Template talk:Regular dihedral tilings

Regular monogonal dihedron Schläfli symbol & Coxeter diagram

 * I copied-pasted from other similar tables, in English Wikipedia geometry articles, 2 different Schläfli symbols & 2 different Coxeter diagrams of the regular monogonal dihedron;
 * the Schläfli symbol "{1,2}" is obvious, & the corresponding Coxeter diagram starts the sequence of Coxeter diagrams of regular dihedra coherently;
 * but i'm not sure whether the Schläfli symbol "h{2,2}" & the other Coxeter diagram are correct.

-
 * what do you think about them, please?
 * In advance, thank you very much for your answer! :-)
 * RavBol (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all outside my expertise, sorry. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC).
 * No problem; anyway, thank you for your reply! :-)

-
 * do you have an opinion about these 2 issues, please?
 * In advance, thank you very much for your answer, too! :-)
 * RavBol (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Asking or just WT:MATH as a whole may be more useful! — MarkH21talk 22:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The short answer: I'm sure I could come up with a possibility that would be reasonable, but that's the wrong way to work. If you do not have a published reliable source for how this notation should be extended to handle weird border cases like this, you should not be trying to include that information in Wikipedia. I do not know of such a source for this case offhand. If there are conflicting published sources then we should say that rather than trying to pick winners and losers. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

-
 * Thank you both very much for your replies, too! Now, everything is clear:
 * I will remove these 2 unusual notations from "Template:Regular dihedral tilings", & i will replace these similar but smaller tables in English Wikipedia geometry articles (Spherical polyhedron, ...), where i copied the 2 unusual notations, with the fixed template. :-)
 * RavBol (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

-
 * PS: I never try to pick winner & loser math content, but correct & false math content. (To me: the more (correct) info about a math subject, the better to understand it.)
 * PPS: In the Talk:Trapezohedron section, i asked a technical question (about content sourcing) to MarkH21 & to.
 * But you both did not answer, which is unusual; didn't you receive a notification that i had mentioned you in Talk:Trapezohedron, please?
 * In advance, thank you very much for your answer!
 * RavBol (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)