Talk:Canons of page construction

GA Review
1. Prose is well written.

2. Cites reliable sources, but some paragraphs are unsourced. For example, much of the "Tschichold and the golden section" section is unsourced.

3. I don't believe that the topic is covered fully. Are there really only two main kinds of canons? How are modern books laid out?

4. It is neutral.

5. It is stable.

6. All images are suitable and properly tagged.

For now, I am putting this article on hold, because there just doesn't seem to be enough about other types of canons. Referencing also needs work. Of course, if one of the main contributors can explain further, I am open to changing my mind.--Danaman5 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will work on these issues. Thanks for the review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 3. I don't believe that the topic is covered fully. Are there really only two main kinds of canons? How are modern books laid out?
 * The canons survive until today. Book design covers additional toppics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. Cites reliable sources, but some paragraphs are unsourced. For example, much of the "Tschichold and the golden section" section is unsourced.
 * Source and page numbers added to these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of "Interpretation of Rosarivo" still needs to be sourced. You should also include Book design in the "see also" section, if it has important information.  The article just doesn't say how these canons relate to the present.  If they are still used today, you should say so somewhere.--Danaman5 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * * Thank you. I think I did that by citing Tschichold in the lead, but maybe that is not sufficient. I will see what I can dig out from other sources. I will also look into the unreferenced para on Rosarivo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * * Note that book design is prominently linked in the lead, so it needs not be added to the see also.
 * * Note that the nav template at bottom, already links to pertinent articles
 * * Also note that all sources are contemporary (the earliest is dated 1947), so I do not see that we need to explain that it is still used today. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) The fact that these canons are still used today is extremely important. You can't expect people to look at your sources and make assumptions. After all, even newly published sources can make statements about canons that were used in the past but not now. It needs to be stated in the article somewhere.--Danaman5 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Note that this subject is quite arcane, so it may be difficult to find sources about their current use and application. I will see what I can find. Thanks again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that I covered that aspect with the last round of edits. If not, pleas let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am now satisfied with the breadth of this article. Thanks for being so diligent in making my requested changes.--Danaman5 04:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible FA candidate?
It seems to meet the criteria to me. Note, though, I'm absolutely new to this FAC thing. I was gonna go ahead and nominate but since Jossi has done so much work on it and I have done none, I feel it would be out of my place. I wait to hear your feedback. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing that would help would be a better page image than the sadly misshapen Incunabulum.JPG. Maybe one of these from Commons?  Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1.538
The article mentions a "clear, intentional" ratio of "1:1.538". What is so special about a ratio of about 13:20? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, what's so special about any of the ratios? I believe it was I who added the Tschichold quote; my intention was to make it clear what bullshit he was going on about, saying that some books have these intentional ratios, and some don't.  This whole article is largely non-notable BS, in my opinion, though most of the pieces of it are well described and well sourced.  I created the article as an alternative to the many articles that Jossi was creating on the separate Canons, as a way to centralize the fight against the non-notable BS, mysticism, and mis-representation of sources that was developing around these.  I found and purchased copies of all the sources, and even had some translated, so I could debunk what he was going on about (this about 3 years ago).  I find it highly amusing that this article has made to GA status and passed review, given that there's not a single source to establish the notability of "canons of page construction" as a topic even.  Oh, well, it's better that some. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canons of page construction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927220442/http://www.villardman.net/bibliography/bibliog.1900-1949.html to http://www.villardman.net/bibliography/bibliog.1900-1949.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011052848/http://fabiancarreras.com.ar/rmr/ladivina.htm to http://fabiancarreras.com.ar/rmr/ladivina.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021184039/http://fabiancarreras.com.ar/rmr/ to http://fabiancarreras.com.ar/rmr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307093539/http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/277/27700106.pdf to http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/277/27700106.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100318053832/http://rosarivo.com.ar/ladivina.htm to http://rosarivo.com.ar/ladivina.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)