Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Time Cube/archive1

Time Cube
The Time Cube article is a good example of a reasonably article being written about a very weird subject. Any of it's shortcomings are easily explained by the subject matter. Furthermore, I think it would be an ideal article for April 1st ... far better than many of the proposed april 1st articles because it's an actual article. Being funny without being unprofessional is always an improvement over just being funny.Gmaxwell 21:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh gosh. Well, it needs a lead image and some references for a start.  As for the subject matter... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Also see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates to vote for Time Cube to be featured on April 1st. All the objections below have been resolved, so it is clearly a prime candidate.


 * Object. Fails the stability test, with ongoing revert wars and POV conflicts. --Wahoofive 21:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is stable; the war seems to have been resolved, and anyway it only covered a few minor wording issues, with the majority of the article remaining static.


 * Object. I agree, the page is not stable. It's also not correct.  I've been trying to keep my arguments to the talk page and only making changes once things have become incontrovertible, but that's very very slow.  The whole page really needs a vast overhaul. 65.95.160.205 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Support! Time Cube is the ineffable truth of the universe. Wikipedia users deserve to be enlightened with magnificent 4-corner Cubic wisdom, such that they may avert the impending Armageddon in which their children and great-grandchildren will resort to cannibalism and mass destruction of Nature. They must overcome their educated stupidity and recognise 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth, and that Time is Cubic, not Linear. They must seek Time Cube! 211.28.24.120 05:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Not stable. Also, the bolded quotations should be indented using ":"-signs and italic instead of bolded. (as far as I know bolding should be used sparingly only in lead and a few other words in an article). Mgm|(talk) 10:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object Would make a good April 1st article, but as it's constantly being rewritten by a persisten fan of Gene Ray (see support vote above), there is not much NPOV there. Kosebamse


 * Object. Article does not explain why the topic is encyclopedic. Many people have idiosyncratic and nonsensical theories about the universe; the article needs to explain what (if anything) is notable or interesting about this one. Also, the article appears to depend entirely on web sites for references. It needs printed references too before it can be featured. Gdr 12:33, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * Printed references: the following two St Petersburg Times articles: Mr. Marbles isn't playing a game anymore, Protester to risk jail by feeding the birds. It is encylopedic due to its fame. The Time Cube website is very well known on the internet, and Gene Ray has lectured about the Time Cube at MIT, and will lecture again in April, this time at Georgia Tech. He has also been interviewed on numerous web radio shows, and was interviewed on the TechTV show "Unscrewed".


 * Object. No citations once more.  Interesting theory, and theories can certainly be encyclopedic including those that are contrarian.  Courtland 18:26, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is almost as good a treatment for a crackpot theory as one could hope for&mdash;the "tenets" of the theory are enumerated and discussed, and the language is NPOV while acknowledging that Time Cube is considered nonesensical. A pretty good candidate for an April 1 article.  --Ryanaxp 19:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. A wonderful piece of reference work on an obscure system of thought. Deserves full commendation. Franc28 08:03, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * object of course. elegible for April's Fool Featured Article, however. The "theory" is famous for being patent nonsense. The article seems to treat it as a serious pseudo-science. Take "postulating that time is cubic, not linear" &mdash; this is 'article voice', so it should be assumed the statement makes sense. It is entirely unclear, however, what "time is cubic" is supposed to mean. The theory may not be criticised, as it is devoid of statement, most of it does not even make sense grammatically. All the article can really do is quote Ray verbatim, and talk about his doings and goings about. dab (&#5839;) 18:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Time is linear - a line - 1 dimension
 * Time is cubic - a cube - 3 dimensions
 * I would have thought it self-explanatory.


 * The following offensive objection was made by the same user who made the objection "65.95.160.205 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)". It should therefore not be counted.
 * Object. To be frank the page ought to be deleted.  It consistently fails the NPOV due a single vigourous supporter with far too much time on his hands.  The Gene Ray page covers everything of importance that can be said in any sort of NPOV way.