Talk:Golden canon of page construction

What is it?

I don't find much reference material related to this; no golden section canon in google book search. And the article doesn't say. Are there particular dimensions on the drawing that are in the golden ratio? Which ones?

Dicklyon 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The drawing, which I made, is based on the drawing on page 51 of the book: Tschichold, Jan, The Form of the Book (1991), Hartley & Marks, ISBN 0-88179-116-4. The 21:34 is the page ratio, and using the canon described, allows you to design margins that are in proportion to the page size, as it applies to book design. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So neither the page shape nor the text area are actually in the golden ratio? Is there anything in the drawing that causes the 21:34 ratio? Or is that just a starting page shape that a bunch of lines are drawn on? Is there anything about this drawing related to golden ratio? Dicklyon 18:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the page size and the text area are of 21:34, I may have been not very exact on my rendition, though. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note however that the construction shown works as well for any page ratio, and has been applied more commonly to 3:2. There's nothing in the drawing about the golden ratio unless you mean that we should appreciate at a glance its height to width ratio, which is an approximant if 21:34 as you say. 3:2 and 8:5 are other good approximant, so in that probably all rectangular book pages are in the golden ratio. Dicklyon 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As long you're at it, can you please quote your source so we can see how he uses the term "golden section"? And maybe add an agent to the passive statement "has been used in..." so we can see what it is that is known about this concept? Dicklyon 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For example on page 27: "There was a time when deviations from the truly beautiful page proportions of 2:3, 1: root of 3 and the Golden Section were rare. Many books produced between 1550 to 1770 show these proportions exacly, to within half a millimetre." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is he saying that these three particular numbers are most used? Or the range from 1.5 to 1.73? Does he present histograms of measurements or anything to support these three particular values being used? Dicklyon 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he states, as said already three times in my replies, that these three ratios (2:3, 1:root of 3, and the Golden Section) were deliberately used in books printed from 1550 to 1770 (to the millimeter) and those not conforming to these were rare. He does not present any statistical information, though. The book is a collection of articles published between 1949 and 1975 each article coverig certain aspects of book design.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so my density meets your lack of clarity. I'd still like to know on what basis he says these things. If they are empirical, but he's not sharing the data that they're based on, I will take them with a grain of salt. Was there any independent reason to believe the book designers were explicit in choosing one of those ratios? Is there any other reference at all for a "golden section canon"? I can't find any. This idea may be unique to Tschichold. One book I found about it expresses considerable scepticism about his methods and conclusions, and suggest many more ratios than the three you mention: [1] Dicklyon 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cum grano salis is always a possibility. Tschichold studied this subject quite extensively and is consoidered an authority on the matter. I am not certain if the data he collected was ever published. And yes, there are many other ratios used in book design, but the vast majority of books from that period, according to Tschichold, are of these ratios. 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Tschichold is one of the most influential typographers and a highly respected authority in book design. See Jan Tschichold. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and his books command a high price on the used market! Just found this page that suggests that the golden section canon is something he invented, not discovered: [2] Dicklyon 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

... and I am lucky enough to have a copy, which I cherish... You may have misinterpreted the text in that article. Tschichold was working for Penguin books, and he redesiged the book sizes and layout to use the golden ratio during his tenure as Design Director for Penguin. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but before he could apply it he had to invent it. I'm still waiting for you to quote if he found it in old books, or exactly what his inference process was, and why he labeled the ratio as golden ratio; is there evidence that some books were explicitly designed that way? From your article, I can't tell. Dicklyon 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

According to his book he did not invented it. He says that "There was a time when deviations from the truly beautiful page proportions of 2:3, 1: root of 3 and the Golden Section were rare. Many books produced between 1550 to 1770 show these proportions exacly, to within half a millimetre." and I have added that to the article. In pages 37 to 39 he writes quite a bit about the "Golden Section" (yes, capitalized), and defines it as 1:1.618. He goes into saying that there are other proportions such as 5:8 that are approximations of it, and that there are other ratios used in books, such as 2:3, 1:732 (1 : root of 3) and 1.141 (1 : root of 2). He also derives beautiful page sizes by deriving a page size from a pentagon that generates a ratio of 1:1538). He discusses at legnth these irrational page proportions and asserts that these are all "clear, definte and intentional". Hope this clarifies it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not clear at all. See my question above. Dicklyon 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you may be the one not clear. I replied to what I understood you asked. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

There are three articles about canons and we can create a few more. I would say that it is better not to merge them, but to keep them separately. I am moving the material about the Gutemberg canon to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But each one is essentially content-free and unintelligible in isolation. Together, we can compare them. Dicklyon 03:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted myself, because I have another concern about your edit: it violates WP:NOR that reads: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements, that serves to advance a position.". If there is a reliable source that describes your analysis (that is correct, BTW) of these canons, we could keep it, otherwise, you know the drill: it will be mercilessly deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to this edit: "For a page height:width ratio of R, the margin proportions (inside:top:outside:bottom) are 1:R:2:2R." That is OR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you bullshittin' me? An observation on your construction, which had been pointed out only on the one page where the integers were small enough to excite you, generalized to the other ones that look just like it, is original research? Where can I publish this stuff? Journal of numerology? Dicklyon 03:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Dicklyon. You are losing me. I do not get excited by integers, and my constructions are not mine. These are Tschichold's as per the references provided. I am citing sources, and not engaging in OR. But you have with your last edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a good summary of Tschichold's book here: http://learning.north.londonmet.ac.uk/epoc/tschichd.htm . You may want to read that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Dicklyon 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am taking a back seat for a few days in editing these articles. Will come back in a week or so. If you have any specific questions or concerns, please drop me a line on my tak page. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And I do not mean that we cannot merge. We could. But will need to thread carefully and not engage in OR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome Tschichold discovery

OK, I read it, and found this awesome observation:

• "The geometrically definable irrational page proportions like I:I.6I8 (Golden Section), I: root 2, I: root 3, I: root 5, I:I.538 (figure I), and the simple rational proportions of 1: 2, 2: 3, 5:8 and 5:9 I call clear, intentional and definite. All others are unclear and accidental ratios. The difference between a clear and an unclear ratio, though frequently slight, is noticeable. ... Many books show none of the clear proportions, but accidental ones."

'nuf said. Dicklyon 04:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'Nuf said what? Some books have certain ratios and some not. Yeah? No one is disputing that. This article only describes a specific page format, that is based on the golden section, which he includes into a group of "clear, intentional and definite" page dimensions. Left brain, right brain again? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Left brain doesn't buy into such hallucinations. By the way, I don't where he says the page ratio for the golden canon is the golden ratio. On the contrary, he says it's 2:3 here: "After much toilsome work I finally succeeded, in 1953, in reconstructing the Golden Canon of book page construction as it was used during late Gothic times by the finest of scribes. It may be seen in figure 5. The canon in figure 4 I abstracted from manuscripts that are older yet. While beautiful, it would hardly be useful today. In figure 5 the height of the type area equals the width of the page: using a page proportion of 2:3, a condition for this canon..." So I think the article will have to be deleted for lack of support. Dicklyon 05:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What a statement! "Left brain doesn't buy into such hallucinations". Yeah right, and it does not buy into art or beauty either. You are welcome to place the article in AfD, but I can assure you it will fail: "After much toilsome work I finally succeeded, in 1953, in reconstructing the Golden Canon of book page construction as it was used during late Gothic times by the finest of scribes." and ""The geometrically definable irrational page proportions like I:I.6I8 (Golden Section)". There are another dozen mentions of the Golden section in Tshcihold's book as it pertains to page proportion. Go ahead and place on AfD, and good luck. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just ribbing you, J. I'd rather get to the truth about exactly what he meant by the "Golden Canon", because I don't see where he said it was based on golden ratio page dimensions. And exactly why he sorts all page ratios into the one he likes and the ones he doesn't like, based on numerology. It's pretty bizarre to me both what he says, and what you've inferred from what he says. Lots of apparent hallucinations need explanation. But I don't have the book, so I'm constrained by the tidbits you're telling me and what's in that summary page. Dicklyon 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

He uses "Golden canon" only once in the whole book, probably referring to the meaning as it pertains to the body of rules or principles for page proportions. All other times, he refers to "Golden Section". My recent addition of a reference, is from another authority in book design, Richard Hendel. That book, BTW, was laid out in the exact golden ratio using the canon featured in the article to derive the margin sizes, and it is a beauty to hold in your hands. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Beauty is good. But attributing it to an exact irrational page proportion is irrational.

I think you need to rewrite the Golden Canon article, since the assertion that it corresponds to golden ratio page proportions is not supported by the references. Dicklyon 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Hendel mention golden ratio anywhere other than p.131 [3]? Or mention golden canon at all? Or anything relevant to this article other than the construction of ninths?Dicklyon 18:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In page 34 as per the cite.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the current text makes such assertion of fact. It is only describing the opinions of these authorities in book design. The article refers to the findings by two experts in the field of book design that found "that since Gutenberg's time [or produced between 1550 and 1770], books have been most often printed in an upright position, that comform losely, if not precisely, to the Golden section". That is all. An observation made by experts, described as such. This is not a mathematical article, it is an article related to design and we are citing from reliable and verifiable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When you have a declarative statement with a reference, the implication is that the editors accept is as likely true, based on the reference. On the other extreme, if you want to talk about some guy's nutty unique theory, withtout saying it's nutty, you have to say the guy has a theory, not present it as if editors of the wikipedia generally accept it. So far, it is still very confusing to try to figure out what this article is saying, especially in the opening line. The "according to" is in there, little late, but there's no opening sentence to define what the topic of the article is. Seems like this theory should be a subtopic in an article on page proportion and layout or something like that. It would be nice to be able to have an opening that is not a nutty theory. Dicklyon 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

<<<< I understand that your call the golden ratio, and its application to aesthetics "a nutty theory". But that is just your opinion. Right or wrong, the golden ratio has been applied in a variety of human endeavors, including book design. That's is all. I am concerned that you may be reading too much into it, when actually is not such a big deal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And a talk page is a good place to be honest about our opinions, is it not? Anyway, your new intro about Rosarivo is a great improvement. Dicklyon 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing like some good POV friction to improve an article.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And that's as close as you've come to admitting you have a POV. Dicklyon 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sure ... the POV that describing what reputable sources say about the subject is all we need to do, rather than pass value judgements as as "nutty theories" and "he hypothesizes that", and other editorial artifacts that you tend to use when an edit contradicts your POV :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me??? I correct "discovered" to "hypothesized", a much more NEUTRAL POV on what he did, and you assert that's a value judgement??? I'll keep my value judgements to the talk page if you will. Dicklyon 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse you for what? You are happy to say "hypothesized" on Rosarivo's research, and at the same time "assert" Livio's. Look, the three people whose references we are using in the article have checked many books=, manuscriptsm and other printed works. Let's leave it at that. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, can't leave it at that. I've been told I have a rather sensitive bullshit detector, and it's going off real loud when I read this stuff. First off, recall what Feynman explained, that you can't test a hypothesis using the same data that you used to form the hypothesis (I can't find that one right now, but this one on cargo-cult science is close enough: [4]). Secondly, these guys have serious admitted preconceptions. I already quoted Mr. T where he like to disregard as "accidental" all ratios that don't fit his numerology. And Mr. R. summary says (rough translation): "In 1939 Rosarivo had the suspicion that existed a geometric value that would be contained in old forms of the Renaissance. The philosophy is the point that Rosarivo used as his basis to construct his theory." How can you say he "discovered" something without implicitly saying that the thing existed to be discovered? Much better to keep it neutral, and say he hypothesized it. If someone later confirmed the hypothesis by looking at real data, that would be good to state, too. Dicklyon 00:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a scientific article. It is an article about the applicaton of phi to book design. As said before, you are reading too much into this and your bullshit detector is misfiring. Keep it at bay, if you could. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does one draw the line on scientific? These historians claim to have inferred mathematical/historical relationships from data. Should we not be skeptical and insist their claims be verified before we report them as if accepted? Dicklyon 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You can be skeptical, of course. But do not let that skepticism pour into the article. Research the subject, find sources that describe a simlar skepticism as yours, and the results will be a better article for our readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<<<<Also, your opinion that these people "have serious admitted preconceptions", is of no consequence to this article. Unless you are a notable expert in this subject and you have published your research in a reputable publication, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I say anything about that in the article? I'm trying to use the talk page to explain the edits that are needed to keep the POV neutral, that is, not accepting their hypotheses as fact. Furthermore, the notion of preconception is more than opinion; it is my hypothesis, supported by reference to where I think they "admitted" it. Rebut it if you like; I've put my evidence in front of you so you can decide if it's compelling. I'm not asking you to accept or agree, but to acknowledge it as a plausible hypothesis unless you have a serious rebuttal. Dicklyon 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I am not interested in refuting your hypotheses. These pages are to discuss the article, not our views on the subject. This page is not a discussion forum. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't refute, I will still have it in mind. I can not avoid bringing my skepticism to the article, nor should I. You have a particular narrow view of how an article should be constructed, and perhaps I have a different one, but yours is in serious need of check, so mine should be welcomed. I'll be less chatty about what's behind me edits if you prefer. Dicklyon 02:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you re-read WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:CITE. The first two are official policies, and the third is a guideline. I think that it may help having the common ground that these afford. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with those, although I have trouble sometimes understanding the broad deviation between policy and reality, which is partly due to the inherent difficulty of deciding what is original research when one tries to gather and summarize information that's out there. If something I've said in the article looks like original research to you, please be very explicit in pointing it out, because I'm having a hard time getting your point. For example, I had changed "discovered" to "hypothesized" because it seemed odd to reify the nutty concept that way; sounded like 'your OR to say that. Later, I found that your whole sentence was lifted from a referenced doc, but without quotation marks. So it was really someone else's assertion of discovery, not yours, but that was unclear from how it was cited. If you want discover or explain in there, WP:CITE it explicitly as such. Dicklyon 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quoted bit I referred to, which sorry I remembered slightly out of sequence relative to the discovered or described I was referring to:

• "This method's origin is not known, but it was rediscovered by van de Graaf, and used by Tschichold, and other contemporary designers."

This comes from the Grid ref, p.71, but they used "obscure" instead of "unknown", and a few other word changes. The "rediscovered" concept was that author's, but it was written as if yours, which is why I had to rewrite it. It is obviously not objective, but is a hypothesis that the method existed before. That's an OK hypotheis to describe, but not to reify. Dicklyon 03:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Livio or others have debunked the use of the golden ratio in books such as Gutenberg's bible, that will be a different story as we could include that viewpoint as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find... Dicklyon 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Book designers"

Rosarivo was not a book designer, neither Man was one (he is an historian). Tshichold was a typographer. Changed the text accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Typos etc.

Jossi, thanks for fixing pi and a few other things. Check the spelling of your Gutemberg and armonic. They look funny to me, but I'm not sure if my preconception of the right corrections are what you had in mind. Dicklyon 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not always easy to translate Español into Inglés, even in the former is my mother's tongue. It is now any better? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The rectangle depicting the text area, on the second figure in per Tschichold's book is 5.2 mm x 3.2 mm, that is a a ratio of 1.625. Please do not add your inferences/conclusions/observations etc. to this article, as it violates WP:NOR. This is not the first time I am alerting you about this. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not, and almost certainly not the last, either, since you seem to think that removing inconsistencies is original research. The 1.625 text area ratio is perfectly plausible, just not consistent with the page and margin proportions and the given construction. Does he tell you which part of this should be considered as approximate? I can do the "original research" and give you the exact values if you'd like to know the truth behind this mathematics, even if that much truth is too original for the article. Dicklyon 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This article does not discuss "the truth behind this mathematics", Dicklyon. This article is reporting what Tschichold, Rosarivo and other say about this subject. Below is the verbatim caption below that figure: "Framework of ideal proportions in a medieval manuscript without multiple columns. Determined by Jan Tschichold 1953. Page proportion 2:3. margin proportion 1:1:2:3, Text area proportioned in the Golden Section. The lower outer corner of the text area is fixed by a diagonal as well." For the nth time, please refrain from adding your own commentary, ideas, rebutals, hypotheses, or conclusions to this article. 19:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, I will be happy to hear what you have to say about the math involved. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a little plotting and algebra in matlab. Starting with whatever page proportion you want, you can do the construction and read out the other proportions. You can then adjust the margin proportions and see how the text area proportion changes. Maybe I'll get a Field Prize for this... Dicklyon 19:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in a simpler statement of the fact that his numbers of not self-consistent, and hence approximate. Going to 1.625 instead of phi makes it worse, by the way, since the ratio that is consistent with the page and margin proportions is 1.5882. I think it would be remiss to cite authoritative historical stuff without commenting on the obvious inconsistencies in it, in case someone is trying to learn, understand, and apply the ideas. Dicklyon 19:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Get yourself published on that, and then we can cite it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reverted my edits to this article 4 times already in the last 24 hours. Consider yourself on notice. Dicklyon 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, sir. I added sourced material to this article and you continue to add original research, opinions, etc. Do yourself a favor, and stop disrupting the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep adding original research to this article. I am asking other editors to comment on your behavior, as you are obviously more interested in WP:POINT than contributing to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to illustrate any point, just wanting to prevent you stating things as factoids when they are wrong. Just because truth is not the ultimate arbiter here, doesn't mean that we should tolerate a reckless disregard for the truth. Dicklyon 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dicklyon, if you want to add that "it is now easy to verify that his numbers are self-contradictory," and someone challenges it, you'll need to produce a reliable source. As it stands, it looks as though you're adding your own opinion.

It's also best not to put people's names in headers in case it looks like a personal attack. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not stating factoids, I am reporting what reliable sources say about a subject. Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Verifiability, not truth". If you have a problem with that you can stop editing Wikipedia. There are other wikis out there that do not have such policies, you may be better off editing there if you cannot abide by WP's content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem unable to appreciate either the notion of reporting or the notion of reliable. If a source is provable wrong, it is not reliable. It can still be reported, but reporting it needs to be as a "he said", not restatement as if fact followed by a source. The distinction is crucial. I see you enlisted help in your reverting campaign. Dicklyon 22:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not in a "reverting campaign", Dicklyon. As I said I would do, I asked a fellow editor that is not involved in this article, to look into our dispute. That is the first step in our dispute resolution process (See WP:DR: ask for help from non-involved editors. As for your assertion of what a reliable source means, I invite you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as you may not be fully acquainted about what that means in the context of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

"When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link. See WP:CITE for more details."

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. Dicklyon 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is exactly what I have done: citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, perhaps it's because English is not your mother tongue, so I will be patient with you, but the suggestion is to quote it, and the cite the source of the quote. Otherwise, you're reporting the person's opinion as a factoid. I fixed it.Dicklyon 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT again? Adding your own opinions again? Why? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a direct quote of what he hypothesized, if I am to believe what you're telling me. Do the ellipses where he refers to himself bother you? Dicklyon 00:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored the full quote that you deleted, and removed your opinion about Tschichold. Let the user make any and all judgements about Tschichold, his assertions, his works and opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving along

<<<<Good. Let's move on, then, shall we? There are many article that need our attention. In our next round of collaboration (if that ever happens), let's remember this exchange and learn from it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're just started on this one. I think there's an interesting body of work around this notion of a canon of page proportion, and there are a couple of stubs that need to be merged in and expanded. There's a lot more to be said, I think, now that we've converged, or partly converged, on how to say it. Dicklyon 02:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move (and merge)

Mr. T calls it the Golden Canon of book page construction, even when the page ratios are 2:3 or other convergents of phi. I think that would be a better name for the article, since the current title over-emphasizes the golden section to the detriment of a full understanding of the range of Mr. T's and others' contributions to the page design canon based on convergents such 3:2 (1.5), 8:5 (1.6), and 13:8 (1.625), as well as the cited 34:21, sqrt(3), and the implied 1.5882. What say, Jossi? Dicklyon 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. T calls is "The page proportion of the Golden Section" (page 51). I would not object to moving the article to Page proportion of the Golden Section. As it pertains to merging all articles about page proportions, I am not sure at this point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the web page you pointed me at[5] with stuff that he had written in retrospect, which may be a bit more general than what he first called it, or may be a different translation: ""After much toilsome work I finally succeeded, in 1953, in reconstructing the Golden Canon of book page construction as it was used during late Gothic times by the finest of scribes. It may be seen in figure 5. The canon in figure 4 I abstracted from manuscripts that are older yet. While beautiful, it would hardly be useful today. In figure 5 the height of the type area equals the width of the page: using a page proportion of 2:3, a condition for this canon..." Is this the same as the page proportion of the golden section, or something different? Dicklyon 03:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That page is abstracted from his book. As far as I can gather, he uses "golden section" when referring to phi, and "golden canon" when referring to its application to page proportions. So we could rename the article Golden canon of page construction, but that may be too specific to Tschichold. Let me check what Rosarivo called it, as it seems that both Tschichold and Hendel, studied him. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rosarivo called it "Divina Proporcion Tipográfica Ternaria", that means "The Trinity of the Typographical Divine Proportion", that is most unsuitable for a title. Therefore, I am moving the article as per your suggestion to Golden canon of page construction ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gutenberg numbers

What do these numbers mean: 0.168.... (a ratio of 5.8). Is this supposed to be 5:8, 1.60? Or something else? Where are his actually page size or text size numbers that you had mentioned before, Jossi? Dicklyon 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please address this question. Are those numbers due to dyslexia, or are they the intended values? If as intended, what do they mean or relate to? Dicklyon 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what Man writes. See the ref note 3. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think maybe they are typos for 0.618 and 5:8? Or have you just no idea what they are and thought you'd copy them as if they meant something? Well, now, checking the ref, which says "a ratio of about 5.8 (footnote: The ratio is 0.168.... ad inf commonly rounded to 0.625)", I see that 0.618 and 5:8 are indeed the correct interpretation. You want to fix that, or should I? Dicklyon 05:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the page dimensions (30.7 x 44.5)? Have you copied those numbers correctly. Their ratio doesn't seem to fit the text. Or is that the spread dimensions? What does half/folio mean in that context? Dicklyon 06:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will re-check these tomorrow, when I havfe some time. Folio? Read Bookbinding ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, looks like folio means it's a spread size, and probably half is the alternative to quarto, etc. So the page is 30.7 x 22.25, ratio 1.380. That's even worse than the original ratio 1.450. It's very hard to see what the reference in trying to say relative to golden ratio. Please do check the numbers. Dicklyon 06:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edits

I am not happy with the mix and match. This article is not about Gutemberg's canon, or Tschcichold canon. It is about the the application of the golden ratio to page proportions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Alsom van de Graaf did not specifically addressed his canon to Gutenberg's or specifically to the golden canon as far as I know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good, then you can help correct it. I'm trying to merge the content from those other pages that have very little there, so that we can say what the relationships are between the various canon's and figures. I put in what I thought was approximately right, but I figured I'd need your help since you have the original refs. I've ordered a couple of books myself, but they'll take a week or so.

I can't see any reason to keep those others as separate articles, given the small amount of information we have. Let's try to make one good article, and rename again if that's more appropriate. Dicklyon 02:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with the reasoning for such a merge. Stubs are good devices as it invites editors to add content. See WP:STUB. I would argue for these to remain as stubs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's that much out there to add about these canons in isolation. Having an article with them together, with some beginning at describing their interrelationships, also invites help, and help is easier to incorporate given such context. Some how I doubt there will be much help, though, unless you get the bushes for more book design experts. And of course, it's easy enough to split out articles if the content of this one gets to be too broad to make a decent chunk of content, which I doubt will happen. I'll make another proposed merged version, with better integration. Help me improve it and let's see where it gets us. Dicklyon 03:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you are now an expert on book design by saying that there is not much out there? And you continue o make changes with out seeking consensus? That is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure I seek consensus. You are the only one who holds out. Dicklyon 04:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, You are doing as you please, without reaching an agreement. I must say that your editing behavior is most disruptive. I have provided most of not all sources and created most if not all the diagrams, while you just add your own POV and disrupt the editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I may ask other non-involved editors to give you some feedback about your behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be useful, especially if they are interested in seeing progress in article constuction, as I am. Dicklyon 04:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly have you added to any of these articles? Absoultely nothing. If you are so interested in article construction, please help by doing some research and adding content, not by asserting your likes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if you review the talk history here and other places that we have interacted, you'll find that I have managed to extra a lot of details from you, fix a lot of your mistakes, find other details and references in books, and check your numbers and statements for consistency. Some of what I found you wouldn't let me put it, saying that it was "original research" even though it was just checking the consistency of the things you stated as if true. If you don't appreciate having your articles under such scrutiny, and think I'm somehow malicious, maybe you need to review a few of the other hundreds of articles that I've made contributions to, at very many different levels. You asked me to assume good faith, and I ask you the same. You also said you were going to invite some other editors to have a look; I can't do that, as I'm not an admin with lots of wiki contacts, so I agreed to listen to anyone you care to find. So find some people to help, and maybe a consensus can emerge. Dicklyon 06:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very happy with your corrections. These are most welcome, but your unilateral actions to change and merge articles at a whim, is not acceptable and assuming good faith requires that you play by the rules. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take whatever tidbit of gratitude I can get. Let me know if you have a better process, or rules, for dealing with an incorrigible who wants to own the structure of a set of articles.

Furthermore, if you look at the article Canons of page construction, you'll find a layout, a lead, some figure captions, text with some relationships drawn and some duplication removed, that synthesizes your three stubs into a pretty good start on an actual article. You are of course invited to help improve it; let me know if I misunderstood anything from your stubs and the books I was able to find, etc. This is not a negligible piece of work. I consider to be a contribution worthy at least of serious consideration, not just repeated peremptory removal as you have done enough times to catch yourself in a 3RR violation again. Dicklyon 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is negligible in that it adds no value beyond having all the diagrams in one place. I have already told you that stubs are ot bad, on the contrary. I have re-ordered the material there and added {{Details}} templates to the different sections, so that I can continue expanding these articles. I have also re-ordered the text in a more appropiate manner, as you were mixing and matching text based on maybe a lack understanding of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit to having trouble understanding the subject from what I've been able to pull together so far, and my attempt as a synthesis certainly benefits from your help based on your knowledge of the field. Dicklyon 07:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rosarivo first?

Jossi, what exactly did Rosarivo do first, and what is the source for it? I've been reading a recent paper called "The Octavo Package" [6] (I can't vouch for the source) that says "Rosarivo confirmed this determination." The chronology is not clear, in terms of who did what when. Do you have more info? Dicklyon 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)