Talk:Tesseract

message: In the diagram showing how to get from dimension 0 to 4, just change the green arrow to point up instead of down.  That way, we're always moving in a positive direction.  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.2.209 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - dcljr (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change arrow to point up 

message: At the moment "Tesseracts" redirects to "Tesseract" but there is a series of science fiction anthologies named "Tesseracts". If I were to create a page for it, how would I keep it from redirecting here?  Monado (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you enter "Tesseracts" in the search page, you will be directed to this page, but you will see a small note at the top that says "(Redirected from Tesseracts)". If you click on the Tesseracts link in that note, you will get the redirect page, which you can then edit. It might be best to title your article something like "Tessaracts (magazine)" and make the Tessaracts article a disambiguation page that points here and to your article. Leave me a note on my talk page if you need more help.--agr (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simpler to put a hatnote on this article: Tesseracts redirects here. For the science fiction anthology series, see Tesseracts (magazine). —Tamfang (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrieving "Tesseracts"? 

message: ::Re:User_talk:David_Eppstein#About_image_in_Tesseract_article and the comment...
::So may I consider consensus is reached and I may add image again? Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also still feel the image shouldn't be here, bevause (1) there are already too many images, and I don't understand what this is supposed to bring thatt the others don't, and (2) despite repeated questions on my talk page, I still did not get a clear explanation of exactly what principle was used to construct this image and what it is supposed to mean. The lack of continued discussion on my talk was me getting frustrated and not continuing to ask the same questions that had already been not answered before, it was not agreement. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The image in question is :File:4D completed.svg.  I, for one, can't make sense of it.  I would also caution the Rawal that two days' silence by one person elsewhere is not by the wildest stretch a sign of consensus here. —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Count me as opposing that image as well. Wikipedia is not a place for people own ideas, the very least I would require is a citation to some reliable source which describes this. Dmcq (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About image in Tesseract article 

message: User:David_Eppstein removed a Related polytopes section as too obtrusive, saying " remove typical Tomruen huge image galleries of things that are almost, but not completely, unrelated to the actual topic of the article. A single line of text with a wikilink and NO IMAGES should suffice"
I reduced it to a compact See also section with links to each template of related polytopes. 
User:Dmcq objected, saying templates don't belong and removed it, saying "Shouldn't be linking to templates.They're not user content in themselves. " 
I cleaned up the template wikilinks, and User:Dmcq reverted again, saying "Please take this to talk per BRD rathert than edit warring." and again a THIRD UNHELPFUL revert saying "Don't stick templates in like that."
I don't understand why he claims I'm edit warring by improving and he's not edit warring by removing. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:BRD about discussing if people give reasoned objections rather than there being some right to stick any stuff one likes in and it being difficult for anyone else to remove it.  Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you please self-revert then discuss as per WP:BRD. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text:  How do you discuss something that you seem to want completely removed? Tom Ruen (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the discussion below I have said how it could be included. You have to set up a separate article complete with notability reasons and citations and refer to thaat in the see also. Just because a discussion implies that something you wrote should be removed does not mean the discussion is invalid and sticking in the stuff is fine. Now please remove it. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Your objections are not acceptable to me. Either its a navigation table between articles, or its important enoguh as an article in its own right. You don't believe its worthy as an article, and you don't want to accept it as a navigational template. How do you suggest we show related articles? Tom Ruen (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A template is not an article. You need to put the stuff into a separate article, most likely by transcluding the templates, and then refer to that article. What is so difficult to understand about that? Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related polytopes section removed 

message: WP:SEEALSO says 'Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles.' Only in very good reason should it be used for other things. If the content is worth pointing at then point to a section within another article that has it in.  That ensures the content is covered by the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines like all user content should. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be easily fixed. And if you don't like "see also" the links could be added back to an original "Related polytopes" section. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A related polytopes section would not fit into the article - they re not directly about tesseracts and too big as a small exception to WP:OR. They should be in another article complete with a lead with discussion and showing notability and citations. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text: What's too big? It's 4 sentences. The whole purpose is cross-linking related figures so wikipedia users can navigate related articles. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are not related articles. They are not articles. As WP:Template says 'Templates are pages that are embedded (transcluded) into other pages to allow for the repetition of information.' Referring to them directly is a misuse of them. Using them the way you have would avoid the policies and guidelines that apply to articles if it were standard practice. They are not in article space. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text: The too big referred to transcluding the templates inline. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text:  The contents can move moved into articles if they are deemed too large for repeated inclusion. I expanded them with noinclude tag content to work both ways. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referring to a Template. When a person clicks on it they are taken outside of article space. That is what is wrong. Transcluding templates is fine - but then they would be too biug and irrelevant for this place. You need a separate article to put them in before they are referred to here. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text: How about templates with a "collapse" option, closed by default? Tom Ruen (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Nothing that means a user could end up on a page with 'Template:' at the top. That is like them ending up at a 'Talk:' page or a 'User:' page or one of those other pages in the system. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

text: You misunderstood what I was asking, but anyway, I've done as you requested. I relinked into sections of the related uniform polytopes and honeycombs where the template is more relevant. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes that is much better. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template references put in as article material 

message: The movie "Cube 2: Hyper Cube" (film) shows people within a tesseract which is folding and unfolding. As the tesseract is vitally germane to the plot of the movie, I would suggest adding this to the article under the section See Also / Uses in fiction.
Victorsteelballs (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no relation to a tesseract except that the rooms are cubical. It is just using the name for something strange that kills people in weird ways rather than anything at all like an actual tesseract. At least Alice in the Looking Glass has some connection with chess even if it didn't quite follow the rules. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add reference to movie "Cube 2: Hyper Cube" in "See Also / Uses in fiction" 

message: Have posted previously on this and in reading geometry section, it appears some attempts at clarification have been made...yet people are still going to think the "large cube" is the 8th cube, that there is no central 4D void, that there is a "center" cube, etc.  Vids are available on TikTok under @RicoWarner.  Schlegel Diagram is accurate + misleading if person does not understand the projection distortions.  The vids (two series) use a 2nd model, an "exploded Schlegel" to complement it and illuminate the distortions.
More info on request, including links if desired/allowed. LetMeHelp2019 (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about clarifying the projection distortions? 

message: all the construction from a 3d net on this page are the same cross kind. Maybe more diversity in nets could be brought to the page. 121.45.171.107 (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tessaract nets 

message: It has 30 faces 115.96.77.86 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It has 30 faces 

message: Yes, I know there are lots of images and animations in this article already…
The current caption to "Net_of_tesseract.gif" reads: 
"The tesseract can be unfolded into eight cubes into 3D space, just as the cube can be unfolded into six squares into 2D space."
I just found a nice animation on YouTube to illustrate that second part:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GbgrXuaYX0
In addition to being more accessible for visually-inclined readers, that video also suggests/clarifies that there are many ways the tesseract can be unfolded.
So I’m wondering:
1. if it’s according to Wikipedia rules to link to such a video in a Wikipedia article? 
2. if yes, how it can be embedded? Maybe not as a picture/gif, but as a reference in the above-mentioned picture caption, with an external link given in the reference text? Or among the External Links? 
Geke (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The only acceptable way to link YouTube videos is under external links. It has to pass the conditions of WP:ELNO, though. Given that it is entirely about unfolding cubes, and not about tesseracts at all, I don't think it passes condition #13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If the video passes ELNO , it becomes reasonable if an  could be added if the video is considered an extremely helpful part of that.  For example, I would place the segment from Cosmos in this article first and foremost (and actually this video may pass ELNO, though I don't know who holds the copyright to Cosmos at this point. Masem (t) 22:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add a YouTube video as an illustration?