Talk:Axonometry

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

To SharkD: Please do not remove my links to German sources at the end of section "Principle ...". I have no acces to English text books. The statement is true. If You have English sources You can change the links.--Ag2gaeh (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it is true. And the German ref is fine. (Sorry I deleted that.) The problem is you are not clarifying what you are saying, and it is hard to understand the article as a result. In fact, several parts of the article are unclear. That's what the {{clarify}} template is for. Please read the documentation of this template. If you feel offended that someone does not understand your article, then I think you are approaching things poorly. Our job here is to make things crystal clear for the reader. SharkD  Talk  16:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK this is not suitable topic for an article. The article on the projection is Axonometric projection. There is no need for an article about how to construct such projections, especially not one so poorly constructed: it reads more like a collection of anecdotes than an encyclopaedic article on a topic. It should be restored to a redirect.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are (currently) subtle differences between axonometry and axonometric projection definitions. I'm not sure that deleting the content is advisable until we clear these issues up. See here. A merger might be okay if the differences were properly explained, however. SharkD  Talk  16:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a topic ? Axonometry, as I discribed it, appears in dozens of textbooks since hundreds of years (see A. Dürer, G. Monge,...,German books). No one less than Hermann Schwarz proved the fundamental theorem of axonometry (Pohlke's theorem). Axonometry is a basic tool for descriptive geometry, which was developed and used by artists, engineers and geometers since 2000 years (Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo,...). It is a kind of cultural heritage and should be found in any encyclopaedia alike an information how a slide rule works. Until about 1970 every engineer and architect had to learn axonometry. --Ag2gaeh (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been asserted that there may be errors of logic or math, possibly complicated by the fact that this article was translated from a German original. It may be possible to recruit someone from WikiProject Mathematics. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne @Datumizer @Ag2gaeh et al. — as best as I can tell, an axonometry is any transformation of the form x → → V x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}\rightarrow V{\vec {x}}} where ⁠ x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} ⁠ is a three-dimensional vector and V is a 2 × 3 matrix of rank 2. Or maybe an axonometry also allows translations, in which case it is of the form x → → V x → + b → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}\rightarrow V{\vec {x}}+{\vec {b}}} where, additionally, ⁠ b → {\displaystyle {\vec {b}}} ⁠ is a two-dimensional vector.

If either of these is the case, can we say that up front? After that we can explain all the associated (historical?) terminology associated with axonometries. Thoughts? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]