Talk:Catalan solid

table broke
When I was reformatting the article a bit I added a new column to the main list table and now the table formatting is all broken and i cant figure out why, everything is in the right place but the boxes and shading refuse to draw, hopefully someone knows why and can make it work properly again

Arkanoid0 (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because you inserted a period into the "class = ..." command in the table; I have fixed it. --JBL (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

test table
This table shows the catalan solids, grouped in parallel to the Wythoff constructions of the Archimedean solids given at Uniform_polyhedron, and named by Conway polyhedron notation operators. Tom Ruen 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's some alternate pictures: Tom Ruen (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I replaced all of them. 4 T C 10:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * These are ok, but my opinion is the ball-rod diameters are unnecessarily large, not showing any useful information about the polyhedra. You can make them smaller in Stella by right clicking on the "Use sphere and cylinder" tool button. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catalan solid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201035511/http://ibiblio.org/e-notes/3Dapp/Catalan.htm to http://ibiblio.org/e-notes/3Dapp/Catalan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Images
You reverted my last edit with the explanation "I'm not sure if replacing transparent ones is better". That's not what you did in the edit, so it's a strange edit summary. If the edit summary is the new discussion page - am I supposed to revert back and also write my answer in the edit summary? Anyway, I also don't agree with what you seem to say. I makes sense that there are solid and transparent versions (and it makes sense that the transparent versions are next to the wireframes in the table). I replaced the orange solids with the ones whose colors match the duals. So what exactly would you do instead? Watchduck (quack) 11:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You edited a lot. You removed the transparency in the "Symmetry" section, and made them larger. I understand why you like to color vertices and edges to show duality of elements, and I presume that's why you made them bigger, but even at 100 pixels, it is hard to see, so this might not be the best place for them. And the muddy-gray face colors for the Catalans isn't very attractive. I do wonder if we shouldn't add images with the names in the first section. Tom Ruen (talk)


 * [You removed the transparency in the "Symmetry" section...]  Do you think it is needed there? The Archimedeans are not transparent either.
 * [...but even at 100 pixels, it is hard to see...]  I think the visibility of the vertices is fine (see right). What I find more important is that the Catalans have the same orientation as the corresponding Archimedeans. So corresponding edges are actually orthogonal to each other.
 * [And the muddy-gray face colors for the Catalans isn't very attractive.]  It has to be a color that is unobtrusive as vertex color in the Archimedeans. This is essentially a question of taste, and it would not be a terrible idea to ignore it.
 * [I do wonder if we shouldn't add images with the names in the first section.]  Then we would basically have two redundant tables. The short table of names in the introduction can be justified because it is just that - short.
 * I don't see that your current version is better than my last version. What do you think is the actual improvement - apart from "orange is better than muddy-gray"? Watchduck (quack) 19:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for an answer. Could you please point out one advantage - apart from being orange - that the orange solids have ahead of those with direction colors?
 * Concerning the "muddy-gray": I have a new monitor that shows colors the way they should be, and an old one whose colors have become a bit pallid. On the new one I see what I would call a warm beige, while on the old one it's closer to muddy-gray. I don't think we should worry which shade of which color is better anyway, but if that's what you want to do, please make sure that your monitor actually shows the correct colors. Watchduck (quack) 12:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

first sentence syntax
First sentence says "In mathematics, a Catalan solid, or Archimedean dual, is a dual polyhedron to an Archimedean solid." My mental parser trips over this right between "dual polyhedron" and "to an ...". Should something be between there? attached to? converted to? Don't grok. Could someone fix who knows what this should say? Tnx! 65.153.86.114 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing is missing, but maybe the structure isn't as clear as it could be. I made a tweak, what do you think?  --JBL (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In slightly expanded form, it is a polyhedron which is dual to an Archimedean solid. Sounds clear to me. AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, makes much better sense to me this way - thanks! OTOH, since these shapes are far away from my expertise, I probably shouldn't fuss about sentences which wouldn't confuse others for whome the article was written.  Actually, I got here because I just wanted to look up dodecahedron. 65.153.86.114 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Ideally Wikipedia articles should be readable by people who don't already know everything in them!  :)  --JBL (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)