Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Uniform compound of four tetrahedra (UC23)

Uniform compound of four tetrahedra (UC₂₃)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2023 at 06:11:59 (UTC)

Reason

This uniform compound of four tetrahedra (UC₂₃; p=2, q=1 and n=4) is beautiful, and surprisingly not very well known. It has a distinctively striking appearance, that to me is both very symmetric and tangible. The infinite families of uniform compound polyhedra UC₂₀ through UC₂₅ tend to be overlooked, so this image being featured could bring some attention to these, through this one example of a uniform antiprismatic compound.

Articles in which this image appears

Compound of four tetrahedra

FP category for this image

Featured pictures/Sciences/Mathematics

Creator

JeffUK

• Withdraw as nominator – Radlrb (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Brightly colored, moving depiction is distracting and annoying. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When I asked if people about this model in the Tea house, people said they'd prefer a rotating model. I can make it move more smoothly. Also, colors are supposed to be bright for these models, the only darker colors available are generally reserved for regular, semiregular and other more important uniform polytopes. Radlrb (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Toylike, not among Wiki's best. --Janke | Talk 19:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What's wrong with toy-like? Aren't all 3D polytope models toy-like? Radlrb (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the flat lighting and the saturated coloring. Try another shading algorithm to make it look more natural... Also, there are a lot of spurious pixels in the background area. Janke | Talk 07:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely, thank you. I'll cook something up really nice. It's comical because I didn't zoom in, and while these images are heavier in general, I thought it was cleaner than it is. There is something I like about the pixelation as is when you zoom in, it's electric. For our purposes something cleaner is naturally needed. Radlrb (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Radlrb, for me the main issue is the 250x250 pixel size. It's good enough for infobox, but I like to see something bigger, say 500x500 pixels or larger when I open the image in its own window. I will support if that's done. Bammesk (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do! I might not get to it by the 13th, if so I'll renominate once it is cleaned. I might modernize it slightly too. TY Radlrb (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I agree with Bammesk, I was thinking the same. Please consider that 250×250 looks tiny on high dpi displays. I wouldn't go under 500×500 pixels and stay above if possible. I wonder if the movement could be smoother, too, and if the colours can be reworked to look prettier. Thank you :) --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll address all of these : ) Hopefully in time! tyvm Radlrb (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You could actually remove this nomination and load a new one when you're ready, so you'd get the full time for votes on the new one. --Janke | Talk 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Normally I would automatically support this sort of eye-catching and informative geometry visualization. But the parent article is so badly sourced and packed with what appears to be original research (like so many of our polyhedron articles) that I can't bring myself to do so. It's not even obvious to me that the topic is notable: you can place any number of copies of a tetrahedron rotated around one of its axes; what makes this choice of an axis and number of copies special? Do any sources specifically address this shape, not merely mentioning it without depth as an example of a more general construction? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, this is not the place to discuss such a topic, I would rather discuss that in the talk page, rather than here. It's notable because, it is a uniform compound, and the third of its class, if you'd like a quick answer. You know. Ah, that article is not badly sourced, and has zero OR, you must not know the material well, I suggest you read it. And you are also over-generalizing. Thank you for your input. P.S.: In depth, this compound has only been studied for what it is, just another example. Is it yet known to be applicable somehow? Yes, in a sense, in that it is the double compound of the

  stella octangula, which is self-dual. So for that reason alone it is notable. This doesn't need to be explicitly stated anywhere since it is common sense and explained by Coxeter and many others, however you seem to not have caught that yet? Radlrb (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Also, Weisstein was never actually voted a non-reliable source, and made policy, was it? It's more your sentiment against it, since you're referring to all sources in the article, and as I have meant yet not gotten to yet, I'll get that page number for the Norman Johnson article (I imagine you mean there especially? Since Robert Webb is obviously the important expository source that makes the article valuable). It's not unreliable, at least not for this article and for most articles that I have read for (98%). And gee, do I really have to say that we need to also be responsibly creative with Wikipedia, because where we can fit notability even though not as strongly, and allow an article to come to fruition, then we should, since it expands knowledge that is important. I bet you this compound beauty will have vast significance beyond what we have found thus, which is though small, still important, since it's another compound with octahedral symmetry that is uniform, aside from the known polyhedra and compounds. Yes, third of its class uniformity is sufficient notability, for which we have at least two sources listed (and will be adding Coxeter and others that did mention these compounds too for completion). I hope I'm being clear, I'm not trying to create 50 articles of Compounds of Tetrahedra, obviously, the first four through five compounds, yes, because it makes sense, aside from the larger uniform ones (10, 12, and 20 tetrahedra). They share tetrahedral and octahedral symmetries (rotational or full), and icosahedral, as immediate subgroups (for the compound of 4 tetrah, it's like a merging of octahedral and octagonal prismatic symmetry, 24 or 48, and 32). I guess I just explained it here, rather than in the talk page. Radlrb (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to be honest, I was kind of looking for your comment, but not wishing it would be an attempt to just minimize, you know? Like I'm hoping we can make amends here. Radlrb (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT was all that about??? Janke | Talk 08:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OLD drama, and some clarification. All g... Radlrb (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]