This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Vertical angles was copied or moved into Angle with this edit on 05:04, 20 November 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Corrected wording and concepts. Tried to keep the same concepts as much as possible. JackOL31 ( talk) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Revised to clean up the concepts and correct terminology, e.g. measure of Angle A equal x rather than Angle A equals measure x. JackOL31 ( talk) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the term "vertical angle" came into being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.35.185 ( talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion: Merge the following articles into a single article, Special angle relationships:
These all have little to no article and talk content. If they were just one article, info would be easier to find, especially when studying for an exam. Please vote on whether this move is feasible!
Thanks, The Doctahedron 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I already put up all the necessary banners. Now we just need to create drafts of the article. All drafts can be submitted below, or at my talk page. Please follow the guidelines given there. Thanks, 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose another merge. Except for transversal, all these notions are defined in Angle. Its seems thus better to merge them in this article. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your feedback.
I do understand some of your concerns, and that this move, if enacted, would be highly controversial. However, I believe as a student that it will make studying easier, and information will be more centralized. Here is my proposed structure for the new article:
This is a team effort. I will not take this responsibility for myself (I'm too busy to do so). So please help!
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 02:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! As we approach a consensus as to whether this and a few other pages should be merged into a single page entitled Special angle relationships, we'd like to hear your feedback as a reader/visitor/Wikipedian. Please discuss and vote below to help improve Wikipedia!
(The survey is not intended as a substitute for consensus. It is only intended to give administrators a good idea of what you think of the move.)
Thank you for your support, and enjoy the holidays!
Cheers, The Doctahedron, 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for your feedback again.
I've noticed you guys like the alternate merger plan broached by D.Lazard, and I actually like this idea better. However, I still think that transversals constitute an important special angle relationship. So we could keep the transversal article, but then add the section about transversals and put a {{main|Transversal (geometry)}} tag near the top of the section. Win-win for the win-win!
Can someone please set up Pee Review... I mean, Peer Review, by clicking "Natural Sciences and Math" in the box up top? I can't really do it.
Happy Holidays,
The Doctahedron, 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I removed the text "hi" (level 2 header) and "Complementary angles.../Supplementary angles..." as it appeared to distract from the discussions on the talk page. However, I did not remove "this DIDNT( sic) help me" at the top of the page, as it expressed a complaint about the article. And I agree that this page might be a little too technical, which is why I proposed the merger in the first place (prev. section).
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Bottom line, so to speak: if you don't want people to get distracted from the discussions on the talk pages, then do not refactor the comments on them, and always do work top to bottom. Doing otherwise tends to chase everyone away, leaving you effectively ignored — as you might have noticed. - DVdm ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Vertical angles was copied or moved into Angle with this edit on 05:04, 20 November 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Corrected wording and concepts. Tried to keep the same concepts as much as possible. JackOL31 ( talk) 22:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Revised to clean up the concepts and correct terminology, e.g. measure of Angle A equal x rather than Angle A equals measure x. JackOL31 ( talk) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the term "vertical angle" came into being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.35.185 ( talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion: Merge the following articles into a single article, Special angle relationships:
These all have little to no article and talk content. If they were just one article, info would be easier to find, especially when studying for an exam. Please vote on whether this move is feasible!
Thanks, The Doctahedron 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I already put up all the necessary banners. Now we just need to create drafts of the article. All drafts can be submitted below, or at my talk page. Please follow the guidelines given there. Thanks, 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 22:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I propose another merge. Except for transversal, all these notions are defined in Angle. Its seems thus better to merge them in this article. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your feedback.
I do understand some of your concerns, and that this move, if enacted, would be highly controversial. However, I believe as a student that it will make studying easier, and information will be more centralized. Here is my proposed structure for the new article:
This is a team effort. I will not take this responsibility for myself (I'm too busy to do so). So please help!
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 02:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! As we approach a consensus as to whether this and a few other pages should be merged into a single page entitled Special angle relationships, we'd like to hear your feedback as a reader/visitor/Wikipedian. Please discuss and vote below to help improve Wikipedia!
(The survey is not intended as a substitute for consensus. It is only intended to give administrators a good idea of what you think of the move.)
Thank you for your support, and enjoy the holidays!
Cheers, The Doctahedron, 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for your feedback again.
I've noticed you guys like the alternate merger plan broached by D.Lazard, and I actually like this idea better. However, I still think that transversals constitute an important special angle relationship. So we could keep the transversal article, but then add the section about transversals and put a {{main|Transversal (geometry)}} tag near the top of the section. Win-win for the win-win!
Can someone please set up Pee Review... I mean, Peer Review, by clicking "Natural Sciences and Math" in the box up top? I can't really do it.
Happy Holidays,
The Doctahedron, 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
I removed the text "hi" (level 2 header) and "Complementary angles.../Supplementary angles..." as it appeared to distract from the discussions on the talk page. However, I did not remove "this DIDNT( sic) help me" at the top of the page, as it expressed a complaint about the article. And I agree that this page might be a little too technical, which is why I proposed the merger in the first place (prev. section).
Thanks,
The Doctahedron, 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Bottom line, so to speak: if you don't want people to get distracted from the discussions on the talk pages, then do not refactor the comments on them, and always do work top to bottom. Doing otherwise tends to chase everyone away, leaving you effectively ignored — as you might have noticed. - DVdm ( talk) 22:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)