User:Tomruen/archive11

References

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). See Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Citation Style 1 and wp:Inline citations. Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Regards— ~ THE INFINITE SPACE X 23:10, 02 December 2016 (UTC)

Categorization of image sets

commons:User_talk:Tomruen#Categorization_of_image_sets

Hi Tomruen. I wrote you a message on Commons. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 01:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Seen you created article on "Spherinder". Need help creating page about "Cubinder".

Hello fellow Wikipedian. I am in the process of creating an article about the 4D shape, the “cubinder”. It was previously red linked on other articles (including the one you created) and I was surprised to see it was not already an item listed for creation by Wiki Projects Mathematics, as the duocylinder and spheriender are already articles. I require help to improve the draft, as I require more formulae, sources, and additional information to create this article. You can access this page at User:Darnburn98/Cubinder, please come on over and help improve this article to get into the main space! Darnburn98 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Geodesic spheres

Since we seem to have overlapping interests here... how do you feel about the idea of creating a page about geodesic spheres as a companion to Goldberg polyhedron? Currently geodesic sphere redirects to geodesic dome. This would let us put all the purely geometric content in the new page; geodesic dome would just be about buildings based on geodesic spheres, and geodesic grid would just be about using geodesic spheres to model the earth.

(Side note: Is there a better name for these things? Geodesic spheres aren't spheres and are only sort of geodesic. Fuller polyhedra? Buckyhedra? We can't just make up a name, it would have to be attested in the literature... I'm not sure "geodesic spheres" is attested for this either though?)

-Apocheir (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I agree geodesic spheres isn't quite right. I'll look in some of my books for help. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Pugh, Polyhedra: a visuala approach, 1976, [1], calls them "geodesic polyhedra, but also says that is a misnomer, as edges are chords to the geodesic lines. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. It's not much of an improvement, and "geodesic sphere" still has a lot more google juice than "geodesic polyhedron"... I'm going to put a note on Talk:Geodesic dome and see what other people think. -Apocheir (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Phase of the moon calculator

Hi Tom, I'm looking for someone who knows about programming, astronomy and Wikipedia.

I'm playing with a function to calculate the phase of the moon on a given date, and to display the result within a Wikipedia page (perhaps using a calculated crop of your https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Moon_phase_calendar_May2005.jpg image set :-)

My first stab was to note the date of a known new moon, then use the {{Age in days}} template to tell me how many days there were between that date and my given date. I divided that number of days by 29.530588853 to give me the number of lunar cycles, discarded the integer part to find how far I am through the current, incomplete, cycle. A fractional part of 0.25 would be first quarter, 0.50 would be full moon etc.

Does it work? Not really. My first check skewered a new moon over a 20-year gap dead centre, but within a given year, the variation between my calculation and the official moon phase can be more a full day out (sometimes before and sometimes after). I'm digging further into this now, but is this what you would expect, say, from the elliptical orbit of the moon? Scarabocchio (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the moon is periodic, but averages are not good enough, even for the nearest day as you found, because it is an elliptical orbit. I used this book and recommend it Astronomical Formulae for Calculators by Jean Meeus Tom Ruen (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I was hoping that the ~~ellipticity~~ eccentricity would be small enough not to affect the day chosen. The formulae I can see look far too computation-intensive, no doubt to provide a degree of precision way beyond my needs. Ah, well, I think I will have to give this a miss ... or prime a table with the full and new moon dates for the next 20 years ... hmmmm. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you like me to generate a table? Tom Ruen (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

that would be great!! (I have a tendency not to let things lie once I start them, and I can feel this one niggling at me already :-) Could you give me the dates and times so I can tweak for time zones (somehow)? Thanks! Scarabocchio (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Quarter phases, 2017-2037? UTC? Tom Ruen (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

why not? It's always better to have too much than too little .. Scarabocchio (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a table here: User talk:Tomruen/test, 2000-2100. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've taken a copy, and I'll ping you when I have something working. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons: Subdivided triangles

All of the files in Category:Subdivision_triangles;_transparent on Commons were created using the Python script that's linked in the file descriptions. Don't edit them one by one, because it makes the edited files inconsistent with the ones that are unedited. Instead, let me know what changes you want to make and I'll modify the script (or send me a pull request on Github). Unless you want to modify 272 SVG files by hand... :) -Apocheir (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't see a problem with editing a few by hand, but if you'd like to try similar dashed line markups where vertices align with the triangle edges, helping to show these as composite operators. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I see these images are also used at [2]. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that wikibook, so I'm aware :)

You may have noticed that I've started creating templates:

Keeping it to 8 elements seems good... the images are large enough that I make out the detail, it fits in the window on my laptop, and it's a representative set. In particular, it shows the repeated application of the 'c' operator from (1,0) -> (2,0) -> (4, 0) -> (8, 0). More than eight and the polyhedra start to all look the same. I also moved the symbols and Conway operators into their own table (at least for Class I, whichever of us gets to it first can do Class II and III), because they're kind of intimidating if you're not familiar with the notation. Not everyone who wants to look at Goldberg and geodesic polyhedra will have an interest in Conway operators.

I think I've settled on something like this for the format of subdivided triangles: File:Subdivided_triangle_08_08.svg. When it's scaled to 100px (as in the templates) the lines are visible but not obtrusive. Once I finalize it and get ahold of someone who can mass update files on Commons I'll update everything.

-Apocheir (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it all looks good, and glad if you add the dashed lines to all the diagrams. They could be on (2n,0) cases also but overlap with existing lines. I agree the COnway notation shouldn't be central, but it just got in there for construction reasons. It would be great if polyhedronisme could be extended so u3,2 would generate general geodesic polyhedra directly! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

List_of_geodesic_polyhedra_and_Goldberg_polyhedra

Can you add the Conway notation to List_of_geodesic_polyhedra_and_Goldberg_polyhedra? Between the ones in the history for Goldberg polyhedron and the ones currently on Conway_polyhedron_notation#Geodesic_polyhedra, you should already have most of them. I'd do it myself but I'm not super familiar with the Conway operators so I'm worried I'm going to screw it up. -Apocheir (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, sometime. I thought about it before, but also didn't want to make mistakes! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A general approach to operations

Dear Tom,

we just submitted an article that might interest you -- on one hand as it is about Goldberg operations (that are in fact by Caspar+Klug) and the relation to local operations like truncation -- on the other as it describes a general approach to such operations. You will soon find the article on Arxiv (just being processed). The title is

Goldberg, Fuller, Caspar, Klug and Coxeter and a general approach to local symmetry-preserving operations

One of the things it is also useful for, is a data structure making implementation of all operations very easy. I don't know how you produce the drawings, but it might interest you. The software CaGe (http://caagt.ugent.be/CaGe/) can e.g. be used to generate structures and then using the prefilter decorate them or apply operations to them. The decoration program is not part of the software and I just wrote a hack, but if it is useful, just mail.

A phd student wrote a program generating all (non-chiral) operations with a given inflation factor.

Best wishes,

Gunnar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.72.136 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It sounds very interesting. I'll look forward to seeing the paper. And I never made a general algorithm for producing any arbitrary m,n Goldberg polyhedral models. Conway polyhedron notation can do many. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I see it's here now. [3] Tom Ruen (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

IMDb

I noticed that you recently used IMDB as a source for information in a biography article. Please note that per long-standing consensus, IMDb does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. You can read more about the reasons for this here, here and here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I figure if it was good enough to link at the bottom of the article, it was good enough to include as a reference. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it can be used an external link, but not as a source (the links I provided above explain why). Restoring contentious and disputed content to a BLP is a really really bad idea, especially when you're edit warring to do it. The date of birth cannot be included in the article unless and until it is supported by multiple sources meeting our criteria for fact checking and accuracy. I'm surprised that such a well-respected editor with nearly 100k edits would be unaware of one of our most basic policies.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And this edit is just WP:POINTY. As explained in the links I provided in my first message, IMDb is fine as an external link, but not as an inline citation for BLPs.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to edit-war. I was trying to avoid someone else doing exactly what I wanted to do. I twice attempted a solution while you have none, so you are left with reverting to infinity because you can't include what information not to include. I did my best. My only third option would be to include the birthday in an HTML comment, along with the external link that says it can't be used, like  . Tom Ruen (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Planet nine-etnos now.png

Hi Tom. Regarding File:Planet nine-etnos now.png, would you consider making the orbit lines a little fuller and more complete? While the fading isn't a bad thing, I think its just a little too strong in the current version. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 05:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I tried brightening (by gamma) the same image. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that does help a bit, thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:KaleidoTile (software)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:KaleidoTile (software), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

2013 GP136

According to their archive statistics its number was assigned earlier this month, which probably explains why you didn't spot it at first. Agmartin (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Dihedral angles

Table_of_polyhedron_dihedral_angles could use your expert knowledge on polyhedra especially the entries that have self-intersecting surfaces. Nothing is amiss but some of the angles are blank. -- 2600:1:929B:76A9:FDB0:C68A:1D2C:2188 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually all the uniform duals ought to be there, since they all have only one type of face (even though they may have different types of edges). You can get them all from Stella, but some of them (particularly the snub duals) do not AFAIK have nice closed forms. Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Proposed deletion of IC 1, IC 2, and IC 3

The articles IC 1 IC 2, and IC 3 have been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notices added to the articles should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loooke (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

commons:File:Lattice p5-type9.png

Dear Tom, I am looking at the graphic which is now in its 3rd version. In the previous 2 versions the chiral pairing looked better, i.e. was closer (although of course the colors now are better). My question is: Why did you move the top left tile (which now is green) down ? --Nomen4Omen (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I checked - both tile consistently. I think I moved one pentagon so the yellow and green pairs would be attached. The 2nd version could be made 4-color. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A few star polygons

Someone appears to have created a 34-gon article in the meantime (presumably because it is constructible); would you mind making the star polygon images like we currently have at 40-gon? Thank you in advance! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

... I see I only went to 32. I'll look for my scripts. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, User:Double sharp! I expanded the uploaded sets for all up to 50. I ought to update the table at Talk:Star polygon/Gallery, lazy, so I'll just add a note. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Saros cycles

Saros cycles repeat every 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours. The "8 hours" is crucial because it causes each eclipse to occur 1/3 of the way around the earth (to the west) from the previous one.

I've added the "8 hours" to a couple of the Saros templates.

Should somebody edit each of the Saros templates one by one, or is there a way to add this to all of them automatically? MathPerson (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lunar eclipse set 1930-1933

Template:Lunar eclipse set 1930-1933 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

47171 Lempo

Hi Tom, I think there is a misunderstanding: you moved 47171 Lempo to 47171 Lempo-Hiisi with the comment "Binary asteroid". This is not correct so I moved back the page. When in doubt about a minor planet's name, you may check the corresponding pages at MPC (official source) and JPL (typically lacks diacritics), or check the minor planet catalog at Wikipedia, here. Best, Rfassbind – talk 02:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

MPC and JPL page said "The primary was identified as a binary by S. D. Benecchi et al. through re-analysis of the HST data originally obtained by Trujillo and Brown. Lempo refers to the larger component of the central binary and Hiisi to the the smaller component." Tom Ruen (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a defining characteristic

Tom, I see that you have recently created Category:Objects observed by stellar occultation and added a number of planets and moons, among other objects, to the category. I think this may be an example of overcategorization because it is not a defining characteristic of any of these objects. To quote the guidelines, "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." Sources don't routinely say "Neptune, a planet in the Solar System that has been observed by stellar occultation", any more than they routinely say that it has been observed using adaptive optics. Stellar occultation is just one way of observing an astronomical body. I am going to remove it from the solar planet pages, and I suggest you consider doing the same for the other articles. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Since most of these are very small objects, stellar occultation is the best way to determine the diameter, or identify things like rings. It looks harmless to me to keep, and helpful to see where more detailed sourcing can be added. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Athlete - Shalane Flanagan - Duplicate info removal

Tom. I noticed your edits (1 2) to eliminate some of the duplicate content for the 2014 Boston Marathon place for Shalane Flanagan. I have a link here on the talk page. When you get a chance, thanks!Tbashaw (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. I just replied back on that talk page.Tbashaw (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

3-3 duoprism animation

Hey Tomruen,

I think the resizing of the 3-3 duoprism animation might be too small to see the details. What do you think? Thumbnail or separate image?

Thanks,

Philip Pugeau (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Construction of polygons

Hello Tom,

please see the following constructions of polygons 11-gon, enneadecagon and 257-gon. Would you be interested in these methods? Applications such as 22-gon, 23-gon or 41-gon ... and still others are possible. So long Petrus3743 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My personal interests don't include constructions of regular polygons (I'm content with trig functions), but I'm glad if you're doing work like that. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Tomruen.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tomruen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

{4, 3+}

You posted about this on Talk:Goldberg_polyhedron#Notation earlier this year. I came across a paper while I was writing Goldberg-Coxeter construction that you might be interested in. This paper defines the notation $\{4,3+\}_{a,b}$ for cube subdivision with quadrilateral elements. -Apocheir (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool. This paper? Goldberg-Coxeter Construction for 33- and 44-valent Plane Graphs Tom Ruen (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That too, but this one is the one that specifically uses

\{4,3+\}_{a,b}

: Wrapping the cube and other polyhedra -Apocheir (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's good. So they're using Wenninger's notation. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Triaprism

The article Triaprism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only source for calling these things "triaprisms" is a single word in an entry about something else in a now-defunct amateur web site on AOL, given in the external links. Everything else here is original research extrapolating for that. The single footnote is not a reliable source and the listed chapter of the Conway book neither covers this particular case in detail nor calls it the same thing. There is no support for this terminology in Google scholar nor in Google books, and nothing special about the Cartesian product of three things that could not be said for Cartesian products of other numbers of things.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Eppstein (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail "nguyenkim251991@gmail.com"

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. LÊ TIẾN TIẾP (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

LÊ TIẾN TIẾP

"nguyenkim251991@gmail.com"

nguyenkim251991@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by LÊ TIẾN TIẾP (talk • contribs) 04:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Tomruen.

AfC submissions
Random submission

~7 weeks

1,561 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)