User:JMF/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flush this page[edit]

Inappropriate category challenges[edit]

Category:Political terminology Category:Linguistic controversies

replaced category per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Category:Political correctness


span style="font-family[edit]

Main article: web-safe fonts
  • {{keypress}}: © © C
  • {{char}}: © cC © cC
  • Original char: © cC
  • {{code}}: © cC © cC is monospaced so a squeezed oval
  • {{samp}}: © the © the is also monospaced
    with font var: © the
  • {{para}}: |© the= |© the=
  • Unicode: U+00A9 © COPYRIGHT SIGN (©, ©)
  • © cC serif ⚕ : (span style serif)
  • © cC sans-serif ⚕ : (span style sans-serif)
  • Mono: U – U U
  • Arial: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Arial)
  • Times New Roman: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ (span style Times New Roman)
  • Garamond: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ (span style Garamond)
  • Courier New: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ (span style Courier New)
  • Noto: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Noto)
  • Verdana: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Verdana)
  • Trebuchet MS: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Trebuchet MS)
  • Georgia: Ç ç Ḉ ḉ Ḑ ḑ Ȩ ȩ Ḝ ḝ Ģ ģ Ḩ ḩ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ P Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ : (span style Georgia)


U+01D11E 𝄞 MUSICAL SYMBOL G CLEF

XT[edit]

x

auc[edit]

Why did I want to cite this?[edit]

Artistic canon?

Diffs[edit]

s:Institutes of the Laws of England wikisource

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&type=revision&diff=983827787&oldid=983690192 {{Diff|page|diff|oldid|label}}

with this diff, xyz

this diff

{{Copied |from=Circular reporting |from_oldid=1043025893 |to=Circular reference |date= 8 September 2021 |to_diff= 1043111084&|to_oldid=1031982704 }}

Parishes[edit]

parish.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Contact your Parish, Town or Community Council". Milton Keynes Council. Retrieved 10 October 2020.

Circumflex[edit]

Gramadeg y Gymraeg", by Peter Wynn Thomas, University of Wales Press, 1996 edition, Appendix IV, sections 18 and 37-41

Temp[edit]

birkhauser.ch HTTPS links HTTP links

UK Census (2001). "Local Area Report – Akeley (11UB003)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.

littlefish.co.uk HTTPS links HTTP links

yᷤ 𝔶ᷤ

Bringurst on typography[edit]

Bringhurst, Robert (2004). The elements of typographic style (third ed.). Seattle: Hartley & Marks. ISBN 978-0-88179-206-5. Denunciation of unspaced mdash is on page 80

See also[edit]

Look up anomalous in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Snowflake[edit]

  • U+2744 ❄ SNOWFLAKE and more.
  • U+2B65 ⭥ UP DOWN TRIANGLE-HEADED ARROW
  • U+2B0D ⬍ UP DOWN BLACK ARROW

Neoclassical facial canons of Farkas et al[edit]

sometime maybe

Type games[edit]

  • 𝕁𝕠𝕙𝕟 𝕄𝕒𝕪𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝔽𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕕𝕞𝕒𝕟
  • span style="font-family: monospace; font-size: larger" blah blah

Work in progress[edit]

Listed buildings etc[edit]

—

Climate[edit]

all done


Climate data for Woburn 1991–2020
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 7.4
(45.3) 		8.0
(46.4) 		10.6
(51.1) 		13.8
(56.8) 		17.0
(62.6) 		20.0
(68.0) 		22.4
(72.3) 		22.1
(71.8) 		19.0
(66.2) 		14.7
(58.5) 		10.3
(50.5) 		7.7
(45.9) 		14.4
(57.9)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) 1.6
(34.9) 		1.5
(34.7) 		2.7
(36.9) 		4.1
(39.4) 		6.8
(44.2) 		9.8
(49.6) 		11.9
(53.4) 		12.0
(53.6) 		9.8
(49.6) 		7.3
(45.1) 		4.1
(39.4) 		1.8
(35.2) 		6.1
(43.0)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 55.4
(2.18) 		44.6
(1.76) 		39.6
(1.56) 		48.3
(1.90) 		51.9
(2.04) 		54.2
(2.13) 		51.2
(2.02) 		58.6
(2.31) 		55.4
(2.18) 		70.7
(2.78) 		64.5
(2.54) 		58.2
(2.29) 		655.3
(25.80)
Mean monthly sunshine hours 53.0 72.3 114.9 152.2 191.5 185.7 198.4 185.3 141.6 104.5 62.0 48.3 1,509.4
Source: Met Office[1]

References

  1. ^ "Woburn 1981–2010 averages". Met Office. Retrieved 11 February 2024.

Dates[edit]

  • {{today}} 28 May 2024
  • {{extract}} 28 May 2024
    • 2460459 julian day number
    • julianday
    • 15 May 2024 Today's date in the Julian calendar

—

Test area[edit]

III. THE STYLE OF THE FUTURE

It will not have escaped your attention that in the past ten years a different endeavor has been manifesting itself in the visual arts. This new aspiration has been expressed in architecture, sculpture and painting. When you visit the city of Amsterdam, you will see the old archaistic stock exchange building on Dam Square replaced by another one on Damrak, very different in construction than the former one. If you visit the museums, you must be struck to find so much less interest in the halls of ancient art than in the daily exhibitions of modern art. If you look through the newspapers and periodicals, you will find various articles about the Visual Arts and upon closer acquaintance you will realize that a real battle has broken out in public opinion regarding the problem of the Visual Arts. Not only in your own country, but almost throughout Europe and even in America, this problem, in addition to the problem of the people's struggle, occupies an important place, at least important enough for anyone who is familiar with the artistic and intellectual life of his time. , to interest. And that you are also interested in it, your presence this evening, on which I have set myself the task, proves that you, as far as is possible in a brief overview, with the meaning and purpose of the new endeavor in the visual arts to be informed.

About 35 years ago¹), around 1880, had

  1. I should point out that this movement was unoriginal and arbitrary, while today's new movement is original (for the first time in Holland!).
50

there is also such a reaction in the visual place. This reaction differs from that of the time mainly in that it was more local and did not extend to all branches of art. Z mainly affected painting and poetry. Ho also took part in this reaction and the artists who embodied this new endeavor (Vincent van C de Marissen, Kloos, v. Deyssel, etc.) have already occupied a prominent place in public appreciation. However, the reaction of 1880 is essentially similar to that of today. This agreement consists of:

To purify the visual arts of traditional influences, to make them independent and thus to direct them into new directions.

I.

Art is an end in itself. For the first time this was the Impressionists of around 1880, whose motto was l'art for art's sake. The place that art should take in our society is too in line with aesthetic needs. After all, in addition to a material need, man also has an aesthetic need, and art is the appropriate medium to meet this need. This aesthetic need is spiritual, i.e. it emanates from our spirit. Where art meets this need, it is spiritually effective, i.e. it satisfies our spirit. So when the art contradicts itself and has a different meaning than an aesthetic one, it is either a pure work of art or not at all. Such a thing behaves like a work of art, but it is not.

The thoughts expressed here form, very briefly, the essence of the art formation of our time.

II.

One of the main characteristics of this art reform is the consciousness that the work of art must satisfy us for its own sake - not for the sake of the subject. The definition that art is that which is made with the intention of giving an emotion, allows impure expressions of art. Whether a painting or a bee gives us an emotion does not in any way prove that we are dealing with a work of art. Whether or not a painting or image, etc., is a pure work of art depends on the nature of that emotion. Just as emotion is, without more, a guarantee that we are dealing with a work of art, neither is the artist's intention to arouse this emotion in us a guarantee that the creator actually produces a work of art. You can now ask me what intention the artist has and I will answer you with no intention at all.

The artist produces a work of art from his nature, because his nature is aesthetic. There is even no room for an intention. What the artist desires is that what he makes should be according to his nature; i.e., the product expresses its aesthetic experiences of reality. For assuming that his nature is aesthetic, his experiences will be similar, therefore aesthetic. I will demonstrate this with some comparisons and you will understand me even better when I use the word "aesthetic" in the further development of my subject. I consider this all the more necessary because I have experienced that The word "aesthetic" connects different concepts.

An artist experiences what surrounds him differently than a non-artist. When seeing a tree, the gardener will have a different experience than the botanist, this one will have a different experience than the wood buyer, the wood buyer will have a different experience than the landscape painter.

52

and this one different from the musician. The gardener, when he sees a tree, will immediately recognize what kind of tree it is. How old the tree is. Whether he is healthy or sick, etc. The botanist does not limit himself to these experiences, but goes even further. When he sees the tree he will know to which family it belongs and in which countries it grows. He will be able to arrange the magazine into a certain group and much more. The timber buyer sees in the tree a certain number of planks of this or that type of wood and what interests the gardener or the botanist about the tree will leave him wholly or partly indifferent. The landscape painter is indifferent to all these things. It may even happen that the most unsightly tree, which the gardener, botanist and timber buyer would turn their noses up at, is of special interest to him. He does not see the tree according to botany or according to practice, but he sees the tree according to art. For him, the tree is a problem of light and shadow relationships, or line, surface, body and space relationships. In short, his experience of the tree is an aesthetic one and according to his ability he transforms the natural tree into style.

It can therefore never be the artist's intention to depict the tree as a tree according to botany, but rather his aesthetic experiences of the tree. According to these experiences, the painter explains the tree by a work of art, i.e. the tree is produced anew by him and this production has not a natural but a spiritual meaning.

The following proves that this is so. If the botanist also provided a drawing of the tree, he would draw everything he knows about the tree. A scientific drawing of the tree would be created, which would perhaps be of inestimable value for the study of botany, but worthless for art. The musician will relate to the tree in our example very differently from the painter. The musician

53

will interest the audible on the tree. For example, he will experience the rustling of the tree in connection with other sound and visual impressions of the environment. According to this experience he will explain the tree in a musical way, i.e. the tree is re-produced by him in a different form and this production again has a spiritual meaning.

I could multiply my comparisons by many. I could still show that the experiences of the philosopher are according to philosophy, the experiences of the mechanic are according to mechanics, etc. However, it is sufficient if we see through these examples that the experience of the artist is of a different nature. than that of the non-artist, from which we can explain the statement that the task of the artist consists of this:

The worldview can be explained aesthetically, i.e. according to art.

Once we have accepted this, it will be easy for us to follow the development of a pure art style and to understand the significance of the struggle now being waged in the visual arts in Europe.

IV.

With a poor overview of the different art cultures, what develops into style in our time will be more or less strange to us. Coming from an era in which style is expressed according to nature, we will not immediately understand the more abstract appearance of the style of our time. But with a more extensive overview of past cultures that have known art since time immemorial, the modern work of art will appear to us as the form of the modern spirit of the times. In some respects we will notice a similarity between the mode of expression of the Cubists and Expressionists and that of the Assyrian, Egyptian and

54

ancient indian artists. This similarity is the general characteristic that characterizes every style, the difference is only of an individual nature.

If we come to see style in this way, we are already in the process of freeing ourselves from the art consciousness that has poisoned Europe since the Renaissance. I say, since the Renaissance, but in fact I should say: since the Hellenic conception of art. As we continue our consideration of style, we will soon understand why this is so.

When we consult drawings from prehistoric times, we will observe two directions. The first, during the Palaeolithic culture (fig. 1), in which the only aim is to provide a clear image of an exclusively sensorially perceived object, usually reindeer, wild horse, mammoth, etc. related to hunting. In the absence of a deeper experience than a sensory one, the artist could only limit himself to the physical nature of the animal. That is why we call this direction, in which the artist works according to nature, the physical-expressive or physio-plastic. In the second direction, during the Neolithic culture, we observe a completely different pattern (fig. 2). The draftsman not only gives what he sees when contemplating an object, but mainly, sometimes exclusively, what he feels and thinks about it. This gives his drawing a different, more inner, spiritual meaning. The artist expresses an idea or feeling in his drawing. Therefore we call this direction the idea-expressive or ideo-plastic. Now these two directions run through the whole of art and are also found in the art of our time.

When people ask me now in which direction the future style will develop, I answer: undoubtedly from the ideo-plastic. An idea precedes the ideo-plastic work of art



Wanneer men mij nu vraagt, uit welke richting zich de toekomstige stijl zal ontwikkelen, dan antwoord ik: zonder twijfel uit de ideo-plastische. Aan het ideo-plastische kunstwerk gaat een idee

Questions parked in a lay-by, pending developments[edit]

Fractional people are somewhat disturbing. Is there a cleverer way to express this:

Even at three or four people per square metre (0.28 or 0.37/sq ft) the risk is low; however at densities of five per square metre (0.46/sq ft) the possibilities for individuals to move become limited, while at higher densities (six to seven per square metre (0.56 to 0.65/sq ft)) individuals become pressed against each other, and can be unable to move of their own volition.

— Crowd collapses and crushes

Another editor has hand-crafted the 4 to 5/sq m case as (about 2.5 square feet per person

Reading RDT?[edit]

File:Bere Alston, Reading & Wokingham RJD

Follow up[edit]


Letters as letters, symbols as symbols[edit]

This page uses orthographic and related notations. For the notations ⟨ ⟩, / / and [ ]  used in this article, see IPA Brackets and transcription delimiters.

At the risk of mission creep, IMO we should make clear that the directive to use italics does not apply to the case of "letters as letters" or "symbols as symbols". In the latter case especially, the italic form may change the shape of the glyph confusingly or may not even exist at all.

For "letters as letters" or "symbols as symbols", do not use italic, bold or quotation marks. To set a letter off from surrounding text, use template:angbr (e.g., ⟨ŵ⟩). For symbols, use template:char (e.g., @). Do not hyperlink the symbol because hypertext underlining may confuse what is being shown: link its description instead (e.g., underscore, _ not [[_]]).

Do we need to address CJK, Arabic and South Asian scripts explicitly? I don't believe that the same issue arises, so I think not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Diacritics[edit]

Hooke[edit]

Madame la Marquise[edit]

see user:JMF/Chastelet

Ball cites Stephen Peter Rigaud for the attribution to Clairaut, citing Historical Essay on the first publication of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia, p. 66

The Birth of a New Physics[edit]

  • "When Newton declined to credit authors who tossed off general statements without being able to prove them mathematically or fit them into a valid framework of dynamics, he was quite justified in saying, as he did of Hooke's claims: "Now is not this very fine? Mathematicians that find out, settle, and do all the business must content themselves with being nothing but dry calculators and drudges; and another, that does nothing but pretend and grasp at all things, must carry away all the invention, as well of those that were to follow him as of those that went before".[1]
  • In any event, by January 1684 Halley had concluded that the force acting on planets to keep them in their orbits "decreased in the proportion of the squares of the distances reciprocally"[1]
  • "Newton's" First Law: first stated by Descartes and printed postumously in his Principles of Philosophy" 1644.[2]
  • "Newton was therefore correct in his judgment that Hooke did not really understand the consequences of his guess that the attractive force varies as the inverse square of the distance and that he did not therefore deserve credit for the law of Universal gravity. This would have seemed all the more true in that Newton was aware that he did not need Hooke to suggest to him the inverse-square character of the force. Hooke's claim to the in- verse-square law has masked Newton's far more fundamental debt to him, the analysis of curvilinear orbital motion. In asking for too much credit, Hooke effectively denied to himself the credit due him for a seminal idea".[3]

Meteorology[edit]

"Hooke was our first meteorologist" 'Espinasse, p 50 https://archive.org/details/roberthooke0000marg/page/50/mode/2up?view=theater

Vivisection[edit]

"I shall hardly be induced to make further trials of this kind, because of the torture of the creature" (Hooke to Boyle, 10 November 1664, cited in 'Espinasse, p 52)


References

  1. ^ a b Cohen (1985), p. 150.
  2. ^ Cohen (1985), p. 153.
  3. ^ Cohen (1985), p. 221.

Harv problems[edit]

Cunningham, Michel; Roberts, Alan; Barbee, Anita P.; Druen, Perri; Wu, Cheng-Huan (1995). ""Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68 (2): 261–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261.

ref=CITEREFCunningham1995 works!

Double Dutch[edit]

Help with translating a section from an nl.wikipedia article that confuses Google Translate and Microsoft Translate, please? This is a bit wicked I know but I wonder if anyone can spare a few moments to help with a difficult translation, please? The vocabulary is obscure in both languages, which doesn't help. We are working to get Neoplasticism (Piet Mondriaan, Theo van Doesburg and others) up to GA standard: the article borrows heavily from nl:Nieuwe Beelding. We (well, Google and Microsoft) are struggling with this paragraph from nl:Nieuwe Beelding#Idee versus materie:

In zijn "Grondbegrippen der nieuwe beeldende kunst" stelt Van Doesburg vast dat in de kunstgeschiedenis twee soorten kunstwerken te onderscheiden zijn: kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de idee (ideo-plastische kunst) en kunstwerken die voortkomen uit de materie (physio-plastische kunst). Hij toont dit aan met een beeld van de Egyptische god Horus en een Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, maar vooral ook Mondriaan, voorspelden dat alle kunsten in de toekomst zouden verzinnelijken en alleen nog maar uit de idee zouden voortkomen. Het gevolg hiervan was dat de voorstelling (het object, de natuur) van ondergeschikt belang was. Het eindstadium van dit proces was de abstracte kunst. De kunstenaars van De Stijl gingen echter nog een stap verder en probeerden hun werk langs rationele weg te zuiveren van alles wat nog enigszins aan de natuur herinnerde.

The problem is the word verzinnelijken. Google Translate renders that as

In his "Basic Concepts of New Visual Art", Van Doesburg establishes that two types of works of art can be distinguished in art history: works of art that arise from the idea (ideo-plastic art) and works of art that arise from matter (physio-plastic art). He demonstrates this with an image of the Egyptian god Horus and a Diadumenos. Van Doesburg, but especially Mondriaan, predicted that all arts in the future would become 'reified and would only arise from ideas. The result of this was that the representation (the object, nature) was of secondary importance. The final stage of this process was abstract art. However, the artists of De Stijl went one step further and tried to rationally purify their work of everything that was still somewhat reminiscent of nature.

So now the Dutch word verzinnelijken means in context "reified"! If you translate only "verzinnelijken" (in double quotes) then it comes out as "to symbolise". If you type in 'verzinnelijken' (in single quotes) then it comes out as 'represent'. All of which is meaningless. And translate.bing.com suggests Van Doesburg, but especially Mondrian, predicted that in the future all the arts would 'symbolize' and would only emerge from the idea.

  1. "Reified" makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
  2. "All arts in the future would become symbolised" makes little sense but maybe "All arts in the future would be symbolic"? It certainly can't mean the (by then) very old-fashioned Symbolist movement.
  3. "Become represented"? No, another dead end.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JMF/sandbox&oldid=1226109335"