Talk:Octacube (sculpture)

Photo rights
Not to be persnickety, but would be good to get a statement of who the photographer was (who snapped it?) If it is a stock Penn State image, may not be released. If Ocneanu snapped it, then a simple email release would be good (sometimes people need it explained that they are not just "letting it be used on Wikipedia", but releasing to general usage.

There is also the whole panorama issue (I hate that)...but might affect the pic. I would support a fair use exemption though (I am bullish on those). Pic is needed to illustrate the article, very much.

TCO (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The details of the picture are on the image's page File:Ocnacube.jpg. "Digital photograph taken using Adrian Ocneanu's Nikon camera, transferred by Ocneanu to my computer in his hotel room this afternoon. This image may be freely used by anybody on the web." uploaded by User:Mathsci.--Salix (talk): 16:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I already read that. Questions remain.  Again, I'm NOT trying to be persnickety.  Not a Wiki gotcha game player.  Am in favor even of fair usage (if we had to).  Who took the photo (that person has copyrights).  Also, the issue of the sculpture itself.  (Is Ocneanu owning that?)  Whole thing can probably be sorted out by just some more wording or maybe an OTRS note.TCO (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Asked about it at Commons VP Copyrights (its not a Commons file, but they are the experts and it could get transferred). Not trying to mess with anyone's baby.  Just asking the experts to nail it down.  (And I WANT a picture, even if fair use is needed.)TCO (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I sent an email to the good professor with details on the issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I adjusted the tone and cropped the image. Feel free to revert my changes or try others on the file page. Download a copy, edit the image, then just overwrite the same file.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I toggled the version back and forth a couple times. Sticking with the crop and thanks for the brightening (it's supposed to be shiny!)  Sometimes I have to refresh my version or crops look funny (but done, now).


 * TCO (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * P.s. I hope we don't have some drama over image size or version.  ;-)

structure and content
The average person (heck even smart chemists and biologists) can't follow higher math articles (and there is probably no hope they ever will). But this article is actually one with some human interest. Yeah, you need to cover some of the superhard geometry, but as of now, you're actually missing important parts of the story (the materials of construction, fabrication, the 9-11 connection) that are not just vital parts of the topic but also would totally resonate with readers.

Also, there is some remaining confusion of the article topic. Let's keep it centered on the sculpture, explaining a little about the polyhedron (or shape, whateva) but in a manner to SUPPORT. Some of the hard math can (and should for multiple reasons) move down.

New structure will be something like:


 * topic sentence (covering more aspects and not as immediately in your face geeky hard). Yeah mention the math aspect, but more generally and expand on it, lower down.  Not the immediate define by blue link to send me to 20 damned other math project wikiarticles.  (you can still do that, but in a lower para).


 * materials of construction, fabrication


 * dedication (it's almost inhumane that we are not mentioning that this is a memorial)


 * the concept of projecting higher dimension objects into lower ones


 * just a little bit on the math shape itself (lift from the 24-shape article)


 * Publication coverage (the Playboy thing, can someone reach under his bed and check that is not a hoax? ;-))

Really...your model should be much more like the Penn State reference, NOT the typical Wiki higher math article.

TCO (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Going to go for a workout and then will write the "math section"
I think I know how to do this in a manner which gives the "art appreciator" or even just science person who is not a mathematician a feel for 95% of the important stuff here. (and the math majors have blue links to our articles that are pure math topics).

TCO (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dab page
Should we make Octacube a dab page instead of a redirect?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say not. The 24-cell is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and you don't generally have dabs when there are only two items.--Salix (talk): 07:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * agree with salba.TCO (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a third with Octacube (puzzle). With just two I think we use hat notes. With three we may need a dab. It doesn't really matter to me but readers may not find the other two. We could create Octacube (disambiguation) and add it as a hat to the top of the primary 24-cell page. Just my 2c though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK.TCO (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I redirected octacube to Octacube (disambiguation) since 24-cell is the primary name. There are no links to octacube now, and 24-cell has Octacube (sculpture) in see also so this seems sufficient. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Octacube (sculpture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901135336/http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/OctacubeFacts.pdf to http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/OctacubeFacts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dead links
The links to Penn State no longer work. Perhaps via the wayback machine they can be retrieved. Whoever produced the content for the article has managed to create things out of thin air (given the current lack of sources). Mathsci (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)