Talk:Mathematics and architecture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Golden rectangle

The golden rectangle does not, to my knowledge, have anything to do with an actual gold rectangle so maybe the picture of it could be removed? I can't see that it aids the article at all.

Well, it doesn't HAVE to be gold, but I like the aesthetic! I think the picture does aid the article and, let's face it, someone would have to be pretty stupid to actually be confused by the picture. Gingermint (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think that it's the right shape, Needs cropping

Needs a rewrite

The article is messy, hard to follow and contains no good sources. It needs a rewrite from a real theoretical point of view combined with academic sources. I will propably try to do something to address the issues during the summer. --piksi (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

At leat some parts are copied from here, some other parts are copied from here etc -- is it ok, is the text freely distributable? 88.102.95.151 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether it was a copyright violation or not, it was clearly an essay, without proper referencing and in a totally non-encyclopaedic style. Completely inappropriate for WP. I've removed it, so that hopefully other editors can start again from a reasonably decent base. The version I reverted to was as at 7 May 2010. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

golden rect. not unique

It also turns out that defining a Golden rectangle in classical buildings is not unique, ....

What, if anything, does this mean? Taken literally it seems to say there's more than one golden ratio, which is false. Is it a clumsy way of saying no one rectangle is (empirically) preferred in classical architecture? —Tamfang (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)