Talk:Vertical angles

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Vertical angles was copied or moved into Angle with this edit on 05:04, 20 November 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

2007-05-30 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical Angles

Corrected wording and concepts. Tried to keep the same concepts as much as possible. JackOL31 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic solution for Vertical Angles

Revised to clean up the concepts and correct terminology, e.g. measure of Angle A equal x rather than Angle A equals measure x. JackOL31 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of this term?

Does anyone know when the term "vertical angle" came into being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.35.185 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was Merge all articles except Transversal (geometry) to Angle.

Suggestion: Merge the following articles into a single article, Special angle relationships:

These all have little to no article and talk content. If they were just one article, info would be easier to find, especially when studying for an exam. Please vote on whether this move is feasible!

Thanks, The Doctahedron 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger. All the articles except the one on transversals are very short and unlikely to get longer. The topics fit together naturally as a single topic. Make sure they all redirect to the new article, since other articles undoubtedly have links to the current article names. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger. Yes, that would make a worthwhile length of article. Note that Alternate angles and Corresponding angles would need to redirect to the new article. Dbfirs 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already put up all the necessary banners. Now we just need to create drafts of the article. All drafts can be submitted below, or at my talk page. Please follow the guidelines given there. Thanks, 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging Transversals: I have no objections to merging the articles except for Transversal (geometry). A transversal is a line, not an angle or set of angles, though there are some terms regarding angles that are defined in terms of a transversal. Menelaus' theorem is stated in terms of a transversal and it does not involve angles at all. Also, though not included in the article (yet), in solid geometry a transversal can also be a plane, in which case it wouldn't make sense to put the material in an article about angles. Finally, there is more material that could be be added on the subject so I dispute the claim that the article is unlikely to grow further. The article just had a large amount new material merged and added to it a couple months ago so I'd say it's still in a rather embryonic state and there's no reason it can't be a viable article once some work is done on it.--RDBury (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could at least have a section about transversals, but if transversals are a totally different topic, then we won't merge it into the new article. Thanks, The Doctahedron, 00:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my claim was that the other ones ("except the one on transversals") are not likely to grow longer. I agree that since transversals are not angles, that article should not be merged into the new article.

The banners that have been put up are no good, since they just have redlinks -- they don't tell the interested reader where to go for the discussion. Doctahedron, please put in links to here in those banners.

As for writing the new article, since Doctahedron came up with the proposal it's up to Doctahedron to propose a draft of it. It ought to be easy, though: just a one-sentence lede saying what the article is about, then section headings corresponding to the current titles, then copy from the current articles, then put in a couple transition sentences. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is Transversal (geometry) that needs incorporating in the new article. I think we ought to have an extra link to the new article from the general Transversal article since a high percentage of people looking for information on "Transversal" will be expecting the plane Euclidean geometric sense. (The angles also apply to plane transversals in 3-D) Dbfirs 09:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved 'Transversal' to 'Transversal (combinatorics)' and changed the redirect to 'Transversal (disambiguation)', probably something that should have been done a while ago since the combinatorial meaning isn't the primary one. Not sure I get Dbfirs reasoning here, no one is saying take out the material on plane geometry from Transversal (geometry). People might not expect to find material on solid geometry in the article because it's not covered in high school geometry, but one reason people come to Wikipedia is to learn things they didn't cover in high school.--RDBury (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I fixed Duoduoduo's issue on the banners.--RDBury (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were proposing to delete Transversal (geometry) because it was all about alternate and corresponding angles, but I must have somehow been picking up an old copy of the article. I see that the redirects are now behaving differently, so my point no longer applies. I've no objection to people reading about Transversal (combinatorics) to learn something new! I was intending to include angles in solid geometry, since angles between planes are identical to those in plane geometry. Dbfirs 18:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the original merger, with or without transversal, as there is enough potential for a single article. Angle-chasing, history, compass construction, what does and doesnt work in different types of non-euclidean geometry, are all possible subtopics. The angle article is already quite crowded. --Qetuth (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose another merge. Except for transversal, all these notions are defined in Angle. Its seems thus better to merge them in this article. D.Lazard (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge; I don't mind if the details change following discussion. Leonxlin (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative merge proposal by D.Lazard: merge the lot (except transversals) into Angle. - DVdm (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the alternative merge as well. Cheers, The Doctahedron, 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative merge proposal by D.Lazard: merge the lot (except transversals) into Angle. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative merge; transversals defnitely don't belong; they are a seperate subject, like perpendicular lines, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanSan5653 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, thanks for your feedback.

I do understand some of your concerns, and that this move, if enacted, would be highly controversial. However, I believe as a student that it will make studying easier, and information will be more centralized. Here is my proposed structure for the new article:

Special angle relationships introduction

Relationships (vertical etc.)

Transversals

Solving for unknown angle measures

This is a team effort. I will not take this responsibility for myself (I'm too busy to do so). So please help!

Thanks,

The Doctahedron, 02:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the 'Solving for unknown angle measures' section sounds a little bit too how-to, I'd think. Maybe a new article at Angle chasing? Leonxlin (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Hi all,

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! As we approach a consensus as to whether this and a few other pages should be merged into a single page entitled Special angle relationships, we'd like to hear your feedback as a reader/visitor/Wikipedian. Please discuss and vote below to help improve Wikipedia!

(The survey is not intended as a substitute for consensus. It is only intended to give administrators a good idea of what you think of the move.)

Thank you for your support, and enjoy the holidays!

Cheers, The Doctahedron, 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although such merges are decided by wp:consensus and not by voting, I count 3 votes in favor and 3 votes against (aka supporting alternative merge) as of this signarure: - DVdm (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and two of the 3 votes in favor were issued before the proposition of an alternative merge. D.Lazard (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating my early vote to make it a vote for D.Lazard's alternative merger proposal. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2^nd new merger proposal

Hi all, thanks for your feedback again.

I've noticed you guys like the alternate merger plan broached by D.Lazard, and I actually like this idea better. However, I still think that transversals constitute an important special angle relationship. So we could keep the transversal article, but then add the section about transversals and put a {{main|Transversal (geometry)}} tag near the top of the section. Win-win for the win-win!

Can someone please set up Pee Review... I mean, Peer Review, by clicking "Natural Sciences and Math" in the box up top? I can't really do it.

Happy Holidays,

The Doctahedron, 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism by 173.63.188.78, 2 years later

Hi all,

I removed the text "hi" (level 2 header) and "Complementary angles.../Supplementary angles..." as it appeared to distract from the discussions on the talk page. However, I did not remove "this DIDNT(sic) help me" at the top of the page, as it expressed a complaint about the article. And I agree that this page might be a little too technical, which is why I proposed the merger in the first place (prev. section).

Thanks,

The Doctahedron, 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have partly undone your previous edit:

You changed one of your own comments to which replies were already given. That can make those replies meaningless. I have repaired that.
You signed an unsigned message that could have just deleted per off-topic. - I have done that now.
The part that you called vandalism, doesn't look like vandalism to me, but it wasn't useful or replied to, so I have left it deleted.
I deleted another part that wasn't constructive, useful, or replied to.

Please have a careful read of the wp:talk page guidelines, specially the part at wp:TALKNO. This is not the first time that you were asked to read and to please respect these guidelines (see this).

Bottom line, so to speak: if you don't want people to get distracted from the discussions on the talk pages, then do not refactor the comments on them, and always do work top to bottom. Doing otherwise tends to chase everyone away, leaving you effectively ignored — as you might have noticed. - DVdm (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]