# Talk:Cube

The cube can be represented in many ways, one of which is the graph known as the cubical graph. It can be constructed by using the Cartesian product of graphs.
The cubical graph is the edge graph of any quadrilateral hexahedron, regardless of any symmetries, so can it be said to represent the cube rather than the more general shape? —Tamfang (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tamfang I am hoping this could be written for cuboids and any quadrilateral hexahedron. But for some reason, I cannot find the source. Also, I prefer to expand the graph section for more. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that this article was nominated for GA and I skimmed through it and noticed that there's a paragraph about cubes in popular culture (the first paragraph of "Applications"). I was wondering if it would be beneficial to split this paragraph off to its own section (or subsection) for cubes in popular culture and add a second paragraph in that section for cubes in fiction or just add that paragraph to the existing Applications section. Some widely known fictional cubes: the cubes in the Cube movie franchise, Borg ships in Star Trek, the Weighted Companion Cube in the Portal games, and Bizarro World in the DC comics. These four all have their own Wikipedia articles that could be linked to. Velayinosu (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The application is intended to explain the usage of a cube in the real world; architecture, arts, and science commonly use the cube. However, speaking of popular cultures in the case of fictional films and movies, maybe WP:POPULARCULTURE. Unless there are mathematical sources attributed to these fictional cubes, one can take a sample from Mobius strip#In popular culture. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)


### Cube
I am attending to a request to peer review, alongside nominating a DYK's hook for featuring on the main page, for improvement according to WP:FACR. Hopefully, this article will become a potential for FA. Any feedbacks would be appreciated.
Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Dedhert.Jr! I've added this to the FAC peer review sidebar to increase its visibility. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
It's you again, and thanks for the sidebar. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)


#### RoySmith
This is a really nice presentation.  So many math articles dive head-first into technical details that I'm lost before I get to the end of the first sentence.  I'm up to Relation to the spheres right now, and still following every word, so that's great, and a great example of WP:MTAU.  For context, I was an engineering major in school, so a decent math background, but not my main thing.  And I got a head-start on polyhedra by playing lots of D&D in high school :-)
I'm up to Applications now and the reading is getting a little slower, but that's good.  Easy at the start, diving deeper into technical esoterica as the article progresses.  As it should be.

As a general comment, you do a pretty good job of explaining technical terms, but there's a few more which could use a short in-line definition: cubiod, dihedral, interior angle, Euler characteristic, orthogonal, parallelepiped, congruent, rhomoohedron, trigonal trapezohedron, centroid, isometries, dual (and in dual polyhedron), tesseract, crown graph, bipartite Kneser graph.  I'm going to assume that anybody reading this will not have any problem with edges, vertices, faces, polyhedron, or platonic solid.
I had never heard of the Prince Rupert's cube, but I had heard of the Prince Rupert's Drop, which I see are named after the same person.  Might be worth dropping that little bit of coolness into the article.
doubling the cube ...  compass and straightedge ... Ancient mathematicians could not solve this problem until the French mathematician Pierre Wantzel proved it was impossible in 1837  But it is possible with origami, which is another bit of coolness you could drop in here.  But more to the point, this is worded strangely.  They still couldn't solve it after 1837, but at least then they knew why.
five cut the cube from the midpoints of its edges, and four are cut diagonally make the gramatical constructions, ahem, conguent: "five cut the cube from the midpoints of its edges, and four cut diagonally"
(image caption) A six-sided dice  Ugh.  "Dice" is plural.  The singular is "die"
Not sure you need to mention this, but Alamo not only sits on a vertix, it spins around its vertical axis.  That was my old stomping grounds, and I have indeed spun it.  It takes a few people; the bearings aren't very good.  But read WP:POPCULTURE and consider how much of this section you really need.
Pyrite is an example of a mineral with a commonly cubic shape Maybe use common table salt as a more familiar example?
That about does it for me.  I don't think this will have any problem at WP:FAC but you should enlist somebody with a stronger math background than me to take a look at it.  I'm thinking David Eppstein would be a good possibility. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

PS, please ping me when this is at DYK. RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh, never mind, I see it is already. RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith. I think I have completed most of suggestions. You might want to read it by yourself about my writing that is somewhat a little bit of overdetailed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith. Done. Can you check it again? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
drive-by comment: Maybe use common table salt: More common in daily life, sure, but I'd say most readers still don't know salt forms cubic crystals. This would best be demonstrated by an image. Something in commons:Category:Salt should represent this. Maybe File:Single grain of table salt (electron micrograph).jpg, File:Selpologne.jpg, File:Blausen 0660 NaCl.png, or File:NaCl bonds.svg? But still, pyrite's cubic formation is much more stark: see commons:Category:Pyrite cubes, for instance. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
I prefer to use the current pyrite image. But for salt, I think this suits better than the options you gave. Also, I still cannot comprehend the license like @AirshipJungleman29 used to. Yet, somehow I might need to replace the pyrite image if you prefer the salt one. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
If it’s any comfort, I barely understand licenses too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
@Dedhert.Jr just wondering where things are with this.  I'd really love to see this at FAC.  We have so few high-quality math articles that are written in a style approachable to people who aren't hardcore match geeks, and this would make a great addition. RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith. Lack of comprehensive content is the only thing I'm worried about so far. You may ask at WT:WPM for some help. In the meantime, @Jacobolus actually gave me a good suggestion for completing missing works in Regular icosahedron, although I have to wait for some time again. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith. I will propose this to FAC in the future. Let the reviewer have their own comments: promote it to FA, or keep it to GA. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Farkle Griffen. Should the Kaaba be cuboid instead of a cube, according to Kaaba#Architecture and interior? Sorry, I don't comprehend. Also, I have discussed this before [3]. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The term "Kaaba" translates literally to "The Cube". It seems strange to not mention one of the most culturally important "cubes" in history, on the basis that its not technically a perfect cube. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
This is like saying a go board isn't a square grid on a square board, because the board and grid is typically slightly oblong to compensate for the expected viewer perspective. The Kaaba can definitely be called a "cube". –jacobolus (t) 18:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jacobolus. If that's the case, I'll added the alongside the architectural building that we have discussed at that time. But do you think "popular culture" is a good spot? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)