The math can be improved:
- The length of a brick can be used for the width of the wall, which gives a larger area/volume but thinner walls. Makes sense. Thus, a brick face for the wall is 7.6cm x 23cm
- Thus the length/width ratio is about 3
- If the walls are indeed cubic (they would not be in the test math), and taking w to be the width of a cubic wall, then the amount of bricks to stack vertically to be the same dimensions is 3w.
- Then, the area of a side in number of bricks can be expressed as w * 3w, or 3w^2.
- We would need 5 of these sides, so 5 * 3w^2 or 15w^2.
- Thus, 15w^2 = 1000, making sqrt(1000/15) equal to w, or 8.16496581, and we'll round that to 8 for these purposes.
- Thus a wall is 8 bricks wide and 24 bricks high, making it 192 bricks. This gives 40 bricks for adornment purposes.
- The dimensions are then 1.84m on a side, making a floor area of 3.3856m^2 and a volume of 6.229504m^3.
I rushed it a bit and i see what youre going on abiut. Ill edit it a bit --Spode 16:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting to the top of all pantheons is impossible; you can't be on top of Creation and Destruction at the same time. Elementarion/LS404/Altion 21:29, 30 March 2012 (BST)
Epoch, I disagree with your calculation for the following reasons:
- It does not use all 1,000 bricks.
- It does not take into account that bricks have a third dimension. If all bricks were paper thin, your calculations may work, but bricks aren't paper thin. Following your assumption that bricks are 23 cm x 7.6 cm leads to the conclusion that the third dimension is 11 cm. The only standard brick that meets the 23 cm x 7.6 cm is the Australian brick and that brick's last dimension is 11 cm. Add in the third dimension and the whole equation falls apart.
- It does not account for the doorway(s). The diary entry says that the hero ". . . opened all the doors . . ." So the formula needs to account for a doorway with two doors or multiple doorways.
- From an architectural standpoint, I disagree that the ceiling, roof, or floor would be made out of golden bricks, but I don't see anything in Godville that would say do or don't build a golden brick ceiling.
--BlueStapler 23:30, 21 September 2012 (BST)
Those were Spode's conditions for the calculation we discussed over PM a long time ago. Disagree with him if you want, I was just fixing his math. Also-removing the post temple completion stuff without discussion was rude. You should encourage people to work on the wiki, not discourage them.--Epoch 06:42, 3 October 2012 (BST)
Epoch, how about (1) we delete or amend the temple calculations you added because they are wrong and there’s no evidence to support they are correct. (2) We let Xzzwxs leave his “life after temple construction” paragraphs on his page. I already wrote where I think that belongs. If you want to hear criticism of those paragraphs, I’ll be happy to give it, but that’s not productive. And (3) You look through my contributions and see how many times I’ve encouraged people to add to this wiki, compare it how many times you have encouraged people, and then you apologize for that comment. --BlueStapler 08:58, 3 October 2012 (BST)
It is fine to remove it. Again-all your points are fine but they were all conditions Spode set up for the temple math at first. I'm not competing with you and don't care to. I won't respond to you again-it's not worth the time and worry. Blank this page, it is fine with me. --Epoch 09:45, 3 October 2012 (BST)
Does this wiki have rights from painter Marcia Johnson and/or the painting's owners to use an image of Johnson's Mesa Temple painting here? source. If not, can we remove it because it is a copyrighted work submitted without permission? And then replace it with an existing image on this page? --BlueStapler 20:07, 3 October 2012 (BST)
is anyone likely to complain that there is a copyright image there? its fine as it is. if you insist though, find a better image of similar content. i don't see anybody complaining though so there's no reason to edit it. --Spode 20:13, 4 October 2012 (BST)
I strongly suggest you reconsider the "no one is going to complain" standard or at the very least get it approved by someone who would be paying a judgment for a copyright violation occurring here. As far as I'm aware, the "no one is likely to complain" is not a legal standard for copyright infringement in any country. I do know that (1) the fact that a user put an administrator of this wiki on notice of the copyright violation, (2) the user cited sufficient evidence of the copyright, (3) the administrator admitted not having permission to use the image, and (4) the administrator intentionally left the image there, are all essential elements to proving liability for copyright infringement. Establishing liability on the administrator who put the image up would also be extremely easy given what has occurred. Lawyers salivate at cases like this. --BlueStapler 21:02, 4 October 2012 (BST)
Really? tell me more about that, sounds interesting. do it by PM though, getting annoying to do this now --Spode 21:23, 4 October 2012 (BST)