Editing Talk:Johnson solid (section)

== Can we like, go back to the old format with the tables? ==

The new format is just bad, I'm not even gonna lie. The old format made it so much more clear how they were all constructed, and also how they were related to each other. The new format just throws all of that out the window, and on top of it all, it removed the pictures too :( I don't understand why it was even changed? like what's better abut this list? We already have a page that just lists them all out (AND HAS PICTURES ON TOP OF THAT!!!!!) [[User:Digital542|Digital542]] ([[User talk:Digital542|talk]]) 10:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
: I understand many readers or users would like to add the images for construction illustration purposes, but we do have guidelines about avoiding excessive exhibition images, discussed in [[WT:WPM]]. We have an article [[List of Johnson solids]], containing a list of Johnson solids, and it is sufficient to give a table alongside the symmetry group and their metric properties.  [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 11:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::I also think taking the images out is a disimprovement here, and [[special:permalink/1214091470]] seems on balance like a more useful article than the current version for most readers. The images are essential for explanation because the names are opaque and inaccessible to non-experts. If a reader who isn't already an expert sees a name like "Elongated pentagonal orthobirotunda" they really have little idea what shape is being indicated, but if they see the pictures {{br}}
:::[[Image:Elongated pentagonal orthobirotunda.png|100px]] [[Image:Johnson solid 42 net.png|100px]]
::that gives a much clearer idea. One possibility would be to just merge [[List of Johnson solids]] into the bottom of this article, under a title like "Appendix: List of Johnson Solids". –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 16:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Jacobolus|Jacobolus]] You can ask for [[WT:WPM]], but the article is already in TFL on 14th March. So that would be a loss golden star and further discussion in [[WT:FL]]. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 00:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
::::The list doesn't really seem that independently useful, and the main page gets about 3x more audience (most of whom would presumably be interested in the content at the list page, but don't know it exists / don't bother clicking through). The criteria for featured lists are pretty weak and I don't think reducing the gold-star count of lists is worth worrying much about. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 02:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
: You can still look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_solid&oldid=1214189872 old format] in the page history. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 12:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:I second this proposal. I somewhat understand the desire to include fewer images but I think it makes sense in this article in particular because there are 92 solids, so logically you would need a lot of images to illustrate each one. [[User:Yellowmarkers|Yellowmarkers]] ([[User talk:Yellowmarkers|talk]]) 16:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
:''I completely agree with undoing this change''. Not only are the pictures gone (which are central to a visual subject like this), the new article is just missing some of the curcial information that the old one contained. I just came back to look something up, and it was gone. I am speaking of
:* the enumeration by construction
:* the nets of the Johnson solids
:* the classification by types of faces
:* the list of circumscribable Johnson solids
:None of which can be found in the [[List of Johnson solids]]. [[User:MWinter4|MWinter4]] ([[User talk:MWinter4|talk]]) 16:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)