Editing Talk:Johnson solid

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Mathematics|small= |importance=low }}
{{WikiProject Polyhedra|importance=}}
}}

==Images==
I have been modifying [[user:Cyp]]'s [[User:Cyp/Poly.pov|image:Poly.pov]] povray macros to generate images of as many of the [[Johnson solid]]s as I can.  See [[User:AndrewKepert/poly.pov]] for what may be the latest version. Here is where I am tracking progress.  Bold numbers have images.

'''Relocated to [[User:AndrewKepert/polyhedra]]'''

==Images of the flat kind==

Doesn't do 3d, and only knows 2 Johnson solids (so far), but here's [[:image:makepolys.c|makepolys.c]].
:[[image:pentagonal pyramid flat.svg|50px]][[image:square orthobicupola flat.svg|50px]]

[[User:Cyp|&#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; ''Cyp'']] [[User talk:Cyp|&nbsp;]] 00:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm making some "home-made" nets:
:[[image:square_pyramid_net.png|50px]][[image:Triangular cupola net.PNG|50px]][[image:Square cupola net.PNG|50px]][[image:Pentagonal Cupola.PNG|50px]]

And the rest with Inkscape, now that I found out about it:
:[[image:Pentagonal Rotunda Net.svg|50px]]

Now that there's enough nets for a whole section, anyone think we should incorporate them into the table?

=== Complete set of nets ===
I have [[Stella (software)]] which generates all the Johnson solids. Previously I didn't have the patience to try uploading all 92 nets, but figured easier for me than generating all from scratch. By default Stella colors faces by symmetry positions. I only had patience to upload them by indexed names. Here they all are! Feel free to "trace" or change arrangements in a complete set of SVG versions as your patience allows! I do think the symmetry coloring is worthy to use. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

: I added the nets to stub articles J47-92. Patience exhausted for now. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

<!--#[[Image:Johnson solid 1 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 2 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 3 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 4 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 5 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 6 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 7 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 8 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 9 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 10 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 11 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 12 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 13 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 14 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 15 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 16 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 17 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 18 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 19 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 20 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 21 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 22 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 23 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 24 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 25 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 26 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 27 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 28 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 29 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 30 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 31 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 32 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 33 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 34 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 35 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 36 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 37 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 38 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 39 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 40 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 41 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 42 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 43 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 44 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 45 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 46 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 47 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 48 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 49 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 50 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 51 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 52 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 53 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 54 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 55 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 56 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 57 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 58 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 59 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 60 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 61 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 62 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 63 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 64 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 65 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 66 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 67 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 68 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 69 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 70 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 71 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 72 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 73 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 74 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 75 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 76 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 77 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 78 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 79 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 80 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 81 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 82 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 83 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 84 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 85 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 86 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 87 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 88 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 89 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 90 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 91 net.png|80px]]
#[[Image:Johnson solid 92 net.png|80px]]
-->

==Elongated square gyrobicupola==
The picture is wrong - that's obviously a [[rhombicuboctahedron]]. Compare: [http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/j37.gif]
*No it is right.  Look again. [[User:AndrewKepert|Andrew Kepert]] 03:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:It's definitely an image of the right polyhedron, but it's taken from an unflattering angle. Could someone POVRay up an image that is at first glance ''obviously'' not a rhombicuboctahedron? &mdash;ajo, 21 April 2005

::I'm not sure that's possible.  They don't call that the "pseudorhombicuboctahedron" for nothing.  [[User:RobertAustin|RobertAustin]] 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

:::When you look at http://peda.com/posters/img/poly4.gif 10th row sixth picture from the left you can see a view of elongated square gyrobicupola which is very distinct of rhombicuboctahedron. 19:45, 17 April 2010  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.125.121.33|74.125.121.33]] ([[User talk:74.125.121.33|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==The list==

Usually it would be called good practice to make a list such as that in this article stand-alone. Not something to insist on, perhaps, in this case; but it is something to think about, in the way of writing the article so that it doesn't 'wrap' round having the list there in the current way. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 09:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I don't understand this comment.  Clarify?  [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 05:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Johnson numbers==
Is the numbering of the Johnson solids arbitrary?  If not, how are the Johnson numbers determined?  I think this should be mentioned in the article. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 19:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
:Good point - the numbering was in Johnson's original paper.  I have amended the article. [[User:AndrewKepert|Andrew Kepert]] 00:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== "simple" Johnson solids? ==

28 of the Johnson solids are "simple".  Non-simple means you can cut the solid with a plane into two other regular-faced solids.  But it isn't clear which ones.  Anyone?  [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 05:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Off the top of my head:
:*1-6 (pyramids, cupolae & rotunda) 
:*63 (tridiminished icosahedron - can't chop any further)
:*80 and 83 (parabidiminished & tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedra - ditto)
:*the "sporadics" 84-86 & 88-92, (87 is an augmented sporadic)  They have no relation to platonics or archimedeans.
:which makes 6+1+2+8 = 17.  There are other components from the platonic, archimedean, prisms and antiprisms that could arguably considered as needed for a building any of the J solids, but these are not "of the J solids".  I think I have all or most of the list here, given your defn - well short of 28.
:Where did you get 28?  ... ah I see it in the mathworld article.  Google throws up no other ref to "simple johnson solid".  I suspect Mathworld is wrong, probably in the defn of "simple"  --[[User:AndrewKepert|Andrew Kepert]] 07:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Okay, thanks.  That's disturbing if MathWorld is totally wrong here.  [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 22:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Incidentally, the Wikipedia articles are using the term "[[elementary]]" instead of "[[simple]]," and upon incautious consideration I agree with Wikipedia's choice of terminology. &mdash;ajo, Apr 2005

: I added a table of images at the end. Very useful. 
: Probably the list should be moved to "List of Johnson solids", and then this article can be shorter.
: I'd like more statistics on these solids - Vertex, Edge, Face counts (and types of faces), Symmetry group. (I don't have this information) When this is available, making a data table would be more useful.
: [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] 19:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:Actually, the Mathworld article was discussing all the simple convex regular-faced solids, including the simple Archimedean solids. There are 11 of these:
:
: tetrahedron
: dodecahedron
: truncated tetrahedron
: truncated cube
: truncated octahedron
: truncated cuboctahedron
: truncated dodecahedron
: truncated icosahedron
: truncated icosidodecahedron
: snub cube
: snub dodecahedron
:
: which when added to the 17 simple Johnson solids, make 28.
: [[User:Mongo62aa|Mongo62aa]] ([[User talk:Mongo62aa|talk]]) 03:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:: The cube is excluded because ...? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 16:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

::: Because the prisms and antiprisms are excluded, otherwise the list would be infinite in length. [[User:Mongo62aa|Mongo62aa]] ([[User talk:Mongo62aa|talk]]) 14:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

== NEW TABLE == 

I added a new table with columns: Name, image, Type, Vertices, Edges, Faces, (Face counts by type 3,4,5,6,8,10), and Symmetry.

I computed the VEF counts by the table from: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/JohnsonSolid.html
: Total faces by: F=F3+F4+F5+F6+F8+F10
: Computed total internal angle_sum=180*(F3+2*F4+3*F5+4*F6+6*F8+8*F10)
:: Used angle defect sum to compute vertices: V=chi+angle_sum/360 (chi=2 for topological spheres)
: Computed edges by Euler: E=V+F-2

The results should be correct, but may not be correctly matched by names if the indices were inconsistent!

== A Name for the #84 - #92 group? [Sporadics proposed 2009-02-21]==

The series #84 - #92 are not derived from cut-and-paste of Platonics, Archimedians, and prisms.
I put forth a trial name in the table: Johnson Special solids, after fiddling with a thesaurus for a while, thinking that they deserved better than "Miscellaneous".  (One of them is actually an augmented Johnson special.)  Other possibilities are Johnson Unique, Johnson Peculiar, Johnson Disctinctive, Johnson Elemental, etc.

: [http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/symmetry/johnsonp.htm Steven Dutch] calls them "Complex Elementary Forms".  &mdash;[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

:They're not really a set though, are they? As far as I can see, only the sphenocoronas form a set, and all the others are one-of-a-kind shapes. I think some sort of generic name like "Miscellaneous" or "Other" is the best way to describe them. "Special" indicates some sort of status they don't really have. Did Johnson himself give the group a name? In fact, did he group them at all? — [[User:Sjorford|sjorford]][[User talk:Sjorford|++]] 09:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I will revert it back to Miscellaneous as I found it.

Any views on the name "Sporadics" for this part of the series? [[User:AndrewKepert]] used
the term in passing, and I believe it fits the bill of not asserting commonality, whilst being less dismissive than "Miscellaneous". This collection is the most interesting 
to me because the faces generate new angles, and as I was modeling with Geomag, this
gave new model possibilities.

[[User:Karl Horton|Karl Horton]] ([[User talk:Karl Horton|talk]]) 14:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

: I like it well enough, but making up our own words is against the rules; we need to find a term already in use in the field.  For whatever it's worth, [http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/symmetry/johnsonp.htm this page] calls them "Complex Elementary Forms".  —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

== Table changes ongoing... ==

I removed the "type" column from the tables in favor of a list of types at the beginning of each section. It took too much screen width and redundant with polyhedron names.

I'd like to expand the table with a [[vertex configuration]] column, listing the counts and types of vertices for each form. I made an automated tally once somewhere and I'll see if I can merge it in sometime - NOW that there's some screen width to play with.

I have an old different tally on a test page - lists all reg/semireg/Johnson solids by vertex figure: [[User:Tomruen/Polyhedra_by_vertex_figures]]

[[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

== Suspicious edits ==

All (it seems) of the individual Johnston solids pages were edited by 140.112.54.155 so that the table on each page listing the number of faces for the solid has entries like "3.5 triangles".  They haven't [[User_talk:140.112.54.155|responded for explanation]] that I've seen.  Before I go fixing up 92 pages, is there any reason to believe this isn't vandalism?  Thanks, [[User:Fractalchez|Fractalchez]] ([[User talk:Fractalchez|talk]]) 00:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

: They look like honest edits, although notation could be confusing, 3.5 meaning 3×5=15 triangles, while could look like 3+1/2. It looks like an attempt to group the ''types'' of triangles - there's 3 sets of 5 triangles in equivalent positions of symmetry. I don't keep a watch on all the individual pages. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

== Tetraeder ==

Why isn't the tetraeder 4 F<sub>3</sub> on the list? Did I not understand the definitions enough? --[[User:Saippuakauppias|Saippuakauppias]] [[:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Saippuakauppias|⇄]] 11:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is on the list, under the name [[Gyrobifastigium]]. It's in the section of modified cupolas and rotundas, in that it can be viewed as a bicupola, but instead of the top being a polygon, it's a single edge, and the bottom is a square. You don't find a single one of these in normal cupolas/rotundas/pyramids though, because that would be  simply a triangular prism.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Timeroot|Timeroot]] ([[User talk:Timeroot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Timeroot|contribs]]) 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Urgent! ==

I need to know the name of the Johnson solid with 42 faces, 80 edges and 40 vertices. [[User:Professor Fiendish|Professor]] [[User talk:Professor Fiendish|M.]] [[Special:Contributions/Professor Fiendish|Fiendish]], [[User:Professor Fiendish/Page of Doom!|Esq.]] 11:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

: You can search that for yourself - looks like at least two! [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 22:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

: In case the tables aren't clear enough for you: they are the elongated pentagonal birotundae. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

== Impossible Johnson solids ==

Proving the [[hexagonal pyramid]] with equilateral triangles is impossible uses the fact that 6 triangles add up to 360 degrees. But, here's a hard problem: prove the [[augmented heptagonal prism]] is not a valid Johnson solid. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 22:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

: hm, I guess I need to prove that &alpha;=atan(√2) &gt; 2π/7.
: cos(&alpha;) = 1/√3, sin(&alpha;) = √(2/3)
: exp(i &alpha;) = (1+i√2) / √3
: exp(7 i &alpha;) = (43+13i√2) / 27√3, which is in the first quadrant, implying that either 2π/7&lt;&alpha;&lt;5π/28 or 0&lt;&alpha;&lt;π/14; the latter is ruled out because tan(&alpha;) &gt; tan(π/4).
: What do I win? —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

== <s>I DISCOVERED A NEW JOHNSON SOLID</s> ==

Really! here are pictures!<br/>
[[Image:New johnson polyhedron 1.jpg|200px]][[Image:New Johnson polyhedron 2.jpg|200px]][[Image:New Johnson polyhedron net.jpg|200px]]

faces: 16 triangles, 3 squares, total 19<br/>
vertex figure: 1 (4,4,4), 3 (3,3,4,4), 3 (3,3,3,3,4), 5+5 (3,3,3,3,3)<br/>
symmetry:C<sub>3v</sub><br/>
Discovered by me, David Park Jr.--[[User:David P.Jr.|David P.Jr.]] ([[User talk:David P.Jr.|talk]]) 09:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

: Have you proven that the faces are flat and regular? Models can flex. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 07:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
=== another near miss? ===
five squares eight triangles (eleven vertices) looks valid to me
url= http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/tiling/hedra.html
[[User:David.daileyatsrudotedu|David.daileyatsrudotedu]] ([[User talk:David.daileyatsrudotedu|talk]]) 02:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Jim McNeill [3] has demonstrated to my satisfaction that the referenced shape is indeed a near miss, having distortion mainly confined to the two isolated square faces. [[User:David.daileyatsrudotedu|David.daileyatsrudotedu]] ([[User talk:David.daileyatsrudotedu|talk]]) 12:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

=== failed ===
I installed Great Stella software and test it but '''some triangles are not quite regular.'''<br/>
It has 3 squares, 6+9 isosceles triangles, and 1 regular triangle. T.T OTL<br/>
How can prove or disprove no more Johnson solid? --[[User:David P.Jr.|David P.Jr.]] ([[User talk:David P.Jr.|talk]]) 12:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

: A good attempt. I've never tried, but the proof was the intention of Johnson's paper! There's another open-ended category called [[near-miss Johnson solid]]s, and some are listed here: [http://www.orchidpalms.com/polyhedra/acrohedra/nearmiss/jsmn.htm]. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

=== Previously discovered ===
This model is readily buildable with Polydrons. Jim McNeill [http://www.orchidpalms.com/polyhedra] keeps a catalog of near misses and lists this one. 

This trisquare hexadecatrihedron has 16 triangular and 3 square faces, and looks somewhat like a cube embedded in an icosahedron (hence my informal name of 'cubicos'), .  The squares are regular and the aggregate distortion in the lengths of the triangular edges is only about  0.1 in total (stress map).  Distortion (E=0.10, P=0 , A=18.3°).  [http://www.orchidpalms.com/polyhedra/acrohedra/nearmiss/jsmn.htm]

[[User:Karl Horton|Karl Horton]] ([[User talk:Karl Horton|talk]]) 11:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

== duals of the Johnson solids ==

Is there a name for the set of 92 polyhedra that are duals of the Johnson solids?
Other than "duals of the Johnson solids"?
(By analogy with the way [[Catalan solid]]s are duals of the [[Archimedean solid]]s).
--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 04:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

:Not to my knowledge. I don't think they have even been enumerated in any reliable source. I'd probably call them "Johnson duals" for short. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 13:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

:: One problem is that for a geometric dual – rather than a mere topological dual – you need a center.  How do you choose centers for the 56 that lack [[List of spherical symmetry groups#Dihedral symmetry|''D'' symmetry]]? (''Ch'' or ''Ci'' or ''S'' symmetry would also do, but there aren't any.)  —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 07:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

:::To define the centre usefully, it would need to remain static under duality - that is, the centre of the dual must be the same point as the centre of the original. This ensures that when you dualise the dual, you get back to the original form. It turns out that for some figures this is really hard, I seem to recall that even the "Stella" software author gave up on it and used a simpler algorithm. I think it would be fair to ignore centres and polar reciprocity but instead to require the dual ''condition'', that all vertices be regular, i.e. having the same polygonal angle between adjacent edges. Not sure if that set of polyhedra would match the Johnson solids one-to-one, though: an interesting problem. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 10:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

== Organizing the table ==

Can anyone edit this article so that there's one large table of all 92 figures rather than several small tables?? This way, the table can be re-sorted by the number of faces each polyhedron has or any other appropriate way. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 21:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

: I think the value of multiple tables is that it easier to edit, and there were distinct groupings by named categories from Johnson's numbering, but it looks easy to delete the sections and table headers to remerge into a single table if you want to try. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

: Adding a "|-" before the headers seemed to do the trick! [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 22:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

:: This was not a good change. The classes made it easier to figure out how the solids were made and where the regular variations started and stopped, so that if you needed to do something for a set of the solids you could work out your process from choices in each class and extend it to the rest regularly. So there's a [[Pareto principle]] in the information one needs to study these solids and learn their types. One can easily merge all the tables in a sandbox if one needs them ordered by a column of the table. ᛭ [[User:LokiClock|LokiClock]] ([[User talk:LokiClock|talk]]) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

: Perhaps both are useful, grouped solids here, and [[List of Johnson solids]] as a single sortable table? (I definitely use the sort feature, by face counts, edge counts, or symmetry) Perhaps the list here should be simpler, without element counts, symmetry, etc? [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 00:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
: I added [[List of Johnson solids]] as an experiment, copied from here, so this article could have a more compact summary by groupings? [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 00:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
: I started reworking the first ones into topological groups. I'm not sure if this helps [[User:LokiClock|LokiClock]]'s purpose.  [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 02:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

:: Yes, that serves the original purposes I had used this article's classification for. If the solids are given in order in this table, then we don't need to group the solids in order here. Is there a reason for having the augmentation and diminishing subclasses as separate sections? Also, I found that if you use <nowiki><abbr title="heynow">2</abbr></nowiki>, <abbr title="heynow">2</abbr>, the tables will still sort the numbers inside the tag properly, so perhaps the beginnings of the sections in the original numeration can be labelled inside the table. ᛭ [[User:LokiClock|LokiClock]] ([[User talk:LokiClock|talk]]) 06:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure I follow. I hope the groupings here are helpful. Myself, I'm interested in showing similar non-Johnson solids as well, whether regular, semiregular, or having coplanar faces, so I started adding some of these. I added the bottom rows of the table on "augmented from polyhedra" to help show their construction, since some of the views, even transparent, are confusing to see easily. Anyway, I'd do more when I have some time. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 06:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
::: p.s. I'm unsure if the nets are helpful here, so those rows might be removed. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 06:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

:::: They are helpful. Looking again, they have different themes of construction, even if they're all the same type of modification, and some solids have more than one construction. I think the nets are helpful because they can give clues as to how the solids are similar to others and how to dissect them and put them together. It can be hard to figure out what the "others" and the rotunda are all-around using just the picture. Just now I used them to make sure the triangular hebesphenorotunda's squares all had 3 triangles attached, which suggested it had triangular symmetry (the triplet of pentagons and their center triangle has the same plane of rotation as the hexagon), which I then confirmed at its article. The information you just added it reinforced by the nets. Some time ago, when I was generalizing these solids to 4D I mainly interpreted the nets, and didn't have this information about how the icosidodecahedron was related to the rotunda and so forth. Around this same time I also noticed the wedging theme in constructing the "others" by looking at their nets, because when I saw the pictures of the solids my eye didn't group the faces by those wedges, but in the Bilunabirotunda ([[:File:Bilunabirotunda.png]]) for example first separating it along one of the hexagons crossing the midpoint, then grouping the faces of each piece into the front faces and back faces. ᛭ [[User:LokiClock|LokiClock]] ([[User talk:LokiClock|talk]]) 07:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
::::: p.s. on nets, the faces are colored by the symmetry, autogenerated by [[Stella (software)]], although manually made nets might pick different arrangements for seeing the figures better. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 02:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::: Thanks, that's incredibly helpful to know about them! ᛭ [[User:LokiClock|LokiClock]] ([[User talk:LokiClock|talk]]) 10:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

== Isomorphs ==

A new section on non-convex isomoprps has been added. I would suggest that these are not notable. Other classes of isomorph exist - convex and non-convex - but nobody has bothered to describe them, there is nothing notable about these ones either. A single fanboi web page does not constitute a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 08:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:The crossed cupolae have probably been described more widely: Johnson has terminology for them, so he might mention them somewhere. But yeah, most of these are just trivial and don't really need to be here, and after all they are just cut-and-paste operations. So I removed it again. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 14:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::How can we know that "Johnson has terminology for them" unless we know whether or not he mentioned them somewhere? {{;)}} (Just teasing, thanks for the revert). &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 17:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
:::The terms "semicupola" (cuploids) and "sesquicupola" (cupolaic blend?) have been attributed to Johnson on some websites, so it's quite possible that he mentions them in his (still) forthcoming book, or somewhere else. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 12:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

==  Convex regular-faced polyhedra with conditional edges==
I found this interesting list [http://tupelo-schneck.org/polyhedra/ Convex regular-faced polyhedra with conditional edges], Johnson solid failures due to adjacent coplanar edges, 78 forms, by Robert R Tupelo-Schneck. It says the listing was independently produced and proven complete in 2010 by A. V. Timofeenko. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 03:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

== Strictly convex ==

The article says:  A Johnson solid is a strictly convex polyhedron. As far as I know, a strictly convex polyhedron is a strictly convex set, and hence the edges can't contain straight lines. [[User:Madyno|Madyno]] ([[User talk:Madyno|talk]]) 17:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

: How would you define it? The excluded cases have [[dihedral angle]]s of zero, or having two faces in the same plane. [[User:Tomruen|Tom Ruen]] ([[User talk:Tomruen|talk]]) 15:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

== Dual of Johnson solids ==

The dual of [[Archimedean solid]]s are [[Catalan solid]]s, and the dual of [[Platonic solid]]s are also [[Platonic solid]]s, but what are the dual of [[Johnson solid]]s? [[Special:Contributions/2402:7500:586:91EF:6911:7EBA:959B:3B90|2402:7500:586:91EF:6911:7EBA:959B:3B90]] ([[User talk:2402:7500:586:91EF:6911:7EBA:959B:3B90|talk]]) 03:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

: Less well defined, as discussed in the section ''duals of the Johnson solids'' above. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 06:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

== What is the set of the polyhedrons whose faces are all regular polygons? (not need to be convex or uniform, and there is no requirement that each face must be the same polygon) ==

[[Regular polyhedron]] does not need to be [[convex polyhedron|convex]], the convex regular polyhedrons are the 5 [[Platonic solid]]s, and there are 9 non-convex regular polyhedrons, including the 4 [[Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron]]s and the 5 [[Polytope compound#Regular compounds|regular compound]]s, and for the [[semiregular polyhedron]]s, there are 13 convex ones other than the convex [[prism]]s and the convex [[antiprism]]s, but what are the non-convex ones? And for the polyhedrons with each face [[regular polygon]]s or regular [[star polygon]]s, there are 92 convex ones other than the regular polyhedrons and the semiregular polyhedrons, but what are the non-convex ones? (These would include the 4 [[Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron]]s, the 5 [[Polytope compound#Regular compounds|regular compound]]s, the [[stellated octahedron]], the 53 [[nonconvex uniform polyhedra]]s, the [[Uniform_polyhedron#.28p_2_2.29_Prismatic_.5Bp.2C2.5D.2C_I2.28p.29_family_.28Dph_dihedral_symmetry.29|uniform star prism]]s, the [[Uniform_polyhedron#.28p_2_2.29_Prismatic_.5Bp.2C2.5D.2C_I2.28p.29_family_.28Dph_dihedral_symmetry.29|uniform star antiprism]]s, the [[augmented heptagonal prism]], the [[pentagrammic prism]], the [[deltahedra]]s, the [[toroidal prism]]s, etc.)

{|class="wikitable"
|+ Polyhedrons whose faces are all regular polygons (or regular star polygons)
|Convex?
|Uniform? (i.e. Identical vertices?)
|Each face are the same polygon? (i.e. Identical faces?)
|Class
|-
|True
|True
|True
|5 [[Platonic solid]]s
|-
|True
|True
|False
|infinite convex uniform [[prism]]s, infinite convex uniform [[antiprism]]s, 13 [[Archimedean solid]]s
|-
|True
|False
|True
|8 convex [[deltahedra]]s
|-
|True
|False
|False
|92 [[Johnson solid]]s
|-
|False
|True
|True
|4 [[Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron]]s, 5 [[Polytope compound#Regular compounds|regular compound]]s
|-
|False
|True
|False
|infinite [[Uniform_polyhedron#.28p_2_2.29_Prismatic_.5Bp.2C2.5D.2C_I2.28p.29_family_.28Dph_dihedral_symmetry.29|uniform star prisms and uniform antiprisms]], 53 [[nonconvex uniform polyhedra]]s
|-
|False
|False
|True
|infinite [[Deltahedron#Non-convex forms|non-convex deltahedra]]s
|-
|False
|False
|False
|? (this is my question in this talk, what is the set of such polyhedrons, I know that this set include the [[augmented heptagonal prism]])
|}

(Polyhedrons whose faces are not all regular polygons, such as the [[Catalan solid]]s, the [[hexagonal pyramid]], the [[near-miss Johnson solid]]s, the [[parallelepiped]], the [[rhombic icosahedron]], the [[Szilassi polyhedron]], the [[Császár polyhedron]]; and the polyhedrons with 180° dihedral angles, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Partial_cubic_honeycomb.png this one]; and the non-connected polyhedrons, such as the [[crossed prism]]s; and the degenerate polyhedras, such as [[dihedron]] and [[hosohedron]]; and the infinity forms, such as [[triangular tiling]], [[square tiling]], [[hexagonal tiling]], [[trihexagonal tiling]], [[snub trihexagonal tiling]], [[truncated trihexagonal tiling]], [[apeirogonal prism]], [[apeirogonal antiprism]]; are not in this set)

Reference: [https://archive.ph/tthvD]——[[Special:Contributions/36.234.85.41|36.234.85.41]] ([[User talk:36.234.85.41|talk]]) 10:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

:The last row includes, for a start, a stack of ''n'' ''p''-antiprisms joined at ''p''-faces.  (''–hedra'' is plural, darn it.) —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 13:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
::If I'm understanding the question correctly, keeping all faces regular or regular star polygons while allowing different types of vertex, self-intersection, dihedral angles >=180 degrees, I suspect there might be an uncountably infinite collection of such, or at least extremely hard to enumerate...
::Among other things, you have:
::ANy polyform with a platonic, archimedean, keplar-poinsot, uniform star polyhedral, or Johnson solid monoform. This includes the aformentioned antiprism stacks, polycubes, polytetrahedra, polytruncated octahedra, polyiamond prisms, polyhex prisms... and those are just the poly forms already mention or which have a tiling of the plane or pace as a limiting case.
::Non-convex augmentations, including more than one type of face or augmenting adjacent faces that result in the biaugmented edges being non-convex. Just with cubes augment and para biaugmented are already coveredby the elongated square pyramid and elongated square bipyramid, but there's the meta biaugmented cube, two formas of triaugmented cube, two tetraagumented cubes, and the pentaaugmented and hexaaugmented cube. With 92 faces to pick from, the snub dodecahedron could potentially have hundreds or thousands of non-convex augmentations.
::mix stacks of prismatic forms. For every regular n-gon, there's a prismatic stack for every bit sequence where 0 and 1 represent prisms and anti-prisms... and then there's cupolae and pyramids to add to the mix... for example, you could take an elongated pentagonal copula and put a elongated pentagonal pyramid on its pentagonal face.
::Augmenting with prismatic stacks. 
::Any connected subset of a honeycomb where all faces are regular.
::Biform star polyhedra with all regular faces. E.g. the cousins of the uniform star polyhedra with exactly two types of vertex. Then the triform, tetraform, etc. At least, my intuition is that you need to group these by number of unique vertex types to have any chance of listing them since I don't think the term convex is well defined for self-intersecting forms... though I could be wrong and there's a finite set of regular faced, self-interesecting forms with all convex dihedral angles.
::And I'm sure there are forms that are regular faced but don't fit any of the above categories.
::Regular faced forms beyond the Johnson Solids and the Uniform star polyhedra strike me as being pretty deep waters that are far from well explored, or if they have, than much of the information is locked up in obscure places... and keep in mind, it took over two thousand years to go from the Archimedean solids to the Johnson Solids, the Archimedean solids where lost for much of that time, Johnson had to invent terminology to describe most of the Johnson Solids, and it's been less than 60 years since Johnson enumerated the Johnson Solids. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6080:7001:8205:0:0:0:115C|2603:6080:7001:8205:0:0:0:115C]] ([[User talk:2603:6080:7001:8205:0:0:0:115C|talk]]) 20:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

== Completely irrelevant and distracting ==

The definition of a Johnson solid '''absolutely should not''' confuse readers with all the things that it is not.  Or any things that it is not. Like the sentence in the introduction:

"''There is no requirement that each face must be the same polygon, or that the same polygons join around each vertex.''"

This just confuses people. The stated definition prior to this ridiculous sentence is crystal clear, and we should leave it at that.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject will remove this idiotic sentence.
[[Special:Contributions/2601:200:C082:2EA0:2494:C097:5957:E04C|2601:200:C082:2EA0:2494:C097:5957:E04C]] ([[User talk:2601:200:C082:2EA0:2494:C097:5957:E04C|talk]]) 02:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

:I disagree. A reader reading this meant become confused by the list of Johnson Solids when they don't see shapes like the Cuboctahedron. Specifying how uniform polyhedra are excluded from the definition is necessary. Also often times we made unconsciously assume things about a definition. So clarifying what isn't required is useful. [[User:BringUpYourPost|BringUpYourPost]] ([[User talk:BringUpYourPost|talk]]) 17:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

== Improve the description under the image with the 3 examples ==

Referring to this text:

* "The following are three examples of solids. The first solid, [[elongated square gyrobicupola]], is Johnson solid because it has the convexity property. The second solid, [[stella octangula]] is not Johnson solid because it is not convex, meaning whenever two points are interior, the connecting line may not. The last solid is not a Johnson solid because it is not convex, meaning every face is planar or the [[Dihedral angle|dihedral angles]] of two adjacent faces have 180°."

it inconsistently uses "Johnson solid" as an adjective and then and a noun, i.e. sometimes prefixed with an article, sometimes not. It also omits articles for the named polyhedra. Overall it reads a little verbose and clunky. here's my proposed alternative:

* Among these three polyhedra, only the first, the [[elongated square gyrobicupola]], is a Johnson solid. The second, the [[stella octangula]], is not [[Convex polytope|convex]], as some of its diagonals lie outside the shape. The third presents [[Coplanarity|coplanar]] faces.
[[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 15:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

:I like the brevity.  We have an enthusiastic new editor who makes occasional lapses in English, likely including these missing articles; let's be patient and correct them as needed. [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 23:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

== 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)

== My proposal for structured tables to replace the list. ==

I see that this page used to have much more extensive tables, and that those have been removed in favor of a very plain numbered list. This is my proposal for a middle-of-the-road scheme of tables grouping the polyhedra into logical families, without bloating the page too much:

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! 
! colspan="3" | Pyramids
! colspan="3" | Cupolas
! Rotunda
! Cupola-Rotunda
|-
! 
| style="background: Violet;" | [[Tetrahedron]] "triangular pyramid"
| '''1''' <br> [[Equilateral square pyramid]]
| '''2''' <br> [[Pentagonal pyramid]]
| '''3''' <br> [[Triangular cupola]]
| '''4''' <br> [[Square cupola]]
| '''5''' <br> [[Pentagonal cupola]]
| '''6''' <br> [[Pentagonal rotunda]]
|-
! Elongated
| '''7''' <br> [[Elongated triangular pyramid]]
| '''8''' <br> [[Elongated square pyramid]]
| '''9''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal pyramid]]
| '''18''' <br> [[Elongated triangular cupola]]
| '''19''' <br> [[Elongated square cupola]]
| '''20''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal cupola]]
| '''21''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal rotunda]]
|-
! Gyroelongated
| [[Diminished_trapezohedron#Special_cases|Augmented octahedron]] "Gyroelongated triangular pyramid"
| '''10''' <br> [[Gyroelongated square pyramid]]
| '''11''' <br> [[Gyroelongated pentagonal pyramid]]
| '''22''' <br> [[Gyroelongated triangular cupola]]
| '''23''' <br> [[Gyroelongated square cupola]]
| '''24''' <br> [[Gyroelongated pentagonal cupola]]
| '''25''' <br> [[Gyroelongated pentagonal rotunda]]
|-
! bi-
| '''12''' <br> [[Triangular bipyramid]]
| style="background: Violet;" | [[Octahedron]] "Square bipyramid"
| '''13''' <br> [[Pentagonal bipyramid]]
| '''27''' <br> [[Triangular orthobicupola]]
| '''28''' <br> [[Square orthobicupola]]
| '''30''' <br> [[Pentagonal orthobicupola]]
| '''34''' <br> [[Pentagonal orthobirotunda]]
| '''32''' <br> [[Pentagonal orthocupolarotunda]]
|-
! Elongated bi-
| '''14''' <br> [[Elongated triangular bipyramid]]
| '''15''' <br> [[Elongated square bipyramid]]
| '''16''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal bipyramid]]
| '''35''' <br> [[Elongated triangular orthobicupola]]
| style="background: LightSkyBlue;" | [[Rhombicuboctahedron]] "Elongated square orthobicupola"
| '''38''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal orthobicupola]]
| '''42''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal orthobirotunda]]
| '''40''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal orthocupolarotunda]]
|-
! Gyroelongated bi-
| [[Trigonal trapezohedron]] "Gyroelongated triangular bipyramid"
| '''17''' <br> [[Gyroelongated square bipyramid]]
| style="background: Violet;" | [[Icosahedron]] "Gyroelongated pentagonal bipyramid"
| '''44''' <br> [[Gyroelongated triangular bicupola]]
| '''45''' <br> [[Gyroelongated square bicupola]]
| '''46''' <br> [[Gyroelongated pentagonal bicupola]]
| '''47''' <br> [[Gyroelongated pentagonal cupolarotunda]]
| '''48''' <br> [[Gyroelongated pentagonal birotunda]]
|-
! gyrobi-
|
|
|
| style="background: LightSkyBlue;" | [[Cuboctahedron]] "Triangular gyrobicupola"
| '''29''' <br> [[Square gyrobicupola]]
| '''31''' <br> [[Pentagonal gyrobicupola]]
| style="background: LightSkyBlue;" | [[Icosidodecahedron]] "pentagonal gyrobirotunda"
| '''33''' <br> [[Pentagonal gyrocupolarotunda]]
|-
! Elongated gyrobi-
|
|
|
| '''36''' <br> [[Elongated triangular gyrobicupola]]
| '''37''' <br> [[Elongated square gyrobicupola]]
| '''39''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal gyrobicupola]]
| '''43''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal gyrobirotunda]]
| '''41''' <br> [[Elongated pentagonal gyrocupolarotunda]]
|-
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! colspan="4" | Modified Prisms
|-
| '''49''' <br> [[Augmented triangular prism]]
| '''50''' <br> [[Biaugmented triangular prism]]
| '''51''' <br> [[Triaugmented triangular prism]]
|-
| '''52''' <br> [[Augmented pentagonal prism]]
| '''53''' <br> [[Biaugmented pentagonal prism]]
|-
| '''54''' <br> [[Augmented hexagonal prism]]
| '''55''' <br> [[Parabiaugmented hexagonal prism]]
| '''56''' <br> [[Metabiaugmented hexagonal prism]]
| '''57''' <br> [[Triaugmented hexagonal prism]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! colspan="4" | Modified Platonics
|-
| '''58''' <br> [[Augmented dodecahedron]]
| '''59''' <br> [[Parabiaugmented dodecahedron]]
| '''60''' <br> [[Metabiaugmented dodecahedron]]
| '''61''' <br> [[Triaugmented dodecahedron]]
|-
| '''62''' <br> [[Metabidiminished icosahedron]]
| '''63''' <br> [[Tridiminished icosahedron]]
| '''64''' <br> [[Augmented tridiminished icosahedron]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! colspan="4" | Modified Archimedians
|-
| '''65''' <br> [[Augmented truncated tetrahedron]]
|-
| '''66''' <br> [[Augmented truncated cube]]
| '''67''' <br> [[Biaugmented truncated cube]]
|-
| '''68''' <br> [[Augmented truncated dodecahedron]]
| '''69''' <br> [[Parabiaugmented truncated dodecahedron]]
| '''70''' <br> [[Metabiaugmented truncated dodecahedron]]
| '''71''' <br> [[Triaugmented truncated dodecahedron]]
|-
| '''72''' <br> [[Gyrate rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''73''' <br> [[Parabigyrate rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''74''' <br> [[Metabigyrate rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''75''' <br> [[Trigyrate rhombicosidodecahedron]]
|-
| '''76''' <br> [[Diminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''77''' <br> [[Paragyrate diminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''78''' <br> [[Metagyrate diminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''79''' <br> [[Bigyrate diminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
|-
| '''80''' <br> [[Parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''81''' <br> [[Metabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''82''' <br> [[Gyrate bidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
| '''83''' <br> [[Tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! colspan="4" | Odd Ones Out
|-
| '''26''' <br> [[Gyrobifastigium]]
| '''84''' <br> [[Snub disphenoid]]
| '''85''' <br> [[Snub square antiprism]]
| '''90''' <br> [[Disphenocingulum]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! colspan="4" | Corona family
|-
| '''86''' <br> [[Sphenocorona]]
| '''87''' <br> [[Augmented sphenocorona]]
| '''88''' <br> [[Sphenomegacorona]]
| '''89''' <br> [[Hebesphenomegacorona]]
|}

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! colspan="2" | Rotundoid
|-
| '''91''' <br> [[Bilunabirotunda]]
| '''92''' <br> [[Triangular hebesphenorotunda]]
|} [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 04:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

:This is going to invite people to augment the table cells with images and nets and Dynkin diagrams and who knows what else and we'll soon be back to the old crufty pre-trimmed state [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_solid&oldid=1214189872]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 08:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::The tables were bad, but the inclusion of images and nets was pretty important. The list of unpronounceable names by itself is kind of useless (except for the wikilinks).
::I think the most useful way forward is probably to merge [[List of Johnson solids]] into this article, possibly removing some of the columns from the table there. The content also doesn't have to be presented as a table per se; it could be separated into prose sections about various categories, with images and some textual summary about each shape presented as paragraphs of an ordinary article. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 08:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]], @[[User:Jacobolus|Jacobolus]]. Why not use these tables in [[WP:3TOPE]], like [[WP:ELEMENT]] does? [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 02:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Would you please clarify what you mean by "use these tables in WP:3TOPE"? What would that mean for the Johnson Solid page specifically? [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 06:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I am sorry for being off topic. But it is amusing the way you arrange those solids better than [[User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/5|mine]], which I need for exhibition of solids in the WikiProject. Like WikiProject Elements, I'd like to give a try to exhibit all polyhedral classes (Platonic, Archimedean, Catalan, Johnson, etc.) in WikiProject Polyhedra, prepending icon classes based on quality assessment. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 08:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Oh I see! No need to apologize. Yes by all means, you may use this categorization. In fact, I'd love to contribute more to WikiProject Polyhedra, where can I get some orientation? [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 00:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Umm ... everything? Like sourcing and expanding to improve the polyhedral article's quality based on Wikipedia guidelines. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 06:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::Well, that's not necessarily the case. And I'll argue, as others have, that the numbered list is totally useless as is.
::Here's another idea: What if I provide a single image showing all 92 solids, arranged in the same manner as these tables? That would satisfy the need for visual information, without ''crufting'' up the page too much. I'll work on that... [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 16:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Here's (a first pass at) the picture:
:::https://introscopia.github.io/images/The_Johnsons.png [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I think such a figure (maybe a bit snazzier) would be good for a poster, but not very effective for a Wikipedia article illustration. A separate image of each shape is more effective/helpful for readers. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 23:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm open to notes with regard to 'snazz'!
:::::I will push back on your contention, though. I believe a broad overview of the set like this is perfectly effective and helpful! It's a solid compromise between the present, barren state, and the previous, overly cluttered situation. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 06:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I do kind of like the idea of setting the scale of each image based on a common edge length though. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 23:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]]. Why not merge all of those tables into one? Why not use the 92 solids illustration for the lede, instead? Why not merge the classifications of "Odd but ones", "Corona", and "Rotundoid" as miscellanea? The "rotundoid" is a new term considered as [[WP:NEOLOGISM]]. Have you tried to shrink the size of the table using horizontal and vertical scrolling bars? [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 00:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::> Why not merge all of those tables into one?
::::small gains in space, and each part requires a different number of columns and rows, forcing them into one grid would generate a lot of awkwardness.
::::>Why not merge the classifications of "Odd but ones", "Corona", and "Rotundoid" as miscellanea?
::::To what end? Why reduce the specificity? Again, this categorization is what seems logical to me. The Coronas and Rotundoids are self-similar enough to be grouped together, and each of the Odds are totally unique.
::::>The "rotundoid" is a new term considered as WP:NEOLOGISM.
::::True. It's not in common use. I thought the construction was sufficiently neutral that it wouldn't warrant any argument. Rotund-oid: in the form of the rotunda, which is the criteria which connects them. What would you recommend instead?
::::> Have you tried to shrink the size of the table using horizontal and vertical scrolling bars?
::::I can't really tell what you meant here, sorry! [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 01:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:Well folks, I went ahead and published the edit today with the tables and a diagram I put together. Open to feedback! [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 21:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:@[[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]]
:About your recent edits, I like the grouping of the 3 operations videos, however, due to how long the name of that polyhedron is, I get some really awkward text wrapping artifacts: https://i.imgur.com/T83lnws.png. Maybe we just omit the name?
:Secondly, the "thumbtime" parameter does do something:
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Setting_a_video_thumbnail_image
:I used it to try to ensure the thumbnail was showing the most useful frame of the video, such that the viewer can get an idea of what's happening without clicking to play it. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 01:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::I don't see the point of performing this expansion unless we also redirect [[list of Johnson solids]] to here. We have a list of Johnson solids here, we have a list of Johnson solids there, we have a list of Johnson solids everywhere in all of the Johnson solids articles in the navbox at the bottom of the article, and in case you missed the lists of Johnson solids in this article and in [[list of Johnson solids]] we also have lists of Johnson solids in the navboxes at the bottom of this article and at the bottom of [[list of Johnson solids]]. Do we really need 96 different places where readers can find lists of Johnson solids? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 02:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I don't particularly mind to merge [[List of Johnson solids]] here. I'll propose to demote it. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 02:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

== Propose to merge [[List of Johnson solids]] to here. ==

While I am proposing for [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Johnson solids/archive1]], I also suggest merging, per the last two talks above from here. By merging, tables may have a small adjustment, by removing the data of their surface area and volume, and replacing them with nets. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 02:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

:I agree, of course, that we have a lot of duplication at this point.
:I'm tending towards the following solution:
:* Main article: prune the tables, leave only the big image. The previous version had some text below the list talking a bit about the families and their construction, maybe we add something like that back in to accompany the image.
:* List: leave it alone, it has a lot of extra data which I do consider valuable, like volume and area, but which would clutter up the main article.
:* Nav boxes: Gone from both.
:[[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 03:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::'''Support merge''' per above. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::well, whatever the decision ends up being, I went ahead and removed the navboxes. I think we all agree those were unnecessary. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 00:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]]. Then adding some vertex configurations and categorize whether each solid is composite or elementary? Some just asked for adding a 3-connected planar graph, but this is too much. Equally, all articles must have such a description. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 05:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry, friend, once again I can't really tell what you mean.
:::And while I'm here: I'm going to revert the edits to that info box with the three shapes, ok? I feel you reduced the clarity and readability, with no obvious upside. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 14:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]]. I think applying directly is much more understandable than saying here. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 02:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

==Third solid in the first diagram==

IIn the first diagram, showing three solids, the caption says that only the first is a Johnson solid, but the third solid (the orange one) seems to be just a cube, so shouldn't it be a Johnson solid too?  A convex polyhedron is just a subset of <math>\mathbb{R}^3</math> satisfying certain properties — the line segments drawn on it are not part of its description, so they should not change it from being anything but a cube. [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 03:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:Convex meant < 180 degrees for dihedral angle. Those lines represent the coplanar faces, so the cube's checkerboard faces is not a Johnson solid. And a convex polyhedron is a finitely many bounded planes. [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 04:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

::I understand what you are saying, but it seems that you are using a definition of convex polyhedron different from the  [[Polyhedron#Convex_polyhedra|the definition on Wikipedia]].  According to Wikipedia, a convex polyhedron is just a bounded intersection of finitely many half-spaces, or the convex hull of finitely many points, restricted in either case to intersections or hulls that have nonzero volume.  You instead seem to have in mind a definition in which a convex polyhedron is not just such a subset of space, but such a subset ''equipped with'' a collection of lower-dimensional subsets called faces.  So for you, the 2 x 2 x 2 cube with six 2 x 2 faces is different from the same cube with twenty-four 1 x 1 faces, four on each side, even though as subsets of space, they are the same, hence the same in Wikipedia's definition.  [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 06:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:::By the way, the definition of convex polyhedron given in the present article does not agree with the definition in the reference it cites, because it is missing the condition that the polyhedron not be contained in a plane. [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 06:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:If you're really saying that you believe that a cube with subdivided coplanar faces is a Johnson solid, then I suppose you should submit that to some math journal! hehehe. If you're saying we should include all this stuff about 'lower-dimensional subsets' etc. in the definition, then I have to disagree. Here's a compromise, let's add the word '''strictly''': " also known as a Johnson–Zalgaller solid, is a '''strictly''' convex polyhedron whose..."
:That keeps the definition layman-accessible, while being more precise. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 14:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

::Redefining convex polyhedron to include lower-dimensional subsets to allow subdivisions of faces as part of the definition is the ''opposite'' of what I'd like!  I am just pointing out that according to Wikipedia's definition, a convex polyhedron does not come with subdivisions of its faces.  If we are going to use a different definition in this article, we should say so. 

::It may also be better to avoid the jargon "strictly convex", especially since it contradicts [[Convex set#strictly convex|this definition of strictly convex]].

::Perhaps we could make it easier for a layman to understand by saying something like "A convex polyhedron is the convex hull of a finite set of points in 3-dimensional space, not all in a plane.  Its boundary is a finite union of polygons, no two in the same plane; those polygons are called the faces.  A Johnson solid is a convex polyhedron for which the faces are ''regular'' polygons." [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 16:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I must disagree that that our use of "strictly convex" contradicts that definition. The extra vertices that were created in that cube in subdividing its faces are not [[Extreme points]]. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 19:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::[[Convex set#strictly convex|The definition]] says "A set C is strictly convex if every point on the line segment connecting x and y other than the endpoints is inside the topological interior of C."  (I guess they meant "for all x and y in C, every point on the line segment connecting x and y other than the endpoints is inside the topological interior of C." - I'll go ahead and fix the quantifiers at that other article.)  All I meant is that according to this definition, the solid cube is not strictly convex, because if x and y are different points on the same face, it is not true that all the points in the segment joining x and y other than x and y are in the ''interior'' of C.  Only figures with curved boundaries (such as ellipses) have a chance of satisfying this definition of strictly convex.
:::: On the other hand, it does seem as if there is a ''different'' definition of strictly convex that is commonly used when convex polyhedra are thought of as a collection of polygons some of which a priori may be coplanar.  I guess that is the one you are using, which is OK. [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 23:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::: Another way of stating the issue, if you want to use the characterization at [[Convex set#strictly convex]] in terms of extreme points, which says "A closed convex subset is strictly convex if and only if every one of its boundary points is an extreme point":  A convex polyhedron is a closed convex subset, but it never satisfies this extra condition to be ''strictly'' convex, because any point in the middle of a face is a boundary point that is not an extreme point.  Tetrahedra, icosahedra, etc. are never strictly convex according to this definition. [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 23:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I spelled out what "strictly convex" means, and moved the technical discussion of what "strictly convex" means for polyhedra into a footnote. I did also remove the orange cube, to avoid confusion. [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 22:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I must continue to disagree. The Parenthetical you added "(No two coplanar)" in the opening sentence is, sorry to be harsh, really really awful for flow and readability. "Strictly Convex" means no coplanar faces. You already admitted this yourself. There is literally no other conceivable thing the adverb 'strictly' could be doing next to the word 'convex' other than specifying that coplanar faces are excluded.
::::::As for the orange cube, I never liked it anyways. I do believe however the "gyroelongated triangular bipyramid" (aka the trigonal trapezohedron) would be a nice and relevant exemple to replace it with, because it is one of a few very salient gaps in the construction tree of the pyramid family of Johnsons. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 02:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Or we can say it "augmented octahedron" [https://lsusmath.rickmabry.org/rmabry/dodec/delta/photos/7V5.html#:~:text=This%20page%20is%20linked%20from%20here;%20go,%22augmented%20octahedron%22%20(I'll%20also%20call%20it%20%227V5%22)%2C.] [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 05:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::@Introscopia: I see what you mean about the parenthetical breaking up the flow; that's a fair criticism.  I removed it (it wasn't really necessary), and added explanation to the footnote instead.  @Dedhert.Jr: I added a citation to an article by [[A. G. Khovanskii]] for the fact that convex polyhedra are never strictly convex in the sense used in modern convex geometry.  
::::::::As for adding a third polyhedron image, I think the two of you know the examples better than I do, so I leave it to you.  It looks as if the augmented octahedron fails the definition because some of its faces are rhombi instead of regular polygons.  By the way, it looks as if some people use "augmented octahedron" to refer to a [https://polytope.miraheze.org/wiki/Augmented_octahedron different polyhedron].  Maybe there are just many kinds of augmented octahedron?  I don't know the terminology well.  Thank you both, [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 15:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

==Exclusion of uniform polyhedra==
In the sentence "Although there is no restriction that any given regular polygon cannot be a face of a Johnson solid, some authors require that Johnson solids are not uniform." I don't understand what "Although there is no restriction that any given regular polygon cannot be a face of a Johnson solid" is trying to say that would not already be expected.  Can someone explain this to me?  Should we just remove that part of the sentence and simplify it to "Some authors exclude uniform polyhedra from the class of Johnson solids."? [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 16:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:yes, I agree it's not a great sentence. I like your suggestion, except I'd also cut the use of weasel terms like "some authors". So we either identify these authors, or cut everything:
:> A Johnson solid is a strictly convex polyhedron whose faces are all regular polygons, excluding the Platonic solids, Archimedean solids, prisms, and antiprisms. [[User:Introscopia|Introscopia]] ([[User talk:Introscopia|talk]]) 19:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

::I looked at some of the citations already in the article, and some of them do exclude uniform polyhedra, so I implemented your first suggestion to cite them in the relevant place. [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 00:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

== GA time? ==

@[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]]. If the [[List of Johnson solids]] merge to this article, do you think there is a chance that this article can have GA? Definition and background, naming scheme, and list (after replacing those tables and panorama image) are done. But is there anything else? [[User:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[User talk:Dedhert.Jr|talk]]) 02:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)