Jump to content

Talk:First stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First sentence

[edit]

The first sentence is correct:

<"In geometry, the first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron is a stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron."> ... Really?

But I think it could be even more accurate by saying:

<"In geometry, the first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron is the first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron.">

Am I right? :-)) I'm just joking in order to highlight the triviality of that sentence. Perhaps there is a better way to begin the article. --Little bishop (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the current first sentence is rather trite as well. Perhaps we could go straight into the description of the polyhedron rather than defining it as a stellation in the first sentence, but it seems a little wrong to dive straight into details without a topic sentence. QuarterNotes (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead to explain the title terms rather than merely repeating them. There was a bigger problem with the article: it confused two quite different polyhedra with the same visual appearance, the self-crossing one with 12 hexagonal faces that is the stellation and the non-self-crossing one with 48 triangular faces that is the boundary of Escher's solid. I have tried to clarify the distinction between these two polyhedra. It is likely that additional improvements are possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. That clarifies things quite a bit. Should we add a section on Escher’s solid? Or create an entirely new article? There does not appear to be an article on it yet; in fact, this is the only article in which Escher’s solid is even mentioned, and searching “Escher’s Solid” leads to a redirect to this article. QuarterNotes (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

Would anyone object if I moved this to "first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron"? The missing article is bothering me. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! Tom Ruen (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]