library, and whether the material left in its current form would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia, deletion is sometimes the most reasonable option, although it should be employed sparingly and reluctantly. Even with deletion, the edit history is preserved, and the original contributor or another editor is free to rework the deleted material. Saying that X is "possibly" an instance of Y is almost meaningless, and is useless to the reader (even if it is sourced).

If I munged something that Dicklyon wrote, I know he will not be bashful in responding. His options are telling me, reverting me, or improving upon with either of us did independently. He has done all of these on one occasion or other. It is also possible that he tried to fix something that was unfixible, and I deleted it. Finell (Talk) 17:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You do monitor and target me. It's not pleasant being monitored, but I can stand it, just be careful with you're edits. Just erasing verifiable sourced info you're not familiar with is a form negligence (which, I'll recognize, is a risk when your spelling is limited) or censorship. The accusation of censorship might be somewhat silly, but might be grounded in the context of the way you erased stuff.

I think you're familiarizing yourself with the topic finely, just don't edit any example if you're not familiar with it. You can only "weight" through the tool of knowledge. For instance, if you know the source is rather a work of fiction with no scientific grounds, if it comes from a poor publisher, if you know the material is covered in another wikipedia article that fits better, if you think the material is too tangential, etc.

The other thing you (or we) can try is using this talk space as a workshop, asking about those parts that you think are not understandable in this space and proposing possible changes. For instance, I'd benefit from your explanation of the things you didn't understand from the paragraphs you erased. Knowing you, as a somewhat annoying suggestion, I'd ask beforehand that you make questions before you make terminal conclusions. That way even I could propose the rewriting.

--20-dude (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's so unintelligible about the Romantisism section?

I'm no expert on classical music but even I get its point. Maybe we should get music buff to help fix it.

By the way, I didn't write it. It was moved here from the GR article.--20-dude (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabaneev is quite easy to search on internet and Haylock is quoted in a page of the Surrey University. That part has to be rewritten not because it is "unintelligible" but because it was originally copy pasted from Surrey's site. I did a little editing. However I'd be surprised to know a Surrey Ph. D. wrote an "unintelligible" paragraph (then again, let me know if there was something I missed that was making it "unintelligible" in this WP context)--20-dude (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could show a scan from the refs, or where they are quoted (URL please), we could try to see what the source said and how to convey it better in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you misspelled Haylock in the ref, which is why I hadn't been able to find anything. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you update it to point to Knott. This section basically totally refutes the stuff about Beethoven and Mozart, so why bother adding them to your "list of things" article? Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Because we have to expose both sides, just as Surrey U. does (even if it favors the refusal).--20-dude (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The way I see it, the recently added lines keep both the tone of Surrey and the previous overall tone of the paragraph: it exposes the fact that there is a strong coincidence in the climax of a great deal of classical pieces of music, but it never implies that it is intentional. It also exposes that the theme has been studied various times. That’s why Surrey mentions it in it’s GR article, and that’s why I want to do the same. If you ask me, I’d say none of the Great Classical Masters of music cared for GR, but they all produced music that approaches it following their instinct.--20-dude (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see why one would include Knott's refutation if one had a source for what he's refuting; but as it stands, it seems like just a strawman to knock down. That approach would make the article a lot broader, to no purpose. Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

He IS refuting sources, read it again. Besides, he also mentions that "the golden ratio is unintentionally present in several pieces of classicel music", which is a good point: there is coincidence but it is not intentional.--20-dude (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Authors of the article

Before publication in the article, I would like to obtain your consent. There are three papers: The correction of "Prehispanic Mesoamerican architecture". The introduction of the architect Josep Lluis Sert in the section on modern architecture. The introduction of a new section dedicated to Romanesque architecture. Is for this reason I am writing here. My usual language is not English. I would appreciate that before the publication of three works would help me in their adaptation to English language.

Prehispanic Mesoamerican architecture reviewed

Prehispanic Mesoamerican architecture reviewed

Olmos defends the golden ratio presence in some of olmec heads, at the Aztec calendar stone, and in several of Aztec home designs.

Between 1950 and 1960, Manuel Amabilis applied some of the analysis methods of Frederik Macody Lund and Jay Hambidge in several designs of prehispanic buildings, such as "El Toloc" and “La Iglesia de las Monjas” (the Nuns Church), a notable resort of buildings thermal constructed in the Puuc architecture style in Chichen Itza.

According to his studies, their proportions are concretized from a series of polygons, circles and pentagrams inscribed, as Lund found in his studies of Gothic churches. Manuel Amabilis published his studies, along with several self-explanatory images of other pre-columbian buildings made with golden ratio proportions, in "La Arquitectura Precolombina de Mexico".[16] The work was awarded the gold medal and the title of "Academico" by the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando (Spain) in the Columbus day of 1929.

The Castle of Chichen Itza was built by the Maya civilization sometime between the 11th and 13th centuries AD, to serve as temple to the god Kukulcan. John Pile defends that its interior layout has golden ratio proportions. He says that the interior has walls placed so that the outer spaces are related to the central chamber by 0.618:1,the golden ratio. [17]

Josep Lluís Sert

For adding to Modern architecture

Josep Lluis Sert, Catalan architect and Le Corbusier disciple, applied the measures of the Modulor in all his particular works. Some of them are the Sert's House in Cambridge University or the Joan Miró Foundation in Barcelona.

At 1932 Josep Lluis Sert, collaborates at Paris with Le Corbusier. At 1939 Josep Lluis Sert starts working on the Plan Macià of Barcelona, with Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret.

Also Josep Lluis Sert, built at 1961, with a Le Corbusier design, the Arts Center Visually Carpenter Foundation in Cambridge University.

• References:

http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/Sert's_House_in_Cambridge http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundaci%C3%B3n_Joan_Mir%C3%B3 http://www.mienciclo.es/ebooks/index.php/Le_Corbusier_y_su_Tiempo_(Cronolog%C3%ADa) http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/Volker_Muller/Proportions_Golden_Section_or_Golden_Mean,_Modulor,_Square_Root_of_Two,_Theorie_and_Construction.htm http://www.stepienybarno.es/blog/2009/11/05/casa-patio-sert-en-cambridge-1958/

New Section: Romanesque era

Dear Authors of the article.In reference to the “Gothic era”, I think it could be one section dedicated to the architecture that prevailed in Europe between the 900-1200, the Romanesque era, and another to the Gothic era, 1200-1500. The twelfth century makes the union between the Romanesque and Gothic.

The Romanesque architecture is a style of architecture which prevailed in Europe between 900–1200. The twelfth century makes the union between the Romanesque and Gothic. The split that existed between the conception of Romanesque and Gothic religious buildings can be understood in the epistolary between St. Bernard, Cistercian, and the Abbot Suger of the order of Cluny, the initiator of Gothic art in St. Denis. One of the most beautiful works of Romanesque Cistercian is the Abbey of Sénanque in Provence. The Sénanque abbatial was founded in 1148 and consecrated in 1178. It was initiated in life of St Bernard of Clairvaux. “La Lumière à Sénanque” (The Light in Sénanque), it’s a chapter of " Cîteaux : commentarii cistercienses " publication of the Cistercian Order. Its author, Kim Lloveras i Montserrat made in 1992 a complete study of the abbatial. He defends that the abbatial church was designed using a system of measures founded in the golden ratio. Also defends that the instruments used for its construction were the “Vescica” and the medieval squares used by the constructors, both designed with the golden ratio. The "Vescica" of Sénanque is located in the cloister of the monastery, in front of the Chapter, the site of the workshop.

• References:

You can find References about “La Lumière à Sénanque » at "Cîteaux : commentarii cistercienses" : http://www.cistopedia.org/index.php?id=8379 , and http://www.citeaux.org/en/so4414en.htm ; and the complete article in http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/handle/2117/1794. UPCommons it’s a web of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. You can find other references in Scientific Commons": http://en.scientificcommons.org/kim_lloveras_montserrat

Alatac2012 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

company's logos

many company's have designed their logos based on the golden ratio. i belive that they should be added

some examples:

• http://www.goldennumber.net/logo-design/

• http://www.banskt.com/blog/golden-ratio-in-logo-designs/

• http://inventikasolutions.com/the-myth-of-golden-ratio

• http://www.phimatrix.com/design.htm

etc.

--''half-moon'' bubba (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of works designed with the golden ratio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719232616/http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf to http://laptops.maine.edu/GoldenRatio.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004154727/http://www.nexusjournal.com/BouMaz.html to http://www.nexusjournal.com/BouMaz.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609080642/http://www.bue.gov.ar/recorridos/index.php?menu_id=52&info=auto_contenido&lang=en to http://www.bue.gov.ar/recorridos/index.php?menu_id=52&info=auto_contenido&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228042058/http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html to http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)