Talk:Isogonal figure

Poll to move contents from vertex-uniform
Vertex-transitive is a standard term for polytopes. Vertex-uniform was an incorrect term from uniform polytopes which are are vertex-transitive.


 * Yes - Tom Ruen 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. I would prefer to move it to Isogonal because it's shorter and has been around longer, and redirect from Vertex-transitive. Steelpillow 13:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... no other opinions offered. Isogonal isn't as clear to me. I have to vote for clarity over compactness. I suppose it means "equal angles". A concave polygon can have equal angles and not be vertex-transitive. Tom Ruen 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC) +---+ |  | |   +--+ |      | +--+


 * That figure has five interior angles of 90 deg and one of 270 deg. Those are not all equal!


 * Isogonal does also imply that the vertices are transitive, i.e. they lie within the same symmetry orbit, something like this:

o---o /    \    /       \   /         \  o           o   \         / o---o
 * 'Isogonal' is the longest-established of the alternative synonyms we are discussing, and its meaning is beyond question. But OK, I can accept the main heading as the clearer one, with other pages reditrecting to it. Let's go with vertex-transitive. Steelpillow 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Just found that Vertex-transitive is a disambiguation page. We can't call ours that. 'Vertex-transitive polyhedron or tiling' is a bit of a mouthful. Best ideas, anyone? Steelpillow 19:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'd propose is:
 * Take over Vertex-transitive
 * Add two sections, one for graphs, one for polytopes
 * Put the graph one first with a short summary and a "For more information see: Vertex-transitive graph.
 * Then move this content there. If the polytope content got large enough, a Vertex-transitive polytope article could be created with more detail, and return Vertex-transitive to a short version.
 * Tom Ruen 21:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefuly a fair job, I moved them all, and relinked to new names. Tom Ruen 02:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Archimedean
No mention of Archimedean solids? --ReyHahn (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Poll: split off polytopes and rename to vertex-transitive tilings
I think it is time to reconsider a change from isogonal to vertex-transitive. The term isogonal is basically absent from research literature, in contrast to vertex-transitive (check arXiv search). The term vertex-transitive is (to a degree) self-explanatory or at least quickly understood and immediately relates to edge-transitive, face-transitive etc (by the way, I also suggest to rename isotoxal and isohedral). As suggested by Tom Ruen, we create a separate page for vertex-transitive polytopes (I plan to write a lot more about them). I then suggest to rename this page to vertex-transitive tilings as the term figure seems to have no clear meaning in contemporary research and has no definition on Wikipedia either. I suggest to create a page titled vertex-transitive that gives a more general definition of what this term means and then links to the different objects that can be vertex-transitive: polytopes, tilings, graphs, complexes, etc. Note that I am new here and have no idea (yet) how to execute this in detail, but think it would be the right thing to move towards. Any thoughts? MWinter4 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)