View source for Testwiki:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio (2nd nomination)

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|{{mfd top collapse|1='''[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio (2nd nomination)]]'''}}|}}<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
__NOINDEX__
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--
Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to nominate a miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/NAMESPACE:PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the discussion was  '''Marked as defunct'''  per [[WP:INACTIVEWP]]--[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 10:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
====[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio]]====
This project previously nominated back in August, and tagged as inactive. This project has only six members and no activity since. '''[[User:Jj98|JJ98]] <small>([[User talk:Jj98|Talk]])</small>''' 04:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as failed (or make into '''Task force''', but only '''''if''''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics]] want it). --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 04:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' – as a member, I had forgotten it existed.  Never was useful or active.  [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''-- per nom. --<span style="border: 1px solid gold;padding:1px; background-color:navy;">[[User:e2eamon|<span style="color:gold;">E♴</span>]][[User talk:e2eamon|<span style="color:gold;">(talk)</span>]]</span> 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' We do not delete inactive projects simply because they're inactive. There's a ton of discussion on the talk page and a lot of work on the project page. It was nominated for deletion and kept less than a year ago, so why on earth would you nominate it again? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 09:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per the extensive discussion on the talk page. For example: {{collapse top|title=Content|collapse=true}} I would be happy to build templates for the project including stub template(s) and a Project Banner. I'll build a couple drafts in my sandbox and check back. Someone needs to declare a free image to be the logo however. [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:I think a big <big>φ</big> would be nice. Or maybe a Vitruvian man, a nautilus, the parthenon, I dunno. There are many options to choose from.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC). I'm really thankful for the templates, I really suck making them.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:: I'm trying to think of a good backronym for <math>\varphi</math>OSS, like Phi and Open Source Series...nah. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 03:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::: Phi Over Spiral Shells? [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]])
:::: :-) [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Options'''
[[Image:Phi_lc.svg|thumb|left]] {{-}}
[[Image:Phi_with_golden_ratio_digits.PNG|thumb|left]] {{-}}
[[Image:Phi.svg|thumb|left]] {{-}}
[[Image:Golden_triangle_and_Fibonacci_spiral.svg|thumb|left]] 
* I like this one [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC){{-}}
[[Image:Construction_of_Golden_rectangle.svg|thumb|left]] {{-}}
Anything from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Golden_ratio this category]


The above seem to me to be the best choices (that exist already) What should we go with? [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
*I like the second, its simple easy to spot easy to relate to the topic etc. Then again I ignore what the criteria for choosing images fot a wikiproject is. If we'd want (maybe we want maybe we dont, I'm sorry if I'm being too ambiguos here) to go with something more elaborated, I'd like like a combination of something real with something geometrical. Maybe I could combine a real nautilus shell with the fibonacci spiral of the image #2.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 07:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC) But it is all up to you guys--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 07:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
: You mean image #3? I like the triangulation of the spiral; maybe side-by-side with a nautilus shell, and a caption like, "the shell is grown with chambers that fit increasing triangles in a golden ration" somesuch. I'm good with the sunflowers but slack on the seashells.[[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 12:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

'''Comment''' ''If'' there is going to be a project for articles related to the [[golden ratio]] — that is still an open question, as far as I am concerned — the most logical symbol would be some version of a lower case (''not'' upper case) [[phi (letter)|phi]]. <math> \varphi\, </math> is the version most often seen in the professional literature and is the one most used on Wikipedia. The capital phi (<math> \Phi \,</math>) is ''not'' generally used for the golden ratio in scholarly writing. The various "golden" geometric figures or constructions, including those suggested above, would not scale down well for use as a project symbol. [[User:Finell|Finell]] [[User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 13:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:'''Agree''' - it'd be like writing A²= B² + C², I guess it'd be somewhat ok, but it's not that common in books. --[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I have always used it this way: Φ=1/φ=1.618.. and φ=0.618.. Many people talk about phy and mean 1.618, enven the AutoCAD's calculator has the constant φ as 1.618 but I have always thought they are wrong, but I don't know howcome.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:: The golden ratio is the ratio of consecutive fibonacci numbers (in the limit); so phi has to be > 1, else fibonacci numbers would converge :-) It's the positive root of the characteristic polynomial x^2 = x + 1.  [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be an abstact φ emuling the fibonacci spiral. I also have a soft spot for something da vinci-like--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:I like [[Image:Golden triangle (math).svg]] because it defines the golden ratio visually in a very clear way. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 06:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

::I definitely don't find that clear, maybe it's just me. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Alanbly|Alanbly]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alanbly|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:::To Alanbly: Do you see that the three triangles in the picture are [[isosceles triangle]]s and that the smallest one is similar to the largest? [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

::::I only perceive the inner two as isosceles, the big one looks escalene to me. However, thank you , before your post I didn't even noticed the inner two were isosceles and therefore the figure didn't make sense to me. On its downside, as per finell's previous unrelated comment, I think the use of numbers and constant is wrong. What the image puts as φ, because it is 1.618 and not 0.618, should be Φ. Or what the image puts as φ, should be one and what the image puts as 1 should be φ--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 08:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 
::::Although I ignore if there is an aplying gudeline for this case, I think the image shuold be an evocative abstraction.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 08:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Does anyone has a Graphic Designer friend?--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 08:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::[[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] has the symbols and values correct according to the most widely used convention: <math> \varphi\ </math> (lower case phi) denotes the golden ratio, which is approximately 1.618...; <math> \Phi\ </math> (upper case Phi), or sometimes <math> \varphi\ ' </math>, denotes the reciprocal of the golden ratio, which is sometimes referred to as the golden ratio conjugate, and is approximately 0.618... This notation is explained in the [[Golden ratio]] article. (Last night, some well-meaning but misguided anon painstakingly reversed all the symbols in the [[Golden ratio]] article, but I reverted them back.) So, if something is designed with golden ratio proportions on a larger scale than a simple rectangle or triangle, you can have a progression such as 

<center> <math> ... : \Phi\ : 1 : \varphi\ : \varphi\ +1 : ... </math> </center>

:::::[[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]]'s triangles exhibit such a progression. So do regular geometric figures and pattens with 5-fold symmetry (e.g., pentagons, pentagrams, dodecahedra, Penrose tilings). Some see such a progression at several scales by superimposing golden rectangles of varying sizes over the [[Parthenon]]. Others point out that "finding" these golden proportions in the Parthenon depends on precisely where one chooses to superimpose the rectangles, that the large-scale elements of the Parthenon are not precisely orthogonal and the lines are not all straight, and that the findings are subject to the vagaries of measurement. The same arguments accompany other disputed retrospective sightings of the golden ratio in man-made works. Personally, I think that the case for the Parthenon is fairly strong, but others are more skeptical.

:::::Rather than attempting to "start from scratch" in your contributions to Wikipedia on the subject of the golden ratio, I urge you to study the [[Golden ratio]] article and its content forks ([[Golden ratio]] itself is the most heavily vetted of the family), and not to dismiss the extensive study and work that Wikipedians before you have done on this subject.

:::::Addressing the underlying question, while [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]]'s triangles are a good exemplification of the golden ratio, I do not think that his figure would look like much when scaled down to the small thumbnail size of a logotype for a project template. Again, rather than "starting from scratch", please look at the sort of symbols that are used in other templates. [[User:Finell|Finell]] [[User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::Agreed, I see what you're getting at now but it's just too complicated for a logo. And I've always though logos need lots of color. [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::Sorry I missled you too much when using the phrase "starting from scratch". What I ment back then was not to throw away the previous lists of references, but to start organizig them from scratch. That means from the original texts of the primary authors to the researchers of the researchers of the researchers. I know recomending reading a comic sounds weird, but read Alan Moore's "chasing gulls" epilogue in the "From Hell" compilation: there comes a point in which you stop studing the original object and distract too much you attention as a researcher to the "researching" of the all previous "researchers". I'm not stating that any researcher in the middle would be wrong, but just that investigations can get polluted.<br>Of course, as an encyclopedia, we're and must be all about secondary sources, that's more agreed, but the least we should to is stablish some order with our sources. From the oldest, to the newest, from the archaic to the currently recognized by academies; from the most reliable to the least proffetional... and so on. Then again, since I don't have neither the time nor the deep knowledge tools, I went with the practical thing: The books of the ground breaking authors in chronological order, then the million of contemporary academic/scientific researchers, then academic/scientific internet, then the rest of the iternet crap. I did my best and I mean well in terms of verifiability.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 03:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Dear Dude: I don't understand exactly what you are addressing. For example, it appears that you had Phi and phi reversed, and you reversed them in your comments about [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]]'s correct use of notation. That was clearly explained in [[Golden ratio]], so you had to ignore that article to reverse the notation. I am not confining my remark to sources. Regarding sources, I don't know what you mean by "from the archaic to the currently recognized by academies; from the most reliable to the least proffetional" [sic]. There are no extant archaic sources on the golden ratio. The "least proffetional" [sic] are, by definition, not [[WP:RS|reliable]] and therefore are not usable on Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia's sole criterion for sources is reliability, the more reliable the better, as understood today. [[User:Finell|Finell]] [[User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 05:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Yep, I have been wrong for over 5 years about it. As for ''I don't understand exactly what you are addressing'', me neither, don't take me too seriously, I divagate a lot. I sometimes consider the "least proffetional" [sic, haha :P], when they take you to good souces or "the most reliable". Now let's divagate some more: [[Tadao Ando]] was a truck driver and a boxer, to make the story short, I'll just say that you don't need a university title to get a [[Pritzker]]. That's the reach of the least profe'''ss'''ional.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 05:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The image of the three triangles is not ''my'' image; {{user|Jheald}} deserves credit for it. I merely picked from the images on the wiki-commons. I tried to pick the image which defined the golden ratio in the most immediately obvious way (to me). If someone can make or find a better one, I would applaud him. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Even if somebody does so, nobody can deny (not that somebody is trying to either) you have been really helpful to the cause.--[[User:20-dude|20-dude]] ([[User talk:20-dude|talk]]) 05:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

;; Project Banner and Stubs

I have made an assessment banner located [[User:Alanbly/WPGoldenRatio|here]] there are a couple examples of functionality transcluded to the talk page, tell me what you think. (I know the image isn't right yet, but I had to use something. [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 04:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
:There's also a stub tag [[User:Alanbly/WPGR-stub|here]]. I'll be back on tomorrow if there are any major issues. [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 04:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::Given the lack of opposition, I'm going to move these to project space and link to them from this page. [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Having reviewed the stub sorting policy page at [[WP:WSS/P]] I'm not sure of the need for a stub template. But the banner will stand for now. [[User:Alanbly|Adam McCormick]] ([[User talk:Alanbly|talk]]) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
Deleting this valuable discussion would not be beneficial to Wikipedia. I see no pressing reason to overturn the "mark inactive" result at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Golden ratio]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 08:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' per [[WP:INACTIVEWP]], talk page has useful material as illustrated above, the historical value says we should keep it. [[User:Monty845|<span style="color:green;">Monty</span>]][[User talk:Monty845|<small><sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845</sub></small>]] 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:INACTIVEWP]] and MFD guidelines. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;">···[[User:Nihonjoe|<span style="color:darkgreen;">日本穣</span>]]<sup>[[Help:Installing Japanese character sets|?]]</sup> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<span style="color:blue;">投稿</span>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<span style="color:maroon;">Join WikiProject Japan</span>]]!</small></span> 15:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion|{{collapse bottom}}|}}