Talk:Golden canon of page construction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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:  Dicklyon 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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:  Dicklyon 19:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, not clear at all.  See my question above. Dicklyon 20:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: What is it?

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Book designers" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: <<<<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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moving along

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I was referring to the web page you pointed me at 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed move (and merge)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is what Man writes. See the ref note 3. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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"  (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)
thread_title: Rosarivo first?