User:Tomruen/archive6

2012 archves

F_n, G_n, I_n

We have articles on all the polytope families except these three. (I₂(p) contains the polygons, but is there I₃? If they are like G_n (which I think they are, since I₂(6) is just G_n), then these would probably be the hyperbolic honeycombs {7, 3}, {8, 3}, etc. Or are they written as ${\bar {I}}_{2}$?) I think we should create articles on at least F_n, and maybe the other two, but I am not sure what titles to use as I have never seen any term like pentagonal polytope used for them. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no F_n, G_n, or I_n families. G₂=[6] can be a regular hexagon, as I₂(p)=[p] are regular polygons. F₄ is also "exceptional". I suppose there's G₂=[6], and G~₂=[6,3], and F₄[3,4,3], and F~₄=[3,3,4,3]. Johnson has names for the hyperbolic group names at Coxeter-Dynkin diagram. There probabably ought to be names for the hyperbolic groups [p,q], and [(p,q,r)], like I₃(p,q,r), but I've not seen any. They are triangle groups. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't F_n be {3, 4}, {3, 4, 3}, {3, 4, 3, 3}, {3, 4, 3, 3, 3}? Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I never thought of F3=B3, but I see [3,4,3,3,3] is a noncompact hyperbolic group. Johnson calls it ${\bar {U}}_{5}$, but U/F are the same in two lettering systems so could be ${\bar {F}}_{5}$, So we have: F3, F4, ${\tilde {F}}_{4}$, ${\bar {F}}_{5}$. But [3,4,3^n-2], n=2,3,4,5 in any case. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If an article were created on this series (you mentioned it on Talk:Pentagonal polytope), what should it be titled? Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here, User:Tomruen/tempx, I collected together a table of 6 "exceptional" series that progress from finite to affine to hyperbolic groups. I included the noncrystalographic H_n series, although its golden ratios don't fit as nicely, so it has no Euclidean form, jumps straight from finite to hyperbolic. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There are also an infinite number of hyperbolic tilings with fundamental domains that are not simplices (e.g. 4.6.8.10, which has a tetragonal fundamental domain) that should be mentioned somewhere. See [1]. The only possible fundamental domain in Euclidean geometry that is not a simplex is a rectangle in 2D space with all angles being π/2 (see [2]), and fundamental domains must be simplices on the n-sphere. Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OOPS! I forgot about Miller's monster - it has a tetragonal fundamental domain. That explains how its Wythoff symbol has four numbers. (But I still don't understand the Wythoff symbol for Skilling's figure.) Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The nonsimplex-domain tilings are something I hope that can be expanded, with pictures! There's no Coxeter-Dynkin diagram apparently, but Orbifold_notation#Hyperbolic_plane starts showing them as symmetry *2223. Coxeter notation can't seem to support them either, based on the CD. Anyway, perhaps User:Tamfang could help generate some graphics. I wonder where [3] came from? Tom Ruen (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Tyler? Double sharp (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used Tyler before to create pictures like for Euclidean tilings, but it also has a "Hyperbolic" checkbox that allows you to set the curvature to specific tilings (but only allows the Poincaré disk model). Double sharp (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Another good thing about Tyler is that you can also use star polygons, unlike KaleidoTile, although Tyler is more tedious to use (because it isn't automatic). Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Stellated octahedron

Don't mess with other people's talk page comments (except for technical formatting clarifications), or leave your own comments unsigned... AnonMoos (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was confusing, since you put the section header below the image! Tom Ruen (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

G2

Can you say whetehr this edit is a correction or not? It's outside my field of knowledge. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks honest and correct. It is anonymous, but the change was described in the comments, and the matrix has Mij=-Mji elsewhere, as the correction does. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hubbert curve graph

The graph showing the Hubbert curve is one of the best ones I have found so far. However, removing the horizontal lines in the graph itself, using white colour around it and maybe also separating the text from it would make it much clearer. I would also like to know whether and how would it be possible to obtain the original graph in order to modify it according to my own needs (scientific purposes)? Hubbert ubbert (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This graph? File:Ultimatereserveoilprojections.gif It is "original research" effort I did in 2005 for a toastmaster club speech, just taking different estimates for total reserves, and throwing them into a spreadsheet with some fixed decline percentages. Anyway, I should still have an Excel Spreadsheet source, that I could share by email, if you send a message via Special:EmailUser/Tomruen. 02:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

File:Stella-octangula-in-cube.png has some vertices chopped off, and something seems wrong with the colouring of the centre of File:Icosiicosahedron-in-dodecahedron.png. We need a similar image for the compound of five octahedra: File:Small-icosiicosahedron-in-icosidodecahedron.png would be OK.

We still need pictures for DU₇₉ and DU₈₀. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you still have Stella? I don't like those images mostly, rod/balls too large. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded pictures for DU₇₉ and DU₈₀, but the regular compounds still need new pictures (I'll probably make them, but I don't know exactly when I will). Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember WikiProject Polyhedra?

Hi Tom, (do you go by just your first name?)

I just joined WikiProject Polyhedra... a little too late to do it, though, because the thing's inactive. I'm thinking we should either:

1. Revive it; or
2. Rename it WikiProject Geometry, which would cover an even broader scope.

I fixed up the project page a little.

Thanks,

The Doctahedron, 02:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I think the new logo should be the Wikipedia logo design superimposed on a polyhedron of some sort. You can do that in Stella, I think. —Cheers, The Doctahedron, 02:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)±∞

Yes, I go by Tom. I'm not a very good project-follower now, but much more I'd like to work on. I work too randomly to be very collaborative for long, and elsewhere I feel guilty I've neglcted finishing the lunar eclipse articles for the last 3 years?! I think it should stay for polhedra/polytopes/tilings/honeycombs, along with the related stubs, see no need to expand to a wider geometry project, but I assume there must already be one, or lots of them at the math portal? So not a good answer, but I'd say feel free to document where you're working, and it will trigger watches so others might look and help? Tom Ruen (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at Hennepin County Library

Minneapolis History edit-a-thon

The Minnesota Wikipedia community and local historians are invited to edit entries in Wikipedia on Minneapolis history. Please help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by utilizing materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own Minneapolis History topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections Librarians.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
When: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 10-5 pm
10 am - 11 am Orientation to Minneapolis Collection
11 am - 5 pm Edit-a-thon
Website: Hennepin County Library, Special Collections, Map & Directions
Parking: Metered street parking or pay ramp in basement, enter on 4th Ave

For more information see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota#2012. —innotata 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mars Oppositions

Hi, I really liked your Mars Oppositions graphic- unfortunately it stops in 2018. Any chance of an update, say 2012 to 2027 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.62.210.50 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

More at User:Tomruen/Mars oppositions Tom Ruen (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiling

Can you make a picture of the {5, 6} hyperbolic tiling with alternately coloured pentagons in KaleidoTile for regular polyhedron? It should be like but for {5, 6} instead of {5, 4}. Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure at the moment. I'd have to think what the alternation means by symmetry. KaleidoTile allows p,q,r as 3..9, so if it can be done with those, then yes! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Try 3 | 5 5 (). Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. Can you run KaleidoTile and try it? Tom Ruen (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It will work: the conversion table at Wythoff symbol gives q | p r = (p.r)^q. So 3 | 5a 5b (letters included for the alternation) will give (5a.5b)³, which is exactly what we need. (I don't currently have KaleidoTile, and I don't think I'll have time to reinstall it in the near future, but I will get around to it someday.) Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you or me, whomever gets to it first? So basically extend Wythoff_symbol#Planar_tilings_.28r_.3E_2.29 table to include more row families.... Tom Ruen (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Great icosahedron cutplane.png

Could you create similar graphics for the other three Kepler-Poinsot polyhedra? The great dodecahedron should be no problem. If the pentagrams are causing problems for the small and great stellated dodecahedra, you might want to try the solutions listed here. Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A good idea, unsure when. And that's what I did - used a WRL model, and plotted twice, once transparent, once with parallel cut planes. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did mention that "OpenGL doesn't like self-intersecting faces!" You mentioned that you might want to do this for all the nonconvex uniform polyhedra: would you like to start? (The hemipolyhedra don't have well-defined densities, and neither do the non-orientable polyhedra.) Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No plans to do it for the uniform polyhedra, but probably I can finisht the other 3 regular stars. Main uncertainty is that a single cross section appearance is not representative of all cross sections of different orientations. I did it for the great icosahedron mainly to show the density. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. When do you think the other 3 regular stars will be done? Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Merging of polytope articles

While I agree with the merging of polyteron, polypeton and higher articles (since the images are simply graphs and would not take too much time to load), I think we should separate the polychora back out because of all the large images that are not graphs. The convex uniform polychora have been completely enumerated, like the Johnson solids, and the set has been proven to be complete, unlike the convex uniform polytera and higher. It seems strange not to merge the Johnson solids and to merge the uniform polychora. Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The inconsistency is true, but I'm not against merging someof the Johnson solid articles, given many are very small. In both cases my argument is that large sets of objects with small information are easier to maintain (and watch) in collections, similar for nonconvex uniform polyhedron could be grouped. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Johnson solids and uniform polychora both have standard groupings, but how will you group the uniform polyhedra? Schwarz triangles? Regiments? Convex hulls? Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I always get annoyed by the nonconvex uniform polyhedra, but generally grouped Wythoff symbol groups. But I'm not in any place for major work for the indefinite future. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to write a subpage listing all the Schwarz triangles to give all the uniform polyhedra. Not sure how to handle gidrid in the table, but it has a tetragonal fundamental domain *3/2 5/3 3 5/2. I still do not understand gidisdrid's Wythoff symbol; it must have something to do with the brackets. Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask a question: since the Schwarz triangles are on a sphere, the Wythoff symbol generates spherical polyhedra. So how can it generate the hemipolyhedra, where there are hemispherical faces? (The non-orientable polyhedra are not a problem, as they cannot be directly generated from the Wythoff construction; they are blends. BTW, Har'El considers (page 10) gidrid to be a hemipolyhedron.) Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have some old attempts, at User:Tomruen/Uniform_polyhedron_table, Uniform star polyhedron/Uniform polyhedra by Wythoff construction, if they're any use, second one has a graphic Coxeter's degenerate vertex figures included. Don't concern yourself much with nonstandard Wythoff symbols - they are hacks. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm writing this at User:Double sharp/Wythoff_symbol. Double sharp (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done the tetrahedrals. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I now have a complete list of all the Schwarz triangles listed in Har'El's paper. I'm using Klitzing's website for information. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Polyhedron name redirects (e.g. seside)

For the redirects such as Hastur (geometry) to Small snub icosicosidodecahedron, I went through Klitzing's website and redirected all the listed alternative names for the polyhedra. I suspect this name is due to Olshevsky (see Talk:Small snub icosicosidodecahedron). Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Polychoron or 4-polytope?

Yes, I can see some backlash coming, but "polychoron" is used very often throughout Wikipedia. The more common articles routinely have the term taken off and replaced with "4-polytope" (creating inconsistencies in usage - on List of regular polytopes, "polychoron" was once excised completely but "polyteron"(!) was left in the article), but note that "polychoron" was never marked as OR at Template:Polytopes (see Template talk:Polytopes), and indeed has more arguments for it than any of the higher-dimensional names for polytopes (polyteron, polypeton, etc.) do. If a revert war begins, we may want to (finally) bring this to WP:WPMATH. Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In the context of uniform 4-polytopes of Coxeter and Johnson, polychoron is widely used, but really until its used by other mathematicians, there's going to be resistance, and I don't see defense can be won. So in the least saying polychoron (4-polytope) at the start of every related article might be the best we can do, and I'm not going to fight for polychoron over 4-polytope. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind saying "polychoron" (4-polytope) at the start of the articles, to clarify the term, but the term seems to be OK to use, unlike "polyteron", "polypeton", etc. Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request For Constructive Assistance

Hello Tom,

Would you kindly offer constructive assistance on the voting method's talk page specifically regarding later-no-harm and its applicability to approval?

At the bottom of the long debate below I have offered a suggested change to the article which I would appreciate your feedback on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voting_system#Approval.2FLNH_again

Could you offer your opinion or advice on how to best reach a consensus or resolve a determination?

If its of any help, there was a prior debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voting_system#approval.2FLNH

Thank you Filingpro (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm one of the two parties taking the opposite position to Filingpro there. I'd welcome your input too, but I think what Filingpro wants is a truly neutral third opinion. And since you've got a voting-related thingumajig on your user page...

Still, I think FP's guess that this isn't going to go anywhere without going beyone the three voices already there is, sadly, correct, so feel free to stop by and give your opinion. Homunq (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-great rhombicuboctahedron

I wanted to create an article on this polyhedron, but I'm not sure where to put it in the databases. This is the nonconvex equivalent of the elongated square gyrobicupola, and has received some coverage (there is a paper written about it). It doesn't have a Wythoff symbol, which makes Template:Uniform polyhedra db unusable. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

For special cases, forget the database, just flesh out an explicit table, reuse Template:Infobox Polyhedron if that's helpful. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of this? (Feel free to help me finish this article.) Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Good start. I don't have much passion for this. I'll let you finish it at your convenience. Since Hart has a VRML, you can do a screen shot cropping for an image. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already in Stella, actually. ;-) Go to querco, and then select Poly → Create Pseudo Version. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Star polygons with more than one form

What do you propose for the databases for the star polygons with more than one form, like the heptagram with {7/2} and {7/3} or the enneagram with {9/2} and {9/4}? (Let's not talk about the hendecagram first.) Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't need a great need for a database for the polygon/grams, but definitely best to keep in a single article obviously! Maybe for the table, we need a single image showing all cases? Tom Ruen (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Pentellated, hexicated, heptellated...

Who invented these extensions to Johnson's truncated, cantellated, runcinated and stericated? How does the sequence continue past heptellated? Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Norman Johnson didn't offer names above t_0,4, so they are provisional names I extended following Johnson's system for the linear families, corresponding to t_0,5 t_0,6 t_0,7, connecting to the greek prefixes. Going up to 8-dimensions is a reasonable stopping point due to the E8 exceptional family, but t08 could also be extended also octa-. Jonathan Bowers has a somewhat parallel system, compared at [4], using small/great prefix for omnitruncation at full-rings below a given prefix regardless of dimension, but only published as Bower's personal website, although I do cross reference his names in the tables. I chose the extension of Johnson's name as more defendable based system with a summary of articles at Talk:Uniform_polytope#Summary_table. The end-ringed degrees in each dimension can be called expanded, going back to Alicia Boole Stott, so that operational name can be used defendably, but not defined for ring combinations. Also troublesome, Johnson's naming scheme only applies on the linear families, and requires a node indexing system to be defined on branching or cyclic Coxeter diagrams. So some of the En family polytopes are given with Bowers names in the tables. John Conway follows a parallel system (to the Coxeter truncation notation) he calls "ambo" (1-ambo being Johnson's rectification), so for example the cantitruncated 120-cell of Johnson/Coxeter, Conway calls 012-ambo polydodecahedron. So like pentellated 6-simplex could be named 05-ambo 6-simplex by Conway, or t_0,5 6-simplex by Coxeter. The ringged Coxeter graph is the central designation for all of these, but what's best as names is messy since there's no standard, and I admit perhaps Johnson is right to stop at sterication (cutting solids), and leaving the higher ones as indexed names. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Octellated and ennecated seem to be reasonable extensions for t_0,8 and t_0,9. I suspected it was you who invented these - see Klitzing's website. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What's your thoughts on renaming higher articles based on technical names like t0,5 6-simplex Or I could see what Johnson's views are on how to "say these". I've been saying 5th order truncation, but order is ambiguous term. Fifth degree truncation of 6-simplex might be a longer attempt. For reference, here's the original email I got from Johnson, archived on the private polylist email list.

From: "Norman Johnson"
Subject: Re: [Polyhedron] Higher Wythoffian operators 
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:25:03 -0400 

  My names for the operations corresponding to ringing various
nodes of a Coxeter diagram for a reflection group, thereby converting
it into a Wythoff diagram for a uniform polytope or honeycomb, are
as follows:

          t_0  original
          t_1  rectified
          t_2  birectified
          t_3  trirectified
          t_4  quadrirectified
          t_5  quintirectified
               . . .
        t_0,1  truncated
        t_1,2  bitruncated
        t_2,3  tritruncated
               . . .
        t_0,2  cantellated
        t_1,3  bicantellated
        t_2,4  tricantellated
               . . .
        t_0,3  runcinated
        t_1,4  biruncinated
        t_2,5  triruncinated
               . . .
        t_0,4  stericated
        t_1,5  bistericated
        t_2,6  tristericated
               . . .
      t_0,1,2  cantitruncated
      t_1,2,3  bicantitruncated
      t_2,3,4  tricantitruncated
               . . .
      t_0,1,3  runcitruncated
      t_1,2,4  biruncitruncated
      t_2,3,5  triruncitruncated
               . . .
      t_0,1,4  steritruncated
      t_1,2,5  bisteritruncated
      t_2,3,6  tristeritruncated
               . . .
      t_0,2,3  runcicantellated
      t_1,3,4  biruncicantellated
      t_2,4,5  triruncicantellated
               . . .
    t_0,1,2,3  runcicantitruncated
    t_1,2,3,4  biruncicantitruncated
    t_2,3,4,5  triruncicantitruncated
               . . .

If only the end nodes 0 and n are ringed, the term "expanded" can
be used; when all nodes are ringed, the term is "omnitruncated."
It should be borne in mind that these operations apply to regular
figures and others whose Wythoff diagrams have their nodes numbered
from left to right.
---------------------
From: "Norman Johnson" <njohnson@wheatonma.edu> 
Subject: Re: [Polyhedron] Higher Wythoffian operators 
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:09:01 -0400 
To: "Polyhedron Discussion List" <polyhedron@lists.mathconsult.ch> 

> Have you offered explanations for the names of these "steeper" truncations: cantellation, sterication, .... (?)
    Cantellation is "beveling," runcination is "planing," sterication is "soliding."

"Pentellated" is a reasonably concise and understandable term. I don't like "order", as it can be ambiguous, and "Fifth-degree truncation" might suggest a tritruncation or quintitruncation rather than a pentellation. t0,5 6-simplex is clear, but ugly. I think "pentellation" is fine, but I would be interested in knowing what Johnson has to say. Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep confusing. And one flaw above "order" 7, like pentitruncated could be interpreted as t_0,1,5 OR t_4,5, although ok since Johnson actually gives in Latin quintitruncated, but oct- is for 8 is the same for greek and latin. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You could use "okt" for Greek and "oct" for Latin. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe use "octi-" for octellation (t_0,8) (e.g. the octitruncated 9-cube or t_0,1,8{4,3⁷}) and "octa-" for t_7,n (such as the octatruncated 9-cube or t_7,8{4,3⁷}). Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Polyhedral names and symbols

Here's another interesting email of interest, Johnson's names for all the uniform polyhedra and duals. I've never compared to the older lists... Tom Ruen (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

From: "Norman Johnson"
Subject: [Polyhedron] Polyhedral names and symbols 
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:12:15 -0400 
To: "Polyhedron Discussion List" <polyhedron@lists.mathconsult.ch> 
 
                    UNIFORM POLYHEDRA [AND DUALS]


The table below lists all uniform polyhedra, classified by type.
For each polyhedron is given its figure number in Polyhedron Models,
its modified Wythoff symbol, its TOCID symbol, its name, and [in
brackets] the name of the dual co-uniform polyhedron, if any.  Some
polyhedra can be obtained in more than one way and so appear more
than once in the table.


Regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  p^q

   1     {2 3}(3)        T  = Tetrahedron
                                [Tetrahedron]
   2     {2 3}(4)        O  = Octahedron
                                [Cube]
   3     {2 4}(3)        C  = Cube
                                [Octahedron]
   4     {2 3}(5)        I  = Icosahedron
                                [Dodecahedron]
   5     {2 5}(3)        D  = Dodecahedron
                                [Icosahedron]
  20    {2 5/2}(5)       D* = Small stellated dodecahedron
                                [Great dodecahedron]
  21    {2 5}(5/2)       E  = Great dodecahedron
                                [Small stellated dodecahedron]
  22    {2 5/2}(3)       E* = Great stellated dodecahedron
                                [Great icosahedron]
  41    {2 3}(5/2)       J  = Great icosahedron
                                [Great stellated dodecahedron]


Quasi-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  (p.q)^r

   2     {3 3}(2)       TT  = Tetratetrahedron = octahedron
                                [Rhombic hexahedron = cube]
  11     {3 4}(2)       CO  = Cuboctahedron
                                [Rhombic dodecahedron]
  12     {3 5}(2)       ID  = Icosidodecahedron
                                [Rhombic triacontahedron]
  73    {5/2 5}(2)      ED* = Dodecadodecahedron
                                [Midly rhombic triacontahedron]
  94    {3 5/2}(2)      JE* = Great icosidodecahedron
                                [Great rhombic triacontahedron]
  70    {3 5/2}(3)      ID* = Small ditrigonary icosidodecahedron
                                [Small triambic icosahedron]
  80    {5/3 5}(3)      DE* = Ditrigonary dodecadodecahedron
                                [Midly triambic icosahedron]
  87    {3 5}(3/2)      JE  = Great ditrigonary icosidodecahedron
                                [Great triambic icosahedron]


Versi-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  q.h.q.h

  67    [2]{3/2 3}     T|T  = Tetrahemihexahedron
                                [no dual]
  78    [3]{4/3 4}     C|O  = Cubohemioctahedron
                                [no dual]
  68    [3]{3/2 3}     O|C  = Octahemioctahedron
                                [no dual]
  91    [5]{5/4 5}     D|I  = Small dodecahemidodecahedron
                                [no dual]
  89    [5]{3/2 3}     I|D  = Small icosahemidodecahedron
                                [no dual]
 102    [3]{5/4 5}     E|D* = Small dodecahemiicosahedron
                                [no dual]
 100   [3]{5/3 5/2}   D*|E  = Great dodecahemiicosahedron
                                [no dual]
 106   [5/3]{3/2 3}    J|E* = Great icosahemidodecahedron
                                [no dual]
 107  [5/3]{5/3 5/2}  E*|J  = Great dodecahemidodecahedron
                                [no dual]


Tomo-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  q.2p.2p

   6     [3]{3 2}       tT  = Truncated tetrahedron
                                [Triakis tetrahedron]
   7     [3]{4 2}       tO  = Truncated octahedron
                                [Tetrakis hexahedron]
   8     [4]{3 2}       tC  = Truncated cube
                                [Triakis octahedron]
  92    [4/3]{3 2}      tC* = Stellatruncated cube
                                [Great triakis octahedron]
   9     [3]{5 2}       tI  = Truncated icosahedron
                                [Pentakis dodecahedron]
  10     [5]{3 2}       tD  = Truncated dodecahedron
                                [Triakis icosahedron]
  97    [5/3]{5 2}      tD* = Small stellatruncated dodecahedron
                                [Great pentakis dodecahedron]
  75    [5]{5/2 2}      tE  = Great truncated dodecahedron
                                [Small astropentakis dodecahedron]
 104    [5/3]{3 2}      tE* = Great stellatruncated dodecahedron
                                [Great triakis icosahedron]
  95    [3]{5/2 2}      tJ  = Great truncated icosahedron
                                [Great astropentakis dodecahedron]


Simo-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  p.3.p.3.3  or  p.3.p.3.q/2.3

   4     {3}|4 2|       sO  = Snub octahedron
                                   = (small) icosahedron
                                [Petaloid dodecahedron
                                   = (small) dodecahedron]
  41    {3/2}|4 2|     s*O  = Retrosnub octahedron
                                   = great icosahedron
                                [Astroid dodecahedron
                                   = great stellated dodecahedron]
 110   {\3\}||5 2||    ssI  = Holosnub icosahedron
                                   = snub disicosidodecahedron
                                [no dual]
 118  {\3/2\}||5 2||  ss*I  = Retroholosnub icosahedron
                                   = retrosnub disicosidodecahedron
                                [no dual]


Quasi-quasi-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  p.2r.q.2r  or  p.2s.q.2s

  11     [2]{3 3}      rTT  = Rhombitetratetrahedron
                                   = cuboctahedron
                                [Lanceal dihexahedron
                                   = rhombic dodecahedron]
  68    [3]{3/2 3}     aTT  = Allelotetratetrahedron
                                   = octahemioctahedron
                                [no dual]
  13     [2]{3 4}      rCO  = (Small) rhombicuboctahedron
                                [(Small) lanceal disdodecahedron]
  69    [4]{3/2 4}     bCO  = Small cubicuboctahedron
                                [Small sagittal disdodecahedron]
  77    [4/3]{3 4}     cOC* = Great cubicuboctahedron
                                [Great lanceal disdodecahedron]
  85    [2]{3/2 4}     rOC* = Great rhombicuboctahedron
                                [Great sagittal disdodecahedron]
  14     [2]{3 5}      rID  = (Small) rhombicosidodecahedron
                                [(Small) lanceal ditriacontahedron]
  72    [5]{3/2 5}     dID  = Small dodekicosidodecahedron
                                [Small sagittal ditriacontahedron]
  71    [3]{3 5/2}     iID* = Small icosified icosidodecahedron
                                [Small lanceal trisicosahedron]
  82    [5]{3 5/3}     dID* = Small dodekified icosidodecahedron
                                [Small sagittal trisicosahedron]
  76    [2]{5/2 5}     rED* = Rhombidodecadodecahedron
                                [Midly lanceal ditriacontahedron]
  83    [3]{5/3 5}     iED* = Icosified dodecadodecahedron
                                [Midly sagittal ditriacontahedron]
  81    [5/3]{3 5}     eJE  = Great dodekified icosidodecahedron
                                [Great lanceal trisicosahedron]
  88    [3]{3/2 5}     iJE  = Great icosified icosidodecahedron
                                [Great sagittal trisicosahedron]
  99   [5/3]{3 5/2}    eJE* = Great dodekicosidodecahedron
                                [Great lanceal ditriacontahedron]
 105    [2]{3 5/3}     rJE* = Great rhombicosidodecahedron
                                [Great sagittal ditriacontahedron]


Versi-quasi-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  2r.2s.2r.2s

  78   3/2[2 3]3/2   ra|TT  = Rhomballelohedron
                                   = cubohemioctahedron
                                [no dual]
  86   3/2[2 4]4/2   rb|CO  = Small rhombicube
                                [Small dipteral disdodecahedron]
 103  3/2[2 4/3]4/2  rc|OC* = Great rhombicube
                                [Great dipteral disdodecahedron]
  74   3/2[2 5]5/2   rd|ID  = Small rhombidodecahedron
                                [Small dipteral ditriacontahedron]
  90   3/2[3 5]5/4   di|ID* = Small dodekicosahedron
                                [Small dipteral trisicosahedron]
  96   5/4[2 3]5/2   ri|ED* = Rhombicosahedron
                                [Midly dipteral ditriacontahedron]
 101  3/2[3 5/3]5/2  ei|JE  = Great dodekicosahedron
                                [Great dipteral trisicosahedron]
 109  3/2[2 5/3]5/4  re|JE* = Great rhombidodecahedron
                                [Great dipteral ditriacontahedron]


Tomo-quasi-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  2p.2q.2r

   7     [2 3 3]       tTT  = Truncated tetratetrahedron
                                   = truncated octahedron
                                [Disdyakis hexahedron
                                   = tetrakis hexahedron]
  15     [2 3 4]       tCO  = Truncated cuboctahedron
                                [(Small) disdyakis dodecahedron]
  93    [2 3 4/3]      tOC* = Stellatruncated cuboctahedron
                                [Great disdyakis dodecahedron]
  79    [3 4/3 4]     tCOC* = Cubitruncated cuboctahedron
                                [Trisdyakis octahedron]
  16     [2 3 5]       tID  = Truncated icosidodecahedron
                                [(Small) disdyakis triacontahedron]
  98    [2 5/3 5]      tED* = Stellatruncated dodecadodecahedron
                                [Midly disdyakis triacontahedron]
  84    [3 5/3 5]     tIDE* = Icositruncated dodecadodecahedron
                                [Trisdyakis icosahedron]
 108    [2 3 5/3]      tJE* = Stellatruncated icosidodecahedron
                                [Great disdyakis triacontahedron]


Simo-quasi-regular polyhedra:  Vertex type  p.3.q.3.3  or  p.3.q.3.r.3

   4     {2 3 3}       sTT  = Snub tetratetrahedron
                                   = (small)icosahedron
                                [Petaloid dihexahedron
                                   = (small) dodecahedron]
  41   {2 3/2 3/2}    s*TT  = Retrosnub tetratetrahedron
                                   = great icosahedron
                                [Astroid dihexahedron
                                   = great stellated dodecahedron]
  17     {2 3 4}       sCO  = Snub cuboctahedron
                                [Petaloid disdodecahedron]
  18     {2 3 5}       sID  = Snub icosidodecahedron
                                [(Small) petaloid ditriacontahedron]
 110    {3 3 5/2}     sIID* = Snub disicosidodecahedron
                                [no dual]
 118  {3/2 3/2 5/2}  s*IID* = Retrosnub disicosidodecahedron
                                [no dual]
 111    {2 5/2 5}      sED* = Snub dodecadodecahedron
                                [Midly petaloid ditriacontahedron]
 114    {2 5/3 5}     s'ED* = Vertisnub dodecadodecahedron
                                [Midly dentoid ditriacontahedron]
 112    {3 5/3 5}     sIDE* = Snub icosidodecadodecahedron
                                [Petaloidal trisicosahedron]
 113    {2 3 5/2}      sJE* = Great snub icosidodecahedron
                                [Great petaloid ditriacontahedron]
 116    {2 3 5/3}     s'JE* = Great vertisnub icosidodecahedron
                                [Great dentoid ditriacontahedron]
 117   {2 3/2 5/3}    s*JE* = Great retrosnub icosidodecahedron
                                [Great astroid ditriacontahedron]
 115   {5/3 3 5/2}   sE*JE* = Great snub dodekicosidodecahedron
                                [no dual]


Snub quasi-regular polyhedron:  Vertex type  (p.4.q.4)^2

 119 {3/2 5/3 3 5/2} s(JE*)^2 = Great snub disicosidisdodecahedron
                                  [no dual]


Prisms:  Vertex type  p.4.4

       [2]{n/d 2}   (n/d)P  = (d-fold) n-gonal prism
                                [(d-fold) n-gonal fusil]
                                   (n/d > 2)
       [2 2 n/d]   t(n/d)P  = (d-fold) 2n-gonal prism
                                [(d-fold) 2n-gonal fusil]
                                   (d odd, n/d > 1)


Antiprisms:  Vertex type  p.3.3.3

       {2 2 n/d}    (n/d)Q  = (d-fold) n-gonal antiprism
                                [(d-fold) n-gonal antifusil]
                                   (n/d > 2)
     {2 2 n/(n-d)}  (n/d)R  = d-fold n-gonal crossed antiprism
                                [d-fold n-gonal concave antifusil]
                                   (2 < n/d < 3)

 

Aren't his names already on MathWorld? The only annoying thing about his names is that the "small dodecahemiicosahedron" is actually the great dodecahemicosahedron and the "great dodecahemiicosahedron" is actually the small dodecahemicosahedron. Double sharp (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I prefer Bowers' names. (Yes, he has names that aren't acronyms.) I notice that in both Johnson's and Bowers' naming schemes, "dodec-" becomes "dodek-" before "icosi-" or "icosa-". Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Schwarz triangle list

What do you think of User:Double sharp/Wythoff symbol (still incomplete, but non-degenerate uniform polyhedra up to U74 are already there)? Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking good. Maybe when complete, could be moved to an article like: List_of_uniform_polyhedra_by_Schwarz_triangles. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Now at List of uniform polyhedra by Schwarz triangle. How is it? Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nets

Do you think we should add nets for the nonconvex uniform polyhedra as well? Double sharp (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a preview: . This net is for the pentagrammic antiprism. Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Robert Webb said he didn't want the star nets published. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that's because his software is the only place to find most of them, but some are also available at korthalsaltes.com. Double sharp (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We already have a net for the dodecadodecahedron. Double sharp (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tomruen. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Eclipse

Do you have any more photos of the Eclipse? I like your photo! Victor Grigas (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a collage uploaded at [5]. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Lots online, here's one from Texas [6]. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Rotunda problem

Regarding rotunda (geometry), is it possible to have a hexagonal rotunda (not necessarily made of all regular polygons)?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean hexagonal symmetry, or made of alternating triangles and hexagons? Tom Ruen (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Compare the square and pentagonal cupolas. A hexagonal cupola is also possible if the polygons are not regular, and I'm asking if a hexagonal rotunda is also possible?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there's still some confusion, at least ambiguity for me. Cupola (geometry) have a bottom 2n-gon, top n-agon, and alternate triangles and squares. A Rotunda has a bottom 2n-gon, top n-gon, and sides are n pentagons, and 2n triangles. So you can have n=6 for hexagons if they are flattened a bit. What I wasn't sure is whether you wanted to have hexagons around the sides, which would be something else! Anyway, hopefully I can construct some images for the other non-Johnson cases. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll need distortion for both. The pentagonal-sides hexagonal rotunda needs flattening, while the hexagonal-sides hexagonal rotunda needs distortion – if faces are regular, it degenerates into the trihexagonal tiling. Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Request fix for File:Cantellated cubic honeycomb.png

In that image, one of the sides of the Rhombicuboctahedron in the lower left is Blue where it should be Purple. Could you please fix and reload?Naraht (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit deceptive, but there's a blue cube in front. Hopefully the image can be replaced someday by an exact rendering. I traced this one from a very tiny image. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I can see it now... We need to go 3D in Wikipedia...Naraht (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

nonuniform snubs

Each of the paragraphs that you've recently added about nonuniform snubs says that one class of cells is irregular. Shouldn't it be rather that not all cells can be regular? Or are the constraints such that one class cannot be made regular no matter how much the other cells are distorted?

By the way – maybe I already told you this – I went looking for alternated tilings in H3, and found at least two uniform: 4s43 and s444s. —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool on alternations in Convex uniform honeycombs in hyperbolic space! Probably you're right on the cell language. I was thinking each existing cell could be snubbed independently uniformly, leaving irregular gaps. My only example was cantitruncated_cubic_honeycomb#Alternation, but now clearly, the snub tetrahedra also can't be uniform. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(Compact Coxeter group) cases:

Snubs:

, ,

,

, ,

Semisnubs:

,

ALMOST "connected correctly": , Fixed --->

Are you saying all but the last are confirmed uniform? If so, how did you (or somebody) go about it? —Tamfang (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No sorry, not imply uniformity (ALMOST meant my graphics failed the diagram, but I faked it). So I was merely enumerating candidates. I don't have the tools to test them, especially hyperbolics! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What I've done is work out the vertex figures and try to see whether they have a circumsphere; for this task, the overall geometry doesn't matter, since vertex figures live in a locally-flat neighborhood. The two that I confirmed (and several that I rejected) have high symmetry to make this easy. I don't have the techniques needed for the others. — This would be a good way to search for non-Wythoff uniforms, by the way. —Tamfang (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you just try to find facetings of the verfs? That's what Bowers did when enumerating the uniform star polychora. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Given the vf F of a polychoron, to find the vf AF of its alternation I truncate F so that each original edge of F is shortened from 2cos(2n) to 2cos(n). Each new edge of AF represents a polygon of the same degree as the old face of F "in" which (topologically) it lies. —Tamfang (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wendy gave me a list, with verfs at User:Tomruen/hyperbolic_honeycombs. None are snubs. :( Tom Ruen (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Stellations

I've finally added Du Val symbols to my stellated icosahedron images at Talk:The Fifty-Nine Icosahedra#Polyhedron of the week, so we can finally insert them into the article.

I also made an image of the cell diagram of the icosahedron: File:Icosahedron cell diagram.png.

I could make the cell diagrams for the other polyhedra that Wenninger stellated: the octahedron, the dodecahedron, the cuboctahedron and the icosidodecahedron. However, although I could upload all the Miller stellations of the oct, doe, and co (which has 21 stellations), I am definitely not going to do so for the icosidodecahedron, because (1) it has 7071672 reflexible stellations and who knows how many chiral ones, (2) even if I just upload the fully supported ones, there are still 847 of them and I don't want to upload so many, and (3) the servers will probably collapse. (At least, we're not discussing the disdyakis triacontahedron, which has over a trillion stellations...)

I could give the "extended Du Val symbols" (the same as the normal Du Val symbols for the icosahedron, but extended to fit the other polyhedra) for the stellations Wenninger includes in his book, though. Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Transit of Venus pix on Commons

Can you give geolocation coords or placename for your pix of the transit of Venus? We cannot see the transit here in Christchurch, New Zealand because it is snowing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you couldn't see it. I added lat/long to the picture info. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Polyhedron Wythoff symbols

I replied at User talk:Double sharp/Wythoff symbol. Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied again. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic

In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.

Place: near Minnehaha Falls at Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis
Date: Saturday, July 7, 2012 (rain date July 8)
Time: 12–3 pm

• Accessible from the Minnehaha Park light rail station, bus, walk, bike, or car
• If driving, free parking available at 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
• Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!

See the meetup talk page for more. —innotata 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Each progressive uniform polytope is constructed vertex figure of the previous."

Please pause and read that sentence over again. —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up. :) Tom Ruen (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Polychora listing

You found my old polychora listing useful? (the User:4/Polychora tables) I'm reconstructing them at User:Double sharp/Polychora. Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be cool to have pictures of vertex figures (for the convex ones only, because I am most certainly not going to upload 1849++ pictures). Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternation and snubs

I was thinking, for snub polyhedron and alternation (geometry), it could be cool to have pictures, consisting of the omnitruncated polyhedron in wireframe and then the alternated snub polyhedron inside, like File:Snubcubes in grCO.svg but only showing one of cw or ccw and extending for one image for every snub uniform polyhedron. Do you think this would be a good idea? Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do all snubs even have a corresponding omnitruncate? Tom's tables don't seem to show one for the great snub icosidodecahedron or snub dodecadodecahedron. —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at List of uniform polyhedra by Schwarz triangle, it seems that the corresponding omnitruncates for gosid and siddid are degenerate, but are still zonohedra and can still be alternated. Looking at these tables, it appears that every snub has a corresponding omnitruncate. (Although I don't quite see how you can get sirsid from "4ike+2gad".) Double sharp (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've started. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See my uploaded files: I've uploaded pictures for the icosahedron, snub cube, snub dodecahedron, small snub icosicosidodecahedron, and snub dodecadodecahedron. Since the others require heroic powers of visualisation I thought I'd ask you to comment on the easier ones before I create images for the others.

Here's a full list of what needs to be alternated:

n-ap: alternate 2n-p.

ike: alternate toe.

gike: alternate 2oct+6{4}? (don't know how that can be done)

snic: alternate girco.

snid: alternate grid.

seside: alternate 2ti.

siddid: alternate sird+12{10/2}.

sided: alternate idtid.

gosid: alternate ri+12{10/2}.

isdid: alternate quitdid.

gisdid: alternate giddy+12{10/2}.

gisid: alternate gaquatid.

sirsid: alternate 4ike+2gad? (don't know how that can be done)

girsid: alternate gird+20{6/2}. Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• 
  tet
• 
  oct
• 
  squap
• 
  pap
• 
  stap
• 
  starp
• 
  hap
• 
  ike
• 
  gike
• 
  snic
• 
  snid
• 
  seside
• 
  siddid
• 
  sided
• 
  gosid
• 
  isdid
• gisdid
  gisdid
• 
  gisid
• sirsid
  sirsid
• girsid
  girsid

Here's the full gallery of the images that will eventually be here. Red and yellow are faces derived from the quasiregular polyhedron, while blue are snub faces. Seside is the exception: the coplanar faces forced me to recolour it manually, and now we have red and blue for original faces and green for snub faces. For sided and gisdid, there are three types of faces to alternate, and so red, yellow, and blue are used for those faces, and green faces are snub faces. Double sharp (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that for some star polyhedra, it is not that obvious how the original polyhedron gets distorted back to having regular faces, but for some (such as seside), so little distortion is required that it must be made clear that some distortion is needed. It's got to do with how close the Schwarz triangle is to being equilateral. (For seside, it is very close!) Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dynkin diagram diagrams

Hi! The diagrams on the Dynkin diagrams for the twisted affine type A diagrams seem to be wrong. In the section on affine diagrams, in the first display, the labels A_2k⁽²⁾ and A_2k-1⁽²⁾ are swapped. The big diagram of "Connected affine Dynkin graphs", though, is correct (and also agrees with Kac's book "Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras", p. 55.) I don't know how to make such nice diagrams, so could you revise the existing one? Thanks very much! Ctourneur (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I confirmed, and corrected (Just used MSPaint!) (You might have to refresh your browser to see). It looks like it got swapped unintentionally on one of an updates. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rankballotoval.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Rankballotoval.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Reality 10:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to http://home.comcast.net/~rruen/1954_uniform_polyhedra_paper.pdf (your site?) at File:Degenerate uniform polyhedra vertex figures.png seems to be dead. Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, no webpage any more. I if you send me a message, I can email a copy. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the paper is available from here. Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries event

In the area? You are invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Minneapolis.

Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.

There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor)
When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page. —innotata 14:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

New messages at Commons

Hi Tom, I left some more or less urgent messages (7d) at your Commons talk page. Best regards. -- Rillke (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

wikislothery

Check my changes at Simple polytope —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

May 2013 lunar eclipse map

Hi, the map you added to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=May_2013_lunar_eclipse&oldid=333416923 doesn't look quite right... (I'm pretty sure I won't be able to step outside at midday in Western Australia to see a lunar eclipse :P) *edit* Actually, I think you intended to add the map to the previous month's eclipse, but missed. -michael (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct map has been linked. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:M32 Lanoue.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:M32 Lanoue.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)