Talk:Vertex

The geometry definitions have been oversimplified and are no longer correct as a result. I'll update them.

--Tonea 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Should there be a page separate from Node for the description of a vertex in the context of computer graphics? In polygonal 3D modelling, vertexes (or 'vertices') are one of the fundamental parts of an object; the term 'node' is not really used in this context. -- Wapcaplet

Yes, I think so. Also for 3D geometry in general. Patrick 01:13 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Totally agree. In 3d graphics vertex does not have the same meaning as in the context of geometry because in 3d graphics a vertex can exist in a mesh without having any triangles/edges using it (free vertex). In fact, "vertex" in 3d graphics is actually closer in meaning to that in graph theory, with added 3d coordinate information for position, shading and textures. I'm fairly sure it should get it's own mention, but I can't immediately find a good citation for this definition.

i realy think it mean corners 82.69.75.113

"vertex (Latin: whirl, whirlpool; plural vertices)" - didn't someone confuse "vertex" with "vortex"? --Arny 12:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I am changing it to "corner" now --Arny 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: the above about the word meaning "corner": I can't seem to find any verification of this. I'm not a classicist, and good Latin references are terribly difficult to find online, but my copy of Wheelock's Latin confirms the definition of vertere = "turn, change" in the Wiktionary's etymology notes; this leads indirectly to the modern sense of "top" or "peak". (In particular, a mountain peak; cf. "vertical". And yes, it shares its origin with "vortex".) This is also consistent with the etymology given for "vertex" in the OED. So, unless someone can provide some support for the "corner" definition, I'm changing it to "peak", since of all the Latin meanings, this seems to be the most relevant to the modern usage. Majestic-chimp (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MOS

According to the manual of style, we should drop the "In [[subject]]" before each entry. Isopropyl 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I dont't think there is alot of imfomation on this....plus pplz lets do sumthin about the global warming... its warming up the globe....

Disambiguation page

This is effectively a disambiguation page, so it seems a {{disambiguation}} template should be added... AnonMoos 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I did it. But I'm a bit of a novice, so it may need some expert tweaks. Steelpillow 10:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

My recent edit removed quite some content.

This is still included in the page as comments, if someone wants to use it as a basis for relevant stubs. If you do this please also remove the relevant comments from the page as it is a bit of clutter the way it is now.

Entry on anatomy have been completely removed(still included as comment), as I saw no reasonable candidate to link to, thus no point for disambiguation. Also doubted that an article like vertex_(anatomy) is likely to be created. If someone with knowledge of anatomy wants to add the relevant article I have no problem with this, but dicdef's should be avoided. Links can go to sections in pages by using # and this could be of help.

I judged external links to companies or societies to fall under WP:SOAP and/or WP:LINKS and removed them. Taemyr 19:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As you have already seen, I've done some more cleanup. Gdr added back the vertex (anatomy) link; "cranial vertex" has +500 ghits, and "vertex of the skull" has 800+ more, so there may well be enough there for an article. In any case I think it's more useful to have a redlink (e.g. on hornet) than a link to a page that has no anatomical content whatsoever (the state of this one before Gdr reinserted the link).

As part of the cleanup, I also added separate articles on vertex (graph theory) and vertex (geometry). They are both small, but not having those articles was causing problems: vertex (graph theory) was a redirect to a much longer article from which it was difficult to determine what was meant by a vertex (graph theory is defined in terms of vertices but doesn't really address what the vertices are themselves), and the lack of a geometry article was causing people to "fix" links here by pointing to the graph theory one even in contexts having nothing to do with graph theory.

I am now going through lists of links here, redirecting as appropriate — I've done a lot of that but there's still more to do. —David Eppstein 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. it wasn't difficult to find a dozen articles in WP that use vertex in the anatomical sense. Several on insects, several on human anatomical features, one on a breed of dogs... —David Eppstein 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work on this and related articles.

I have no doubt that vertex_(anatomy) would pass notability, one could just pick up two textbooks on anatomy. But I feared that such an article would never be more than a dicdef, so a link to vertex in wiktionary would in general be better than vertex_(anatomy). You have already shown me wrong though. Taemyr 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Computer Graphics

There is no direct reference to Vertices used with Computer Graphics on this disambiguation page. As one of the base elements of modern 3D Computer Graphics Design, I believe it should have a mention and redirection to its own page, assuming such a page exists, as I can't find it on the Wikipedia Site. Neobros 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK vertex (geometry) is currently the best target. There is no vertex (computer graphics), nor are there any good page to redirect to. You might want to write it. Taemyr 05:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Taemyr. I'd suggest expanding the existing bit about computer graphics on vertex (geometry), unless the page gets too big. -- Steelpillow 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact I just added it, with a redirect to vertex (geometry). -- Steelpillow 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that should do it. Neobros 02:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vertex

some sort of portel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.231.225 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)