Template talk:Dimension topics

New template

This is a new template to replace Template:N-dimensional space, which had a number of issues. I've added everything I can think of but there's probably other things that are appropriate, and there may be a better way to organise it. It was based on Template:Time Topics as a rough guide how to lay everything out, which also means given my limited experience of this sort of template I've maybe overlooked things that could be done to the format. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Zero-dimensional space

That concept uses a completely different definition of "dimension"; it's not an example of an n-dimensional space. If it should be in this template, it should be only in a new row relating to topological dimension theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The article needs work as to whether it refers to the fractal dimension or Hausdorff dimension, or some other concept, but it's not related to the Euclidian dimension. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Coloring

Any objections to using a standard color scheme here per WP:Deviations? I find the current one hard to read. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No objections. It probably just inherited the colours from another template when I started it: I'm pretty sure I didn't choose the current colours.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I reformatted it a bit. No change in the actual content, but introduced some wrap control, and move the category link to the below section, which is the current trend. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Many thanks to the authors of this template. It is almost the first time that I encounter a navbox which is undoubtfully useful. Some time ago, I have encountered the problem that Dimension (mathematics and physics) was a disambiguation page although it should be (and is presently) a WP:DABCONCEPT article. Nevertheless, the disambiguation role of the article was not satisfactorily played, because the reader had to read the body of the article to find the link that he needs. The navbox allows to solve this issue.

Therefore I have several suggestions. The first one is that the place of the navbox is at the bottom of the linked articles, but in Dimension (mathematics and physics) it would be better placed at the top for fully playing its dab role. However it would be better if, at the top, it would appear on the right side of the page. I do not know how to edit the template to have both behaviors, either as navbox, or as sidebar.

I have restructured and completed the navbox. However, I have left the section "related topic" as it was (except for its title). I have not understood which criteria have been used to include or not a link in this section. I have also no idea of any criterion leading to a useful and not too large list. Therefore I suggest to remove this section.

D.Lazard (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)