Talk:Icosahedral symmetry

Cleanup (Feb 06)
I added the cleanup tag because this article needs more work. I like the examples added at the end, but they should be cleaned up, and data tables (pasted from elsewhere) removed as redundant and messy.

Tom Ruen 09:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove data tables, it is convenient to have data about examples together on this page.--Patrick 12:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Patrick, what do you think about cleaning up the formatting here? Is it really necessary to have cut&pasted tables here from elsewhere?

Tom Ruen 07:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not see tables from elsewhere, just selected parts regarding the subject of the article.--Patrick 12:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remove the cleanup tag. I see no point for it. Please note that "because this article needs more work." is not a good reason -- 99.8% of all articles on WP need more work. linas 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:peterd19 11:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC) The statement "The group contains 5 versions of Th with 20 versions of D3 (10 axes, 2 per axis), and 6 versions of D5" is erroneous and should be corrected to "The group contains 5 versions of Th with 30 versions of D3 (10 axes, 3 per axis), and 30 versions of D5 (6 axes, 5 per axis)"

octahedral subgroup?
In subgroups/polyhedron stabilisers, the article seems to claim that there is a subgroup of I isomorphic to O. As I understand it, I has order 60 and O has order 24, which would contradict Lagrange's theorem. Surely this can't be right? --81.96.219.197 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lay introduction
This article starts directly in mathematical language. For instance, the word "symmetry" is used with no link or explanation.

I think that it is in order to begin with a paragraph that introduces the subject in common terms (known to people who haven't taken university courses in the subject). Thereafter, any technical term should be explained and/or linked to an explanatory article.

I'm not sure what to like "symmetry" to however. The main (math) article is much too general. I haven't found a simple explanation is what is meant by a geometric symmety in Wikipedia yet... Am I missing this?

There are several places where information on symmetry groups can be found... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevan White (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article say how the icosahedra; group acts on the icosahedron?
I mean with the presentation of the group given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.241.128 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo in table
The first table in the section "As a point group" has a typo in the column "Abstract structure": the two entries are switched around.

User:Urs Schreiber 11 Jan 2015

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rhombictriacontahedron.jpg

Lead rewrite tag
In a drive-by tagging in 2020, you added the lead-rewrite tag to this article. What did/do you consider to be the problem with the lead section? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For a start, the lead should include the subject of the article and describe it (e.g., "Icosahedral symmetry is ..."), instead of jumping into an explanation about sets of symmetries and orders. Per WP:LEAD, "[t]he lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." When I read this lead, I do not learn what icosahedral symmetry is and I don't get a summary of the article; it is presenting specific points about symmetries, some of which appear to be in the body and some that don't. They may make more sense in the lead if there were a proper introduction to the topic. —Ost (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How about now? --JBL (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is a good improvement that introduces the subject. There is likely an opportunity to further expand the lead to summarize more of the page, but your edit addresses my major concern. Thank you for the help. —Ost (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the subsequent article improvements! JBL (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)