Talk:Canons of page construction/Archive 1

What am I doing here? POLL

Jossi has removed the article canons of page construction and redirected it and its talk here. He won't let me merge his three little stubs into a real article (gutenberg canon, van de Graaf canon, golden canon of page construction). I wonder if anyone else cares... Please say "*support" to support making this merged article, or "*oppose" to let Jossi keep it his way. Dicklyon 05:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about collective editing via consensus. You are acting without agreement, and unilateraly. STOP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking opinions other than yours, since consensus between just the two of us is so elusive. Dicklyon 05:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have self-reverted to avoid 3RR. Let it be clear that your editing behavior is most disruptive. I am asking other editors to comment on your attitude and editing behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have not removed your little stubs since you put them back; the only thing I have done is to restore and work on the merged article. You may not care for it, but it is in no way disrupting your work. We just need some help in deciding which version to keep now. Dicklyon 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of gaming the system and WP:POINT? That is what you are doing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that one to me before, but didn't explain your logic in doing so. Maybe I'm just slow, but I have a hard time following you. Dicklyon 06:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are disrupting the editing process, for no apparent reason than to make a point. You move articles at whim, when there is no consensus; you add tidbits of your POV to articles, you add no useful content, all becaus somehow it offends your math. I royal waste of good editor's time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed duplicated content already available on other stubs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating vs Moving

If you want to create a new article, please do not move an existing article, just create a new one. As a merger had no consensus, you are welcome to start a new article, if you wish. I have recreated the articles in that manner, and removed the content that is already available in Wikipedia. Please do not disrupt the editing process, by asserting your own views on how things need to be done. Discusss with me first, and if there is no agreement amongst us, seek Dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who created a new article. I wanted to merge and move, as I had commented in my edit comments and on the talk page. I don't think the new one makes nearly as much sense, but it's all you would allow, as you wanted to keep your little stubs. Dicklyon 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you enjoying this? Most unbecoming behavior on your part. I have asked several editors to take a look at your behavior. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I find it very stressful to be so unable to come to a reasonable collaborative position with someone who is so dug in. I look forward to hearing from these other editors that you bring up repeatedly but don't deliver on. Dicklyon 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

angry people

drink a cup of good tea.
reduce the size of the images on those 3 pages, it's not the wikipedia style, and it looks slightly ridiculous.
Assume Good Faith - we all just want good articles. This boils down to immediatism vs eventualism.

Personally, I'm a mergist, so one B-grade article is inherently more appealing than two stubs and a start grade. But perhaps Jossi has large scale plans for all 3 articles? You've obviously been arguing elsewhere, and I don't want to have to hunt-down and read it all, so what's the story, or where are the relevant bits? (and please try to confine it to a single location...) --Quiddity 18:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q, thanks for your comments. My arguments with Jossi started over his including unsubstantiable factoids about the golden ratio as if fact. He did a lot of the same in these canon stubs, and with my prodding has been able to map them into something more NPOV. I keep trying to elicit from him what is behind these canons and his statements about them. The info seems to be very diffuse and sparse. If he has plans for more, I would hope he would say so, but from my own searching I suspect there's not a lot more out there to say. I think we just need to clarify and draw relationships between these canons. My attempts to do so, from the best info he was able to provide, was apparently not quite right, as he totally redid it. I'm happy to learn from him, but it's like pulling teeth. Dicklyon 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be that way... You say I am "dug in" while you fail to see how "dug in" you are... that resulted in unilateral merges and article moves that took me an hour to restore. This summary article, has many problems, the most significant is that the main aspect of this are actually the diagrams themselves, and these have been reduced to thumbnails. The sub-articles will be expanded substantially, and when I am done with them I will return to this one and use the summary article format, mainly summarizing each sub-article appropriately. In addition, you attempt to somehow discredit these expert's view, based on a specious claim that your opinion of these is more credible., is at best laughable and at worst in contradiction with policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on the experts' views; they fascinate me. I just want to see them positioned for what they are: hypotheses for how the medieval book pages may have been laid out. Please point out a diff that you believe corresponds to me inserting an opinion into an article; I try to keep my opinions to talk pages. Dicklyon 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that these are hypotheses. And you keep adding statements of doubt. You are welcome to be doubtful, but do not add your doubts to the article as asked many times already. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that English is not your native language. Perhaps that's why you don't understand what a hypothesis is, or what to hypothesize means. Your quoted researchers have analyzed medieval documents, and they have formed conjectures (if you prefer that word, now that the Poincaré conjecture is proved) about how the documents were laid out, based on observations. They never claimed to have proved these conjectures, as far as I can tell from any of the references you have provided. I don't see how the fact that they made these hypotheses can be attributed as my opinion. Here are some definitions you can study: [1] Please let me know if in your opinion there is a better word for their theories/conjectures/hypotheses/explanations of page layout. And if their hypotheses have been supported or verified by evidence of others, or even of themselves, that would certainly be worth adding to the article. Dicklyon 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been speaking English as my main language for the last 20 years (and BTW, hypotesis is the same in Spanish). And again, this is not a math article. It is an article based on experts opinions. I have yet to see a secondary source that calls refers to these experts' findings as "hypotheses". Thus, your OR is not welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would not agree with Q that your big images look "ridiculous," but smaller certainly integrates better with wikipedia style. I didn't specify a thumbnail size, so that users can have them appear larger or smaller per their preferences. I understood that to be a typically recommended style, especially when the number of images is getting significant. This is the first time you have mentioned that using thumbnails was a problem, and suddenly it is actually the "main aspect" of your complaint! What's up with that? Dicklyon 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article as it stands may be OK, once it becomes a summary article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should continue to seek consensus on a merge. You keep saying you're going to get some other wiki editors to look and weigh in, but you never do. Please follow up on that good idea. Dicklyon 23:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already did the merge. If there is any input requested it was about your unilateral decision to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the merge is still proposed, still pending, and still without consensus. Did you request inputs? Were you unable to find anyone to take your side? I have received a couple of "support" votes for the merge, from people I did not solicit. Dicklyon 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about who takes sides with whom. You already created a new document that will become a summary article in due time. You may want to read Summary articles ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I've restored merge tags in the three canon stubs. Please enter "* Support" to support the merge, or "* Oppose" to keep the separate articles and make this one just a summary. I'll start by copying one supporting remark from Talk:Book design where the question was most recently posed (where also Quiddity posted his vague support quoted above): Dicklyon 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting the merge. See WP:ʃ. --Aethralis 09:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Whilst I support the notion of merging articles, it might not be considered polite to do it when someone is in the middle of writing them. From some of the other talkpages you've been arguing at, I get the impression jossi has been reading and researching the subject, and is in the beginning stages of writing a (possibly comprehensive?) article on each subtopic. Whereas Dicklyon wants to edit and fact check (and merge) them.

I'd suggest Dicklyon ignore these 4 pages for 2 weeks, then come back and see what state the articles are at. If only because it's hard enough to write a good article, without someone looking over your shoulder! That will give jossi time to, either write some good beginnings to full articles, or to have lost interest and left them as stubs. Either way, jossi will then be much more inclined to accept suggestions, criticisms, or questions. (As he'll have had time to both write and read more on the subject). Sound good? --Quiddity 01:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll check back in two weeks. In the mean time, anyone wanting to support or oppose a merge is welcome to say so here. Jossi, I'm off your back for now. Dicklyon 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not edit with the sword of Damocles over my head. There is absolutely no reason that articles such as these be so difficult to edit. I will not be held hostage to meaningless arguments such as the ones I had to endure from this person. I have done most of not all of the research, and I would expect some basic respect for that. If no such respect is forthcoming, I have no reason to continue doing the research and creating new materials such as all the diagrams. Just in the last 12 hours, Dicklyon decides again unilateraly to replace two excellent diagrams at Golden ratio with a version of his own, for no apparent reason beyond those know to him only. The article's quality suffered and editors like me get discouraged from adding content. That is not the way I intend to use my time that I consider to be very valuable. I am therefore removing these articles from my watchlist for a while. Go find yourself another person to claim on his back. I may return in a month or two after you get bored by not having anyone to bother. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"For no apparent reason"? Why do you deny what's obvious in the talk page? Goodbye. Dicklyon 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: the apparent reason is that you just want to do as you wish and you don't care much for the work of others. At least that is the way it looks. Just remember that thanks to the power of the wiki software, all the material that is there will remain there in the history to be restored. So, while my absence will enable you do so as you please, I intend to come back and resume editing in a month or two. Hope that by then you have improved the articles, by adding new material and new sources. If you do not add new material and proceed with the merge, I will add new material then and spin out articles as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, you're suggesting we turn Quiddity's suggestion around and offering to not bug me for a couple weeks. I'll see what I can do when the books arrive. Dicklyon 06:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Canons of page construction

This is a dispute about the scope of this article and whether to merge in three smaller articles. 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Having had a few weeks to think it over, get more books, and do some more research and writing, I feel more than ever that the three separated articles that User:Jossi made can not begin to capture the essence of the content of this page. The mini articles Golden canon of page construction, van de Graaf canon, and Gutenberg canon each represent his POV about the use of special proportions in page design using selected quotes from sources, and when I try to draw connection between them or add observations that bear on the interpretation of what the sources said in context, the slaps me down with WP:NOR declarations. See my recent edits for the info I've found since buying five books on the topic and tracing down his claims, some of which were, in my opinion, severely misinterpreted by being taken out of context. Some statements, such as "Jan Tschichold asserted that this is the canon used by Johann Gutenberg and Peter Shöffer" that was here and is still in Gutenberg canon is simply not true, when you track down the reference and see what he actually said, which was an indirect attribution, not an assertion: "What I uncovered as the canon of the manuscript writers, Raul Rosarivo proved to have been Gutenberg's canon as well." The thing that's hard for me to understand is where to draw the line on WP:NOR that Jossi keeps accusing me of; does that mean he gets to cite quotes and I don't get to say how they relate or to point out any obvious contradictions between them that bear on the interpretation? In any case, there's not enough material here for three articles, and we can work together more productively in one, I believe. Jossi has repeatedly said he would ask some other admins to have a look at our dispute, but has never done so as far as I can tell, hence this RfC. Dicklyon 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Connecting the dots", is not allowed as per WP:NOR. In Wikipedia we describe what reliable sources say about a subject. If such purported "obvious contradictions" are not being described in a reliable source, we cannot add these to articles (See also WP:V "Verifiability, not truth"). All the material that I have added to these articles is meticulously referenced, and full quotes provided in the footnotes. If there is any mistake or misinterpretation of these quotes, I will be happy to stand corrected. Dicklyon needs to better understand the content policies of Wikipedia, avoid inserting his viewpoints in articles, and engage other editors in fruitful conversations. As for the merging proposal, I object to it as it makes the article which is basically a description of specific geometrical designs, hard to understand as the images are sized to thumbnails. I will not object, though, to use this article as a main article, and the other as sub articles in which the full-size images of these constructions can be featured. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The main problem here is that we can't get anyone besides the first two of us, who have opposite "perspectives" to express any opinion. So we get deadlocked and frustrated. What does it take to get others to comment? 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merged

I have done my best to merge contents from the other canon pages, and to keep them updated here as more details have become clear on obtaining the references. I have not converted the other articles to redirects again, as the request for comments is still pending (I wonder if we'll get any comments; seems like nobody cares to get involved). Those pages are increasing out of date, and I believe increasingly obviously inaccurate. I don't think they have anything to merge that I have missed. Dicklyon 03:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I hear some opposition, I'll go ahead and change the obsolete other pages to redirects to canons of page construction. The others have little content, and what they have is largely incorrect and unmaintained. Jossi is unresponsive to queries about his intent to fix. Dicklyon 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]