Forum for Solid connection
More specific definition [#2579]
Robert Jasiek has proposed to include a more specific definition on this page, and created a sub page for that, which he originally named "discussion". I decided to rename it to Solid Connection / More specific definition because it is a more specific name (I sometimes do see the advantage of being specific!) and I think it will be helpful to have a page in which we can collect everything that makes it clear what Robert has in mind. I hope that that would complement the discussion format with its back-and forward and move us to more stability, as the temperature drops. Robert, if you agree with my plan, then I'd suggest you to remove your name from the beginning of the page, so that it's clear that this is a wiki page anyone can edit.
Now I am not sure what to do. I wrote something in discussion style and it also contains opinion. Surely opinion is for a discussion subpage. Do you suggest that I might split opinion (to be moved to the discussion subpage) from factual study of definition effects and proposals of other definition texts?
Please state very clearly which of the following is your intention: a) replace the current SL definition by a more specific definition or b) work out a more specific definition and then add it as an alternative meaning II to the parent page while also the current SL meaning I is kept?
Both your options are possible outcomes, but they are much too specific; other outcomes are possible, too, such as that we decide to make it a different page altogether. I can't say yet, it's too soon for that now.
For now, my intention was just to have a place where we can all see the good in what you're proposing, without painfully trying to extract it from a long discussion. Now that John F. supported your initiative, I think it would make sense if we merged his post into the introduction; at least for me (assuming I were a new reader who hadn't already seen the discussion at string connection) that would provide a nice motivation to read on.
Addendum: I will be doing the merge myself, because it's easier done than explained. If you or John don't like it, please don't hesitate to revert me. Also, I just noticed that there may be some page name confusion, I'll investigate and fix it.
Hmm, something went wrong. Now it appears we have three versions:
- Solid Connection / Discussion - the version (re-)created by some hiccup when John F. was editing simultaneously while I was renaming the page;
- Solid Connection / More specific definition - the version into which I just merged John's comment;
-
![[ext]](images/extlink.gif)
Solid Connection / More specific definition (version 2) - a version just (re-)created by Robert in an attempt to do what I had asked for. (This is just a version in history, but it does contain changes that somehow got lost when I was editing the same page.)
I will hold off for a moment until we reach agreement here about what to do. I propose to merge #3 into #2 and then delete #1. OK?
I am busy for some hours, so you need to be a bit patient until I can work out what those many different pages are...
I prefer to see who wrote what in a discussion like this one. Thus I would take #1 as the base.
I did use #1 as a base.
It seems you are making an assumption that I don't agree with: That that page is there for discussion. That's exactly what we already have on the discussion pages; there's no need to spread that out to yet another page. But there is a need for a page that clearly shows what Robert and John see, that many of the rest of us don't see that clearly. For a page that can grow by cooperation and incremental improvement. That's our strength of being a wiki; it would be a pity if we didn't use it where it makes sense.
Yes, good point. - Sebastian, version 2 must be an accident or bug of some kind. The double can be deleted.
What about Solid Connection / Discussion? While we were talking here, tapir and you kept posting there. To be honest, I'm a bit annoyed about that, because I specifically wanted us to hold off for a moment until we reach agreement here about what to do. I hate to leave it in this state, but I will take some time off now until you guys agree which version to keep.
I believe WME and merging to a unified page should be left to a time when the discussion cooled down a bit. Meta-editing after two comments is surely too early. Also, I want to know what was written by whom at least as long it is work in progress.
I didn't edit to annoy you, I just saw the new page and this discussion after editing.
I do not know the following Japanese terms and cannot clearly imagine an example from only the word translations:
- Kadotsugi (angle-point connection)
- gatchiritsugi (tight connection)
- aka nichoutsugi (doubled connection)
- soukan (double one-point jump)
- Ryoutsugi (double connection)
- Kanetsugi (double-purpose connection)
- Sagaritsugi (connection with a descending move)
- Kamaetsugi (constructive connection)
Also I am not sure whether
- katatsugi (solid connection)
is what I expect it to be.
Can somebody please provide examples or more detailed explanations for the terms?
@Sebastian: Your formatting is now included in the discussion page, but I kept the attribution of statements to participants.
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")