Talk:Tenth stellation of icosahedron

Coxeter and Wenninger stellations:

According to: [1], here's the index coorespondence from Coxeter's 59 to Wenninger's models:

So this Wenninger model W35 is Coxeter's model C33. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coxeter. Code (name) [Wenninger]

1. A (icosahedron) [4]
3. C (five octahedra) [23]
47. Ef1 (five tetrahedra) [24]
22. Ef1 (ten tetrahedra) [25]
2. B (first stellation) [26]
6. F [27]
26. Ef1g1 [28]
11. g1 [29]
20. f2g2 [30]
23. Fg1 [31]
21. De1 [32]
29. Fg2 [33]
30. De2f2 [34]
33. f1 [35]
34. e1f1 [36]
9. e1 [37]
51. e2f1f2 [38]
37. e1f1g1 [39]
45. e2f1 [40]
7. G (great icosahedron) [41]
8. H (final stellation) [42]

Not notable enough

I do not think that this polyhedron is notable enough to warrant its own article. This also applies to the First stellation of icosahedron and Final stellation of the icosahedron articles.

IMHO what we really need is an illustrated list of the 59 "Miller" icosahedra, say The fifty-nine icosahedra. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I tend to agree about this form specifically at least. I must admit I don't hold much esteem for this sort of "vertex-connected" stellations, while forms of high symmetry and solidness are worthy, like Final stellation of the icosahedron, although deserves to be moved to a better name, like echidnahedron.

AND I agree it would be good to get all 59 forms in a table at List of fifty-nine icosahedra (And cross-referencing with Wenninger's list). Great Stella can create them all, but doesn't tell you what they are. It is nice because it subgroups them by symmetry. They are hard to "see" what each are from a single image, not sure what to do about that, although showing the stellation diagrams I guess is the key to identification. So what we NEED are the stellation diagrams for all 59! Tom Ruen (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be hard to justify any "nth stellaion of the icosahedron" page title based on the notability guidelines. And I see little point in doing just a few - better to have those pages called "Compound of five tetrahedra" or whatever. Given that the article will have a large table including 59 illustrations (or, knowing you, 118 or even 177), I am not sure that "List of..." is a sensible start to the title. If we begin the article with some remarks about the book of the same name, e.g. stating Miller's rules, then it is definitely not just a list. I will email you separately about the face diagrams. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]