Mathematics and art: the Fraser spiral illusion (made of concentric circles) says something about visual perception, and is a forerunner of Op art.



2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 - 2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020 - 2021 -



With regard to the reference I reformatted in Turtle, my format used "access-date=11 January 2021" but what came out was "Retrieved January 11, 2021", which surprised me. Has there been some grand decision that all dates are to be formatted in a certain way? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. The tag "{{Use mdy dates|date = February 2018}}" at the top of Turtle may have something to do with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
You are right. I tested it by removing the tag and the date format I had inputted was followed in the final citation. I never knew before that those tags had any useful function, thinking that they just directed editors to conform to the specified date format. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Crossley-HollandEdit

You may be interested to know, a propos of very little, that I'm currently listening to Peter Crossley-Holland's symphony on Dutton Digital, which is what led me down the rabbit hole to his son. Pleasant music, if a bit shapeless...still, overall quite an attractive piece. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Very nice to see you here, and at KCH's page doing some good old-fashioned editing! I've been enjoying his Beowulf rather than Peter CH's music... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, now, I remember how to do some old-fashioned editing. :-) Looking forward to getting some more done in the near-term once my next couple of bouts of AWB are dealt with. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 20th birthday!Edit

... and a billion edits ...


Dear Chiswick Chap, I just wanted to tell you (also in case you may have got me wrong regarding my recent edits in your Tolkien articles) that I am highly impressed by your work done in this fascinating field – especially with regard to your profound and thorough sourcing with primary as well as secondary refereces. To my mind, your articles show a considerable degree of academic quality, which is especially important when dealing with fiction in a "real" encyclopedia … So please do keep it up, and have fun conveying the great magic of Middle-earth here! All the best--Hildeoc (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hildeoc, thank you, that is one of the nicest things I've ever been told here on Wikipedia, specially after a disagreement. It's admirable that you're big enough to see past such things. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad this has gone down well with you, my friend. Meneg suilaid--Hildeoc (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: I just added the final entry over here. Do you think you could turn that into a proper lemma (or maybe in combination with Olwë) at some point?--Hildeoc (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. An article would I think require more scholarly sources than now exist, but of course someone may devote a thesis to them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I guess you're right. There's always a risk of overloading Wikipedia with in-universe fiction content – it really is a balancing act indeed.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

PPS: Would you mind if I asked one more question – just to get that right: According to WP:R#PLA, redirect terms should be set in boldface. How come this is not the case for probably most of the Middle-earth-related redirect lemmas, as I've recently noticed? (Wouldn't that be a good thing in terms of better orientation and navigation particularly with respect to the intricacy of Tolkien's universe per se, and the concomitant terminological abundance?)--Hildeoc (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

There are far too many minor redirects to handle in that way. The first paragraph is the best place for alternative names and there's only room for one or two before the paragraph becomes hopelessly indigestible. The policy doesn't begin to require total coverage, and I'd certainly object strenuously if anybody tried to make it do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. Though, to be honest, I'm still afraid some readers may get a little "dizzy" from some of the redirects, in fact – cf. e.g. Straight Road; right now, I'm trying to add some makeshift info there, but I guess, in this case, a profound article would actually be better (this may be a solid base to start from), considering the abstractness of that concept.--Hildeoc (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. The navboxes are very clear and offer a simple overview of the project. The great majority of the bluelinks within the articles are to whole articles. I assume you know that hundreds of minor articles were deleted or merged last year; it was quite something to ensure the safety of the major ones in an AfD campaign, and quite a lot more work to provide suitable landing-spots for all the more significant redirects that resulted. The feeling that the thing had stabilised was a good one, and the very last thing I want is to start another round of hoo-hah. "The Straight Road" leads, er, straight to a very clear cosmological map clearly labelled with "The Straight Road" which ought to be enough to keep 99.9% of the human race happy on the matter really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep cool – there's no need to get grumpy … I was just giving my – good-willed – opinion for the sake of providing an optimum of navigability in a complex universe (both literally and figuratively). And no, as a matter of fact I was not aware of the deletions / mergers. But anyway, I'm not arguing for more "new" articles in general, but just for precise, clear linking (cf. the recent RfD on "Noldorin"). Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)