User talk:GreatStellatedDodecahedron

If you leave a message here, I will respond here. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Timeline of crystallography has been accepted[edit]

Timeline of crystallography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Passenger pigeon (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatic symmetries[edit]

I recently came across the articles you started on Dichromatic symmetry and Polychromatic symmetry through the link on Magnetic space group. I appreciate your work on them, particularly with the nice figures. It is a fairly technical and not a very well-known area, but I think you've done a good job tracking down reliable sources and explaining the basics. I enjoyed reading through it, and I know that must have taken some time to put together. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 00:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Tilings and patterns[edit]

Hello, GreatStellatedDodecahedron,

Thank you for creating Tilings and patterns.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please follow the format at WP:NONFICTION. Examples to follow are also listed there.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123:

You have asked me to improve Tilings and patterns by following "the format at WP:NONFICTION. Examples to follow are also listed there."

As requested, I have carefully reviewed the content of WP:NONFICTION. I find that none of the examples given are mathematics books and so are not directly relevant to Tilings and patterns. Also the sections titled "General reference books" and "Non-fiction science books" are empty.

As there is no specific advice on layout for a mathematics book article, I have reviewed the general advice for non-fiction books. The recommendation is to include the following sections:

Introduction: this is present. I could add an info box if this would be an improvement.
Synopsis / Summary / Overview / Themes / Plot: a Structure and topics section is present.
Author / Background / Development and writing / Construction: This is not present. The sources do not give insight into how the book was written except to say that the book was 10 years in development. I could state that the authors were both mathematicians.
Reviews / Commercial and critical reception / Criticism / Analysis / Reception: this section is present but it could be cut down if it is considered to be too long. It is the current length in order to establish the notability of the book.
Content(s) / Chapters / Format: this is present. There is a table with links to Wikipedia pages, which I believe gives a useful summary of the contents of the book. The book is currently referenced on 76 existing Wikipedia pages.
Genre / Genre and style / Analysis and genre / Influence / Legacy: this is present. I could change the title of the Reception section to Reception and influence, or I could split the material into separate Reception and Influence sections if this would be an improvement.
Awards and nominations / Popular success / Publication: not applicable.
Adaptations: not applicable.
Release details / Editions / Publication: this is present.
See also: not applicable.
References / Sources / Footnotes / Notes / Bibliography: this is present.
External links: this is present.

As you have reviewed the article and tagged it as needing layout improvement, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you tagged it, and what specific changes you consider are necessary to remove the tag. Thank you. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatStellatedDodecahedron: Hi, thanks for the response. Most books, regardless of their subject, follow a fairly similar format. My main concern is the table referencing multiple Wikipedia articles, and the amount of reviews. Ideally, your Structure and topics section should consist of prose paragraphs, with the relevant Wikipedia articles linked where needed. The amount of reviews you included is also a bit much. There isn't really a hard number, but a few of the reviews you think are most important should be sufficient. I noticed you mentioned needing the reviews to meet notability guidelines; only 2 reviews are needed to establish notability. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123: Hi, thanks for your advice. I have made the following changes to the article:

Split the Reception section into Reception and Influence sections
Shortened the Reception and Influence sections
Added an infobox
Added a statement that the book took 10 years to develop, and identified the authors as mathematicians
Moved the subject matter table to an appendix at the bottom of the article

I know that the table is a non-standard section in the layout for a non-fiction book article. However, I do think that it provides value to readers of the article as it 1) provides an overview of what subjects the book covers, and 2) provides quick links to follow up specific areas of interest.

Please let me know if these changes address your concerns with the article. Thanks. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems better now, thanks. Feel free to remove the tag if you want. There's a few minor changes I'll make in a few days, once my internet connection is better. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123: Hi, thanks for helping me to improve this article. I have removed the tag. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Q[edit]

hello! Very sorry to bother but based on your username and some of the articles at New Articles I've seen created under your username, I thought you might be able to help. I got sucked into a rabbit hole at Taylor circle that led to the creation of stub Eutaris that led to the creation of Henry Vuibert. I downloaded an image from a book he wrote to use as an illustration but I don't speak much French, or much geometry for that matter, and I'm dissatisfied with the Google translation rendition of the caption. Any chance you could recommend an appropriate article to link for this shape? Please and thank you in advance for any guidance you can offer. Best, ~j jengod (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jengod, I think that this might be the great icosahedron. In the image I can count 12 green vertices and 30 green edges with 5 edges at each vertex; (12 vertices x 5 edges / 2 ends of each edge = 30). This means it is one of 3 Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra - the great dodecahedron, the small stellated dodecahedron or the great icosahedron. If you go to the rotatable 3D model in the great icosahedron article I think you can rotate the model to make it look somewhat like Vuibert's illustration, in particular the triangular faces look similar. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, being a Wikipedian is such an honor. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. (My smarty pants 11yo knows all about great stellated dodecahedrons but Imma hit him with "Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra" and see if there's any interest LOL.) Seriously thanks v much. What a treat. jengod (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]