text:
Talk:Geodesic dome

Old comments
imagine a geodesic dome constructed on the equator. If it has a diameter of roughly 500 miles, then its roof would be in geosynchronus orbit. Could such a structure be built? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.198.129 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This entry is flat out wrong from the definition go.Two16 20:13 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a Fuller Scholar, if nobody has any objections I will take a kick at the article. I think that I can do a good job because I understand the mathematics behind geodesic domes.

Is there is anything I need to know? Two16 17:31 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised by the first comment above, even though I don't actually know. Will the eventual article point out to laymen that some vertices in a geodesic dome are intersections of five edges although most are intersections of six edges? Michael Hardy 17:33 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Why, yes. Yes it must.

use of 1st person in the Chord Factors area
aren't encyclopedia articles always in 3rd person? I think this should be edited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.116.124 (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What's with the Martian?
Is there really a reason to obfuscate this article with gobblygook (jiədɛzɪk/jiədizɪk dəʊm)? There's maybe 15 people in the world who can read that, and maybe 2 of them don't already know the proper pronunciation of "geodesic dome". Sheesh.

 * well, many non-native speakers of English (myself included) find that useful. However... is this pronunciation correct? I would expect it to start with /ʤ/, certainly not with /j/ rado 08:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, "maybe 15 people in the world," eh? Heck of a small world you come from. My world has got more serious dictionary users than that (both native and non-native speakers), to say nothing of the phoneticians, ethnolinguists, speech pathologists, singers, and hobbyist nerds....

 * But seriously. Even native speakers of English (specifically, me) have been grateful to find pronunciation information on Wikipedia. I'm sure the people who put it there didn't specifically anticipate my need for it. But there it was when I needed it ... and it's a lot better in IPA than in the wretched, condescending, and sometimes ambiguous "phonetic spellings" that well-meaning amateurs are constantly devising. ("JEE-uh-DESS-ick DOAM", anyone?) Don't confuse your ignorance of a tool with its lack of utility.

 * And yes, it ought to be /ʤ/ -- easy mistake for an English speaker to make. eritain 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Princeton
More detail on the dome and the snowplow would be helpful; it reads like a web-rumor, though it may well be true. Is it in fact associated with the University? Disambiguation uncertain, choosing Princeton, New Jersey. Septentrionalis 20:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I found a reference to this in Kenner, Hugh. "Geodesic Math and How to Use It" 1976, 2nd edition paperback 2003. The Regents of the University of California. Page 22, with the quote "A ninety-strut 40-foot Tensegrity sphere erected at Princeton University in 1953 was struck by a snowplow at point near the ground and exhibited component failure (a bent strut) high up on the other side, just 180[degrees] from the point of impact." --Phays 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been about a month since I posted this, and having heard nothing I removed the "reference needed" item.--Phays 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Really?
It is the only man made structure that gets stronger as it increases in size.

 * What does this mean, and can it be proven? --Heron 21:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My guess is: what was meant by that is that larger geodesic structures tend to be higher frequency. (Ergo: more struts in them.) The reason they're strong in the first place is (in part) that they are triangulated; but also (in part) that stresses imposed on them are distributed. The latter point is just as important. Buckminster Fuller explained all that.

Presuming of course that had been properly designed and constructed: in a larger structure, the stresses imposed in one spot would have more pathways to travel, than in the case of a smaller (presumably lower frequency) dome. Stress it in one spot...the stress tends to distribute itself over the whole thing.

Intuitively...I think more pathways for stress would (indeed) imply stronger, or more resilent. It would take more force to break one. Even if you broke one in one spot, in a big dome it wouldn't matter as much as in a smaller dome. The other struts would simply assume the load, over a broad area. Probably you could half cave one by running an airplane into it and it would still stand, much better than the World Trade Center towers stood when they got hit. They were inherently designed to collapse as soon as the upper floors began to collapse. Those events, we now know, assured total destruction. I seriously doubt that a very large geodesic dome would behave that way.

You'd really need to test one with an engineering program to know for sure. But I believe the principle is valid. At least, I doubt one would get any weaker with size, as long as the dihedral angles hadn't gotten so close to 180 degrees that a force (or even its own weight) might cause it to buckle. (Because if it was super-huge then the vertices would not really be points on the surface of a sphere; extremely low angles would mean they were more like points on a plane, and thus lose the natural benefit of triangulation.)

But in really big domes, that potential route of structural failure is normally handled (as in the case of any large stadium roof) by making the outer skin three dimensional, i.e. also triangulated in terms of its depth. Two layers. The skin struts can't move then. They're locked in place. A double-layer dome is inherently very strong.

It's a superb system for engineering large structures. I doubt there is any upper limit to how big a geodesic dome could be, as long as the struts and connectors - (particularly the connectors) - were sufficiently well engineered and adequately strong. It's possible that with super-strong materials (like carbon nanotubes or something similar), one could construct a geodesic dome big enough to cover an entire large city, and yet still strong enough to withstand a hurricane, or maybe even a tornado.

I mean...what's holding on the roof of most buildings? Not much. Bloody nails. Normal construction is a weak method. They know that in Florida. It's goodbye home sweet home every time they have a serious hurricane. Yet those dummies keep rebuilding the same way. What a good deal for builders. Happy day. They build 'em up; nature knocks 'em down. More work for them. In a geodesic dome, the entire thing is holding itself together. One struts supports the next. But remove some of them...it doesn't care much.

It's fascinating. I once built a 3-freguency geodesic sphere out of light balsa wood, about a meter in diameter. When it was complete I squeezed it between my hands. It didn't want to move. It didn't flex. I never tried squeezing it with one strut missing. But I know they're very strong. I could actually feel that. But I would never start on a mega-project to cover a city with one without having a computer and a reliable engineering program first tell me that it would work. Analyzing the potential failure modes in a structure with about a hundred million struts could take quite a while. It would help to use a supercomputer. Then it might only take a month to analyze it. :) Stellar-TO 02:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Stellar-TO. Would you agree, then, that the statement I quoted at the top of this section is too general to be useful?  First of all, I would take out the 'only', since it's probably impossible to prove that.  A better version, based on what you have just said, might be:
 * A geodesic dome is an unusual form of construction in that its resilience increases with size, because of the increasing number of struts; although at very large sizes it must be reinforced by adding one or more concentric layers of struts.'
 * Would that be more accurate?

 * Incidentally, I wonder if you have seen a wickerwork football used to play soccer. I have seen these used by children in less industrialised countries, and it's amazing how such a fragile-looking structure can resist being kicked around all day. --Heron 10:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

How is this relevant? A wicker football is not a geodesic sphere, can domes be built successfully from wicker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.53.254 (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Um...I'd say that claim is a bit too general to be useful. Where's the engineering/mathematical evidence to support it? An engineer might claims that a very large bridge is stronger than a smaller one. And he'd probably be right. So he'd have proven that assertion wrong. (Or his expertise would itself carry some weight.) What is the definition of "strength"? The load it can carry in proportion to its weight? I'm not an engineer. I think the statement that it is the ONLY structure that gets stronger with size is probably WRONG. If there are other structures where bigger means stronger, then it is wrong. Why even have it in the article? I think it's adequate to give a reason why large domes are inherently stronger. I think the claim that it's the only one should be removed from the article, because that sounds questionable to me.

What I would say is: "Higher frequency domes are inherently stronger because there are more pathways (struts) to distribute imposed stress." (It's really a matter of frequency rather than size.)

I know wicker is a very strong material. I wasn't aware that it was used for making soccer balls. But thanks for bringing that to my attention. Interesting. That info I can use! :) Stellar-TO 04:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The text in the article is still quite misleading. Lines like "Domes are very strong, actually getting stronger as they are constructed larger" are either flat-out incorrect, if referring to strength per element, (see square-cube law), or are correct but meaningless (any structure if scaled up has higher absolute strength; stresses just scale up faster). --Christopher Thomas 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

" I would never start on a mega-project to cover a city with one without having a computer and a reliable engineering program first tell me that it would work" - you don't say :))) EVERY engineering structure these days is done in CAD ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.239.234 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that the highly misleading statement is still up there ...

I changed the statement about 'every triangle is different'. No, they are not all different; there are several different sizes, but each one of them repeats many times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.239.234 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Space usability, slope of roof
Can someone explain this?

 * The dome shape leaves most of the interior surface unusable because of the sharply sloping roof lines. For example, in a 20 foot tall dome, only the bottom 8 feet or so are really usable.

'Cuz I don't get it. In a 20-foot-tall room, only the bottom eight feet or so are really usable—that's about as high as I can reach, how 'bout you? We use the rest of the space by dividing it into two floors, and obviously the second floor in a dome is going to be much smaller than the first—but that is because the roof angles are shallow near the apex, not because they're steep. Am I even on the right track toward a clarification here, or did the author mean something completely different? eritain 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "unusable" is ridiculous. That is an *assumption*, not fact. Who says you can use only the bottom eight feet??? The dome itself is just the shell. You can pretty much build as you please within that shell, as long as it's solid.

I once did a quite detailed design for a large 3/4 dome, about ten meters in diameter. I also figured out how the interior floor space would be laid out. (A 20 foot dome could easily accommodate two floors, not just one.) I had three floors in my 30 foot dome design. The floors were attached to the outer frame and to a chimney/staircase at the center. I found that the entire space in that volume could be used! If you have only one floor, that's a different matter. Maybe that is "inefficient". But I'd say that would be someone who didn't know how to build efficiently. That would not be the fault of the dome; it would be the fault of the designer!

As I see it - and I contemplated those problems a lot - there is nothing in geodesic domes which makes them inherently space-inefficient. I didn't see any technical problems in terms of building cabinets or using that interior space, either. Top floor - you put in some cabinets around...you could create vertical walls if they're comforting...a nice veranda around...I found no serious problems. All one would need would be (1) some patience, (2) the proper tools, (3) the skill to cut wood at peculiar angles, and of course (4) some building experience would be good. Much of the interior space could be fitted out so it almost looked like a standard home, inside, if you wanted it to. There is no need for walls to be sloping everywhere if you don't want them to be. So even talk about "interior angles" is an *assumption*. That's to assume that you're going to leave the exterior shell as your walls. That's not necessarily the case.

Your average carpenter may not have the patience (or skill) to deal with other than 90 degrees. But a lot of the saws, you can cut wood accurately at any angle. I'd say anyone who lacks patience, imagination or math ability should stay away from domes.

My regret is I never got around to actually building one, based on my design. But I was pretty sure it would end up being a very solid, durable, funky, practical home. Put some spikes on the vertices and paint it a warm pastel color...a 3/4 dome parked beside the ocean could look a lot like a big sea urchin. I thought that would be so cool. That would be a home that got a stared at a lot, and people on ferries cruising by would be saying, wow, that's neat.

Domes look great on paper or on computer screens.213.226.53.254 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC) The curse of the world is people who lack imagination. I think Bucky Fuller bitched about it, too. :) Stellar-TO 02:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The curse of the dome is that rectangles fit together in ways that circles don't. I've had a go at clarifying this. ...dave souza 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of geodesic domes
Every technology has its own quirks. Perhaps we should collect and summarize the problems with geodesic domes. --DavidCary 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I could add a few. They cannot easily be built out of natural materials, so the frequent label of 'ecobuilding' is rarely accurate for domes. If they are not on entirely flat ground, some of the top panels may be even closer to horizontal than usual, increasing the risk of leaks. If domes are built out of a wooden frame, covered by plastic sheet or fabric, like the greenhouse described, the fabric must be either shaped to fit the dome precisely (meaning lots of seams, weakening the fabric and increasing the chances of leaks. A rectangular piece of fabric must be consierably larger than the surface of the dome to cover it effectively, it is also difficult to attach canvas or plastic to a dome securely without it flapping around in the wind. A dome is all roof, making waterproofing difficult. Rain water runs down to the base of a dome, which will quickly cause wood at the base of the dome to rot, and this water may also flow under the base of the dome. It is very difficult to collect rainwater that falls on a dome. Rectangular buildings have overhanging roofs to keep walls, doors and windows dry.

The comment that shingles are the best way to waterproof a dome needs to be justified. according to George Oakes http://www.shelterpub.com/_shelter/domebuilder%27s_blues.html: "Everybody who has ever roofed a dome with cedar shakes has wound up with soggy sheetrock. The only practical answer is composition shingles, which are easy to nail down but which “burn out” in about 10 years and have to be replaced. This is quite a major concern when your house is two thirds roof. You can go expensive and buy fiberglass-base composition shingle, which last about 30 years. Even so, when they have to be replaced, the cost will be disproportionately more than for the guy who built a long, rectangular roof."

I have heard that a skin can be made out of sections of plastic shaped like orange segments, heat sealed together. This does not precisely fit a geodesic dome.

Oakes lists the "chief technical drawbacks" based on his own experience:

"1. The only kind of insulation you can legally use in a dome kit is super-expensive, flammable, poisonous, and unbelievably labor-intensive to install. 2. The very shape of the house makes it difficult to conform to code requirements for placement of sewer vents and chimneys.  3. Domes are difficult to roof. And if not roofed exceptionally well, they will leak like a sieve.  4. All building materials come in rectangular shapes off the shelf. They have to be cut to fit triangular and other non-standard shapes. Scrap from cutting -i.e., waste — ranges from about 10 percent to 20 percent, depending on the type of material, of what you paid for.  5. Domes require about twice as much sparking tape and electrical cable as conventional houses of similar size. Cable costs quite a bit, and labor costs are doubled, too.  6. Foundations are critical. You can get away with a lot in conventional houses, but not with a dome. 7. Fire escapes are problematical, they’re required, and they’re expensive. Windows conforming to code can cost anywhere from 5 to 15 times as much as windows in conventional houses. "

He adds others (in addition to the ones already discussed) such as heating (hot air stratifies at the top), meeting plumbing regulations, foundations, ventilation, leaky windows (especially upstairs windows which cannot be left open if there is any chance of rain), light and sound bounce around the dome, problems with chimneys and regulations, hanging pictures is hard etc.

http://www.shelterpub.com/_shelter/domes_rectangles.html compares rectangular and dome shaped buildings and includes yet more problems. Including, materials (a restricted range of high grade materials can be used for domes, traditional buildings can be built with a greater range of materials), later expansion of a dome is problematic, as is partitioning.

Also recommend http://www.shelterpub.com/_shelter/smart_but_not_wise.html

BTW I own a dome :-) Pignut (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Update:. My dome was dismantled and recycled a few years ago and boy did that feel good, after eating up way too much of my time and energy in repairs and maintenance! I'll rephrase the above text and put it in the main articlePignut (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Cost
The article keeps stating that cost is a major issue but if I understand geodesic domes correctly construction costs should be considerably lower than a regular home. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct... the bigger a Geodesic Dome gets, the cheaper it becomes per amount of volume compared to a regular building.--Bridgeengineer05282 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

re: The problem is that all current construction materials and codes assume recangular-based houses. Plywood comes in rectangular sheets; windows are rectangular; angle-brackets are all 90 degrees. None of these work with a dome, requiring lots of custom fabrication and/or wasted materials. Some of these problems stem from the assumption that houses must be made primarily of wood but many of them are inherent. If building materials were mass-produced in dome-appropriate forms, then domes would be cheaper. Once you get to very large structures, i.e. skyscrapers, the economics of scale kick back in and domes really are cheaper for the volume contained.

Related buildings
One might want to mention here other buildings like Kresge Auditorium whose architecture is derivative of the geodesic domes. Anyone knows exactly? Mhym 15:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundant links
Just a heads-up - two of the links point to pages on www.desertdomes.com --Benplaut 07:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bauersfeld claim
Someone added this comment to the article. Disputes should be on the talk page, not in the article, so I moved it here until it can be checked out:

"www.telacommunications.com/geodome.htm Dr. Walter Bauersfeld Chief Designer of the Carl Zeiss works at Jena, East Gemany designed the Geodesic Dome in 1922 for a Planetarium. The Fuller Patent is a Photocopy with Fuller's name substituted."

--Heron 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The cited URL doesn't mention any patents, and may have been revised since the comment was added. I don't know if the part about the Fuller patent is true, but it wouldn't be surprising, since it's well known that the Allies confiscated (~ stole) much German industrial knowledge and intellectual property after both World Wars, even going so far as to assign "patents" to such purloined knowledge. For those familiar with the history of Revolution Helicopter, it's clear that such shenanigans occur even outside the context of war spoils, when an inventor is slow or hasn't the funds to register his design internationally. —QuicksilverT @ 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Chord factors and frequency
there's some confusion here between chord factor (having to do with the length of each strut) and frequency (having to do with how many times the platonic solid is being subdivided)

It's easy to get bogged down in a lot of detail: does the user want to know the math involved in constructing a geodesic dome? Would it be sufficient to just get the 'recipe', a list of chord factors? Or does it even matter that one can build a dome out of tetrahedrons, octahedrons, or icosohedrons? Anansi133 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

List of geodesic domes
This article contains a list of large geodesic domes according to the Buckminster Fuller Institute. However, at least one of the domes on that list, the Tacoma Dome, is definitely *not* a geodesic dome. (Check out the Tacoma Dome article.) The BFI list is labeled only as being the ten largest domes -- not "geodesic domes" -- in the world.

So... Wikipedia says this is a list of geodesic domes, BFI says it's a list of not-necessarily-geodesic domes. Wikipedia is implying that the Tacoma Dome is geodesic; it is not.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages. What is the right way to resolve this misleading implication? 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Compass98155 (David D.)

 * Obviously no one responded to this, but the user must have misread the verbiage in the article, because one look at the interior of the Tacoma Dome is sufficient to show someone that it is built as a geodesic dome. 12.207.212.130 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information in this post
I am new to working with Wikipedia but this article has some startlingly incorrect information in it, particularly under the "Disadvantages" section. I'd like to know what process to go through to remove and correct information in this section without stepping on someone's toes. I am a geodesic dome expert with 30+ years designing / building domes. I have been involved in well over a thousand dome projects, and I feel I could more accurately author this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okvomit (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 July 2007

Please, have at it. I would appreciate it if you log any significant changes and their justification to this discussion page, so that you can get a discussion of any caustic topics. Your expertise would be appreciated. --Phays 03:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest domes section
Anyone willing to undertake the rather unromantic task of cleaning up the Largest domes section? My chief concern is that the text appears to refer to, where there are only 10 domes listed. Of course, this information may be quite dated, and if there is a more recent source available, then it should be referenced. (And the domes should be put into decreasing order of size, which they appear not to be.) If a source cannot be found, then I suggest that the list be restored to its original form. Silly rabbit (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 360 no-scope SCRUB!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.91.2.83 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 * I have updated the list. The original list from BFI had somehow missed the Polyhedron in Caracas, built in 1974. Was it deliberately left out because it does not have a circular base? Two other domes built later are also large enough to be in the top 10 now. I also switched the order of two of them based on information on other wiki pages that appears to be more accurate. The BFI site no longer has this list current, but I did not want to remove the reference because other than a Youtube video, I could find no other reliable authoritative list of largest geodesic domes. If some other editor prefers, the list could just be completely redone and referenced to as many other wiki pages as possible, instead of the Fuller Institute. For now it is really a 'top 13', but there are even a few other domes that could surpass the last 3 on the BFI list. Rather than a top 10, a new list might consist of any verified domes of 400 feet diameter or more. That would keep it around a dozen.12.207.212.130 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic material
There is what appears to be off-topic material in the Methods_of_construction section — references to concrete and foam plastic domes. This is construction that is typically used on non-geodesic domes. —QuicksilverT @ 01:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stronger as it gets larger?
Awhile back there were some skeptical comments about the article's claim that geodesic domes get stronger as they get larger (and indeed that they are the only man-made structures with this property). There was quite a bit of arm-waving, but no one really answered the question (as far as I can tell). On the face of it, the claim that geodesic domes get stronger as they get larger doesn't even make sense. It would have to be clarified before it could even achieve the status of being wrong. I suggest that if no one can back up that statement, it should be removed. Any objections? 63.24.57.198 (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 'A fuller explanation: The Synergetic Geometry of R. Buckminster Fuller' by Amy C Edmonson supports this claim on page xv of the introduction. From a brief skim through the rest of the book, it appears accurate but I haven't seen any direct justification for the claim. Robin S (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Climatron caption
Hi. Just wondering how the Climatron dome, built in 1960, could be inspired by a 1972 science-fiction film. I imagine this caption needs to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willie D (talk • contribs) 06:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Methods of construction" -- oddly definite claims
The "Methods of construction" section begins "Wooden domes have a hole drilled in the width of a strut. A stainless steel band locks the strut's hole to a steel pipe." Well, no. That's one way to do it, but hardly the only or best way. And the claim that stainless steel bands are "the way" that wooden domes are locked together is absurd; there's an infinite number of materials that could be used. The entry goes on to also make such definitive claims about domes made from other materials. To wit: "Panelized domes are constructed of separately-framed timbers covered in plywood." No, again. Panelized domes can be made of any one of countless materials, from styrofoam covered with paper to solid gold covered with titanium. Someone needs to go in and Wikify this section. Anyone? Bricology (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What code would this be?
"The shape of a dome house makes it difficult to conform to code requirements...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.113.165 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

picture of dome home on Forest&Cherry
I can get a picture of the building at Forest & Cherry in Carbondale, IL for this article. Feedback? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.139.238 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Decimal??
Does the article claims that numbers "2 sin(nu/2)" are decimals.???

Animated Illustration
First things first: This is a really good GIF. I enjoyed watching it spin until I put the brakes on and tried to use it to explain geodesic domes to the uninitiated. Now I see the curious "twisted" in the file information. I checked the companion illustration and it is also twisted. I wonder how they got twisted but more importantly, why? I was trying to use the frames of the animation for educational purposes and found myself hanging by a thread and losing the respect of my students when nothing I told them about geodesic domes was borne out by the illustration. I think this should be removed from the geodesic dome page. It simply is not an illustration of a geodesic dome. It is a bad joke in a serious encyclopedia. You will not immediately see what I am complaining about unless you can stop the animation and trace from the center of one of the pentagons (which are the apexes of the basic icosahedron) along the line which exits the pentagon at any of the five apexes. You should encounter the center of another pentagon, but you will not in this illustration. If you look carefully as your tracing passes three triangles, you will see you have arrived at an edge of another pentagon. This is how the geodesic sphere is "twisted". It is not an illustration of a geodesic dome.

Anewcharliega (talk)
 * Geodesic domes are often described as Class I, II, or III according to their relationship with a base polyhedron. The animation is a Class III model based on an icosahedron. The parameters of 3 and 1 mean that you can travel between the base vertices (the 5-way vertices) by stepping 3 edges in one direction then 1 edge in another. Class III domes don't seemed to be used much in construction (e.g. Skylights Types), nor even mentioned very much. There is overlap with the T Number in virology, the table in the Capsid article shows Class I (k=0), Class II (h=k) and Class III (h=/=k with k=/=0) geodesic spheres.Antiprism (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is so much that I think I know that I do not actually know. It is always a pleasant surprise to find someone who knows something I never heard of, and better yet, is willing to share it with me. Thanks, Antiprism. Anewcharliega (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130319084511/http://www.physics.princeton.edu:80/~trothman/domes.html to http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/domes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100412163621/http://www.bfi.org:80/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes to http://bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100412163621/http://www.bfi.org:80/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes to http://www.bfi.org/our_programs/who_is_buckminster_fuller/design_science/geodesic_domes/worlds_10_largest_domes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102171002/http://www.mero-tsk.de/uploads/tx_cwtcartoongallery/Eden_Project_english.pdf to http://www.mero-tsk.de/uploads/tx_cwtcartoongallery/Eden_Project_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505104923/http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/matinee.cfm?Film=aus-pow2&File=world to http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/matinee.cfm?Film=aus-pow2&File=world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

correction
I removed the Cinesphere from the account of notable geodesic domes. Yes, writers who don't know better do often describe it as a geodesic dome, when it was described as a "radial dome", when it was built, and is now called a "triodetic dome".

The Cinesphere has a pole, and its triangles are stacked, in layers, similar to the lines of latitude on a geography Globe. Geo Swan (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving geometry to a new page
I've been thinking about creating an article for the geometric object known as the "geodesic sphere", and moving all the geometry content from this article and geodesic grid to the new article. The new article would be a counterpart to Goldberg polyhedra, and geodesic dome would be only about buildings based on geodesic spheres (with maybe a little truly relevant math), while geodesic grid would just be about using geodesic spheres to model the earth. I wanted to run this idea by the interested parties before I went ahead with it.

Also, User:Tomruen and I discussed what to call the article, since geodesic spheres aren't spheres and are only sort of geodesic. The term "geodesic polyhedra" is also used but has many fewer google hits than "geodesic spheres". It seems like there's not a great name for these objects.

So, any input? -Apocheir (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Domes and spheres maybe ought to be separate articles. Calling the spherical ones polyhedra also makes some sense given geometric variations may not have all points on a sphere. And virus structures are not necessarily on a sphere. On the other hand, all convex polyhedra can be said to have a spherical topology. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Icosahedron subdivided.pngPentakis icosidodecahedron.pngAdenovirus_3D_schematic.png

This sentence reads wrong - please decipher & correct
Not far into the article's History section, this sentence occurs—what should it actually say? Should it be two sentences? Should the info be unraveled and put into two different paragraphs? "Some 20 years later, R. Buckminster Fuller named the dome "geodesic" lattice of interlocking icosahedrons that could be skinned with a protective cover."Joel Russ (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 * This is the revision that caused that sentence: . Before that revision, it read "Some 20 years later, R. Buckminster Fuller named the dome "geodesic" from field experiments with artist Kenneth Snelson at Black Mountain College in 1948 and 1949. Snelson and Fuller worked developing what they termed "tensegrity," an engineering principle of continuous tension and discontinuous compression that allowed domes to deploy a lightweight lattice of interlocking icosahedrons that could be skinned with a protective cover." The edit comment is "tensegrity has nothing to do with geodesic domes", so I think they were trying to delete the second sentence and missed. I've restored the first sentence. -Apocheir (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geodesic dome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001256/http://www.kristallsalzwelt.com/KristallSalzWelt%20ARCHITEKTUR.html to http://www.kristallsalzwelt.com/KristallSalzWelt%20ARCHITEKTUR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Anachronistic archived reference
I just cut out... “The first site in the UK to use them was Ekopod in North Cornwall in 2009.” ...as it looks ill-fitting and anachronistic and I can’t see what purpose it might serve except as an advertisement. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Visual Update after the last layout change.
It seems the last layout change has taken it's toll on the presentability and comprehensibility of many articles, some should look into it. عبدالرحمن بن ركن الدين (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I've seen this befo... WAIT A MINUTE!
Yeah, this is something I've DEFINITELY seen a dome like this in Super Mario Odyssey. If you look closely at the background of the Wooded Kingdom, you can spot one of these domes. Obscure reference, but definitely crazy. 2603:7080:DC02:5FB5:793E:DA00:BD3E:B40C (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't have the game, but an image search brings up this screengrab. I'm not sure this dome is geodesic — it appears to be just a triangular grid, like this.  I'd have to see a vertex somewhere that is not hexagonal to know for sure.  --Lasunncty (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Tile shapes?
The article states that a geodesic dome is based on a geodesic polyhedron, and such a polyhedron is in turn made of triangles. Does this mean that a geodesic dome also should be made of triangles in order to be called a geodesic dome? What about domes that are made of hexagons and the occasional pentagon, such as those in the Eden Project? —Kri (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Those are based on the Goldberg polyhedra, which are dual to the geodesic polyhedra. So they are closely related.  A Google search for "Goldberg dome" returns only a handful of results, so I'm not sure if that would be the correct term or not.  --Lasunncty (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geodesic dome


text:
Talk:The Pink Panther

Ed Helms source
Do we have a decent source for the comment about Ed Helms taking over the role of Clouseau, or is it just rumour territory? There's no citation at all on this page, and the Pink Panther 2 page's citation leads to a seemingly irrelevant bit about the second film's box office intake. So, unless I missed something, this is best left off the page. Flamingopuree (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Early, unsectioned comments
I think that the 2006 and 2008 films should be removed from this article, in as much as they are mentioned as part of the original series. they are remakes, and have nothing to do with the original's writers, producers, directors, etc.15:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)198.54.202.166 (talk)
 * They are Pink Panther films so they should be mentioned. Qutezuce 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadly I have to agree that in order to meet the encyclopaedic criteria, they do have to be mentioned somewhere. However, there is a case for putting them and references to Steve Martin's role in a separate section of the page - even the present material points out that they are not a continuation of the existing PP canon, but a "rebooting" of it. See also the related pages Curse of the Pink Panther, Inspector Clouseau, etc. If the Steve Martin films are not directed related but are more of a "repackaging" of the PP image, then they should be listed separately as they are very different. - HTUK 08:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

"The diamond was stolen in the first film (but the panther was never shown" -- Ortolan, I'm pretty sure the opening sequence of the first film has the sultan / whoever inspeacting the diamond and being told of the reason for the name. He gazes into it and the camera zooms in. After some 60s-style special effects, the head of the cartoon PP is seen, with a cigarette holder. -- Tarquin 20:14 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

(about the snippet of organ Dreyfuss plays (deleted)) What, you want me to get out my Edition Peters and prove it (I know, Breitkopf is more authoritative, but it's also too d@mn expensive)?

Or is that too trivial? I've always liked knowing that, but then I'm a freakshow. Kwantus 22:41, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that the (early) cartoons were unusual, not just for being silent (except for sound fx) but also for their surreal nature. They were unlike any other cartoons of the time. In addition, they were full of 60's cultural references, such as beatniks.

It should also be pointed that the character of the Inspector never appeared together with the Panther in the original cartoons; though the Panther often clashed with characters resembling him. (They did appear together in the comic book covers.)-Wilfredo Martinez

breakout pages
This article needs to be split into seperate pages for each use of the term "pink panther." I will try to work on it later today, but if anyone wants to beat me to it, be my guest. --b. Touch 21:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Black Panthers etc.?
Pardon, but can anyone recall exactly why links are included to the pages for the Black Panthers, Grey Panthers, etc.? Apart from the fact that they include a color and the word "Panther," there seems to be absolutely no connection to the character or the film series. Would anyone object if I were to remove those links? Also, I think a seperate page for discussion of the Pink Panther character and cartoons (and allowing for more indepth discussion of both the origin of his use in the opening credits, and his TV and commercial incarnations) is in order, wouldn't one say? (If I get the time, I may try to do it myself). Aleal 20:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It only makes sense to cross-link to Black Panthers or Gray Panthers if the Pink Panther is also the symbol of some group... such as breast-cancer survivors... or gay rights advocates. I think Snagglepuss has got the latter covered, but I don't know for certain. Wahkeenah 21:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks, Wahkeenah, I needed the laugh. Anyway, links removed. Aleal 00:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article
From the article:
 * The rink Panther of the title is, in the first film, a diamond supposedly containing a flaw which forms the image of a pink panther, whose theft is the concern of the first film.

The theft of what is the concern of the first film? The diamond, the flaw, the image, or the panther? — J I P | Talk 09:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Who own Pink Panther library?
If Turner own MGM library... Why does MGM sell dvds with Pink Panther?

For gods I say

Cleanup
I have tagged this article for cleanup because the lead section needs a complete rewrite. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon character in lead
I think the cartoon character Pink Panther should get more prominence then it currently has in the lead section because this article is the main article for the cartoon character/animated film series. The fame of this character makes it more than just a "Also, there was a cartoon character...". Qutezuce 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree. As much as I enjoy the animated character, it would not exist were it not for the films, which are the primary focus of the article. The fact that the cartoons are mentioned in the lead paragraph at all really should be sufficient, in my opinion.

 * Those who disagree with my take might want to flesh out the information on the cartoons in the body of the article.  Perhaps if it become thorough enough, it would justify spinning them off in to a seperate article. unfutz 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * But this article is the only article that the cartoon series has, the films each have their own page. This page is all the cartoon has and all it gets is a tiny mention at the bottom of the intro. I don't think that which came first, or what created what, or what wouldn't be around if it weren't for what matters, the relevant thing is the notoriety each subject has. The Simpsons wouldn't be around if it weren't for The Tracey Ullman Show, but The Simpsons is by far and large much more famous than The Tracey Ullman Show. I don't agree that the primary focus of the article is the series of films, or at least it shouldn't be, the cartoon should be given equal billing, as long as it co-exists on the same page as the film series.

 * Imagine that you have just come across Wikipedia for the first time, and you want to look up the Pink Panther cartoon character. You come to this article, and what do you see? In bold you see that "The Pink Panther" is a series of (live action) films. Thats not what you are looking for. Maybe this disambiguation thing is what I want. Nope, that just tells me to come back here. Ok I'll read some more. Hmmm, more about the films. Ok, here we go, a tiny mention finally.

 * My point is that this page is about two things, and as long as this page is about two things both things should be given equal billing, because if a person comes here looking for either of the two things they should easily be able to identify the information relevant to it, not have to hunt for the information for the one thing that is not as famous as the other.

 * I think that the first thing people think of when someone says "Pink Panther" is the cartoon character, not the diamond from the films, or even the films themselves. In fact, now that I think about it I'm not so sure the first sentence of the article is even true: "The Pink Panther refers to a series of American comedic films which feature the bumbling French police detective Jacques Clouseau." Does anybody actually use the three words "The Pink Panther" to refer specifically to the film series? Doesn't seem likely, more likely "The Pink Panther films" or "The Pink Panther film series". Perhaps the information about the film series should be moved to "The Pink Panther film series". Qutezuce 10:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The above is perhaps a little too ranty. You can skip reading it and just read this. What about creating pages for the film series and the animated character, and make "Pink Panther" a disambig page. Are people in favour of this idea? Qutezuce 17:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I think our fundamental disagreement is with the idea that the first thing people think of when "The Pink Panther" is mentioned is the cartoons -- I believe just the opposite to be the case. (This may be a generational thing.)  However, I do agree that a disambiguation page would solve the problem. unfutz 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that is our fundamental disagreement, please ignore my long rant comment, that was written with too little thought. My main point now is that this page is (currently) about two different (but related) topics, hence both should be given equal footing in the lead, the relative fame of each is not relevant to this. If you put any two related but distinct topics in one article both should be defined in the lead prominently so that people looking for either topic can find it quickly.
 * However, this is all a moot point if this page is going to be split up into a film series page and a cartoon character page. I'll wait a little while longer if anyone else wants to weigh in before splitting this page into it's two parts and making "Pink Panther"/"The Pink Panther" the main disambig page for all things Pink Panther. Qutezuce 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that splitting up the articles (with a mention in each of the other topic), and adding a disambiguation page is a good idea. unfutz 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though a page split is in order then. I hope to get around to it sometime in the coming days. Qutezuce 07:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Now that the articles have been split, the amount of information about the cartoon appearing in this article should be minimal, enough to inform a reader of its existence and of the existence of the companion article. Accordingly, I've edited down that section to the bare necessary facts, and have transferred some information that appeared only here to the cartoon article.  In the future, additional information about the cartoons should appear only in the other article. unfutz 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pink Panther beauty corporation
There is also a beauty corporation by the name... pink panther.

What is the Pink Panther beauty corporation?

does anyone know?

r there any marks?

 * Information is available at http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1998/pub/v3/1998fc22291.html. Try Googling "Pink Panther Beauty" for more. unfutz 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pink Panther = Clouseau ?
Who, pray tell, thinks the Pink Panther is Inspector Clouseau? It's not like The Thin Man, where the usage was rather ambiguous. I'm taking that comment out until someone can cite a reference to it. It sounds like the original author maybe got it confused in his own head when he was a young'un. Wahkeenah 10:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's precisely like the Thin Man, where an internal story reference unrelated to the main character of the series is used as the title of the first film, and then is subsequently taken up in the title of later films in the series for reasons of marketing and easy identification. I've restored the reference, but have rewritten it to be more explanatory and neutral in POV. unfutz 04:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, you are not citing anything. The Pink Panther is a very well known cartoon character. Who on God's green earth would be so stupid as to confuse the Pink Panther with Inspector Clouseau??? Wahkeenah 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually "The Pink Panther" is a series of films, to which the cartoon character is subsidiary. This article is about that film series, there is another article that covers the cartoon.  In the context of this article, about the film series, the question of what "The Pink Panther" in the title of most of the films in that series (not the cartoons) refers to needs to be addressed, since, in most instances of film series, a repeated reference in the titles (i.e. Mr. Moto, Charlie Chan) will about the lead character.  Because that is the common usage, it can lead to the misapprehension that "Pink Panther" in the title of these films (again, we're talking here about the films, not about the cartoon series, which is not the subject of the films) refers to the continuing lead character common to the series, Clouseau.  Nothing needs to be cited to justify this, it's a matter of providing necessary information for people who come looking for it.  "Hey -- I wonder what "The Pink Panther" in the title of all those films refers to, Madge?  Maybe I'll check Wikipedia and see what it says."  This is the function of a work of reference. unfutz 06:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do people actually say "The Pink Panther" when they are refering to the series of live action films? I don't think I've ever seen anyone use just "The Pink Panther" to mean the film series. If they meant the film series they would say "The Pink Panther film series", "The Pink Panther series of films", or "The Pink Panther films". If someone says "The Pink Panther" then they are refering to either one of the two films with this name, the cartoon character, or the song. Secondly, the cartoon character is not subsidiary to the film series, the cartoon character has it's own existence with it's own series of films and television shows independent from the live action films. I think that this page (the film series page) should be moved to a suitable title (eg "The Pink Panther film series"), and "The Pink Panther" should become the main disambiguation page. Qutezuce 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My specific complaint is the assertion that many people confuse the panther with the inspector. It's fine to state that the panther is the jewel and not the inspector, and let it go at that. To state that people actually are confused is, until proven otherwise, uncited and unverifiable. Wahkeenah 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's your complaint, then it's been dealt with -- that assertion is no longer made in the paragraph in question, or elsewhere in the article for that matter. The confusion, however, is quite real, in spite of your disbelief of its existence. unfutz 12:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has indeed been dealt with, until someone messes with it again. However, I would still like to see something that proves there is such confusion. Is our educational system really that far gone? Wahkeenah 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's an example -- a review of the recent Steve Martin prequel which refers to the "title character’s struggle to communicate because of his accent". http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=23383 unfutz 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point... although the article also makes it clear that the Pink Panther is a diamond. It's that kind of sloppy writing that could lead to confusion. I weep for the younger generation. ); Wahkeenah 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's another one (a Google cache) "Steve Martin as The Pink Panther?" it asks. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:VJPn5D-8To8J:www.maagic.net/thereforum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D9230+%22steve+martin+as+the+pink+panther%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8 I'm sure some more Googling will find other instances.
 * I see. This usage is indeed becoming like The Thin Man... and also like Frankenstein. I remain unconvinced that very many people actually think that the inspector and the panther are the same thing... I think it's just a convenient reference point. We can also blame the creators for any conusion. The second and third films didn't say anything about the panther because the jewel did not figure into the plot. The fourth one featured the jewel and the name of the jewel in the title, and the films after that used the name without the jewel, although the recent Martin film does feature the jewel. Anyway, I think the article is OK the way it reads now. Wahkeenah 13:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the article still makes the unreferenced assertion that there is a confusion. I think it is time to revisit it.--Larrybob (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to revisit it, since the evidence provided above is quite conclusive, plus the article no longer refers to a "confusion". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about Pink Panther movies
Why is it that the first Pink Panther movie (The Pink Panther, 1963) is completely unlike all the others? It does have Clouseau in a major role, but he shares a major role with Charles and George Lytton, and the main part of the film concerns Clouseau's wife (who I don't remember appearing in any other films) cheating on him. All the other films have Clouseau as the unquestionable star. In fact, the second movie (A Shot in the Dark, 1964) already develops all the usual characteristics, for example Dreyfus and Cato are treated like well-established characters and running gags, although they did not appear in the first movie. Was the entire mythos of the films redesigned when the rights were transferred from Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer to United Artists? J I P | Talk 21:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The better question is, "Why are all the others different from the first one?" The article contains the basis of the answer. The Clouseau character was a major part of the first film, but was not necessarily the central character. David Niven had every bit as important a role. The many "sequels" are in a sense more like "spinoffs", in that they focus on Clouseau. As for what happened to Clouseau's wife, in the fictional sense one might assume that she divorced him when he went to prison (and probably took up with "The Phantom"), or she could be dead; in the practical sense, how far could they milk the joke that she was two-timing him with "The Phantom"? It was better to just write off the character, and leave Clouseau as strictly a clown with no real life. The style of the sequels or spinoffs was strictly cartoonish, with very little of at least the semblance of realism that existed in the first one. Wahkeenah 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If we only consider the first two movies (The Pink Panther) and (A Shot in the Dark) we can say that MGM/UA were experimenting with different kinds of comedic films. First they made a typical comedy about love affairs, with an air of slapstick humour. Then they thought that the Clouseau character was well received, so they thought to expand on him and create a more straight parody of a detective movie without so much romance. This turned out to be a big hit, so they stuck on it. It is notable that the second movie is the only one not to have "The Pink Panther" or "Clouseau" in its title, or to show the Pink Panther in the credits. I think this is because the Panther was never intended to be a recurring character (or should I say, item) - they just wanted each movie to be have a different, unique title. But then they found out how big a hit Depatie-Freleng's animated Pink Panther was, so they brought him back in the third movie, and kept him ever since. J I P  | Talk 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In the article, speaking of A Shot in the Dark it is said that it "was quickly re-written to capitalize on the popularity of the original film". Actually, as it is stated in IMDB, this movie was finished before The Pink Panther, so I will take that sentence out. Anyway, A shot... was released only 3 months after The Pink Panther, hardly time enough to rewrite a script to capitalize on the success of the first released movie. Nazroon 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was actually filmed before the Pink Panther was releasted, the best they could have done was to re-edit the film to change its tone somewhat and/or to re-shoot some scenes in a big hurry. However, it sounds like someone's guesswork. Wahkeenah 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Two series of cartoons
Besides the movies, there were two different series of cartoons. The first series followed Depatie-Freleng's title's style, and never had any spoken lines. The second series was a more mainstream cartoon show, with all characters, including the Pink Panther, having speaking roles. I have watched both series and have noticed the difference between them, but I don't know anything else. Could someone explain the difference? Were they produced by different companies? Or was it simply a modernisation of the series? J I P | Talk 21:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?
How come the Pink Panther cartoon character could be adopted as a mascot by an insulation company etc???--Jack Upland 07:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The owner of a copyright can license it to anyone they want, for whatever fee they like. Qutezuce 08:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Of course they can. I presume you're saying they did.--Jack Upland 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If they hadn't, Corning would have been slapped with an infringement suit immediately. Wahkeenah 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

the song
i think that the song for the pink panther needs its own article.it did have its own article for a while,but someone changed it again. User:67.185.150.130 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) yes,the song by the genius henry macini[i know that was an opinion but stll...] we could put say its popularity,instruments it can be played on,etc...
 * What song? The Mancini theme? An entire article about it? I can't see it. Please elaborate. Wahkeenah 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That seems extremely thin, not really enough to hang an entire article on. Really, the theme song gets several mentions in the main article as it is, which should be enough.  If there's something particularly important about the song (which, I agree, is great) which should be mentioned, perhaps there's a say to work it in there -- but not anything as trivial as what instruments it can be played on (which instruments can't it be played on?).  Did it reach #1 status in the US or UK?  That would be significant.  Has it sold more than any other theme song, or something similar to that?  That would be notable.  In short, what facts are you suggesting need to be available to Wikipedia readers?  Why not list them here to convince us that your case is a strong one? unfutz 07:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Even if you created a separate article anyway, someone down the road would likely merge it in. However, feel free to offer an example... and any opinions, since this is the editorial page, not the article. Wahkeenah 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

is there a section about the song in the article about the musical genius henry mancini?67.185.150.130
 * In the first paragraph, the link takes you to a separate article on Mancini. Wahkeenah 23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Roger Moore as the Inspector?
So, did Roger Moore act in "Curse of the Pink Panther" or not? IMDB says yes, Roger Moore's page says no, and the Curse of the Pink Panther page is unclear.

Someone please clear this up! Eptin 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Roger Moore's page doesn't say no, it just doesn't mention it. He did indeed appear in Curse of the Pink Panther, in one extended scene as a surgically altered Inspector Clouseau. However, in the credits, he is identified as special guest star "Turk Thrust II," an allusion to the pseudonym used by director Bryan Forbes when appearing in A Shot in the Dark. -- Aleal 05:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and Images
I think, that for making it more easy to understand and atractive it should be put an Infobox and a Image of the pink panther

Qualitative Description and tense problems.
I've just removed significantly problematic qualitative description from the article and also cleared up tense problems in the list of movies (someone had attempted to compile it in the present tense, but as is quite common in doing so had slipped many times back into past). If anyone wishes to give it further and more detailed attention is welcome. Dingdongalistic 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that
The CARTOON Pink Panther is used in USA as a symbol for a female meber of the Bloods Gang? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.92.175.76 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Logo
Does anybody know where to find the logo for The Pink Panther? If not, I may look for one soon. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the logo"? (Incidentally, could you think about reducing the size of your signature? It's a little disruptive on the page. Thanks.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Inspector Closeaue as a part of the canon ?
Here, the film Inspector Closeau is treated as one of the set of films, however, canonically it doesn't seem to be linked in any way to the other films. Should this be rectified? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Kato Fong
In the descriptions under Characters; Kato Fong. The following text is used "Cato was based on Kato, the sidekick of the Green Hornet played by Bruce Lee.[citation needed] The credits of A Shot in the Dark even list his name spelled with a "K", though it was changed to a "C" for all subsequent appearances." It would more accurately be read as follows. Kato who was first seen in A Shot In The Dark in 1964 may have been based on Kato the sidekick of the Green Hornet in the earlier 1940's movies and 1950's radio series, however, it definitely was not inspired by Bruce Lee as Lee did not play the Green Hornet's driver Kato until the later television series of 1966-1967. Interestingly the most likely reason that the spelling changed from Kato to Cato in the Return of the Pink Panther (1975) and later Pink Panther movies was in deference to Bruce Lee's performance as Kato in the 1960's Green Hornet television series. Jdonaldz (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan TV
There is a Taiwanese TV show called Hi My Sweetheart which while in English on of the main charactors loves the series, is named Dala after the theme song and know the dance. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

High Definition Blu-ray
"The Pink Panther was filmed in Technirama, a large-negative process that was basically VistaVision with CinemaScope-like anamorphic prints. Because of this MGM/Fox's Blu-ray disc should look exceptionally sharp - and generally speaking it does, though it's not as eye-poppingly splendiferous as Sleeping Beauty or Zulu, two other Technirama titles recently released to Blu-ray."

"The 1080p transfer is on a 50GB, dual-layered disc. The film's original audio history is murky. One assumes the film had at least a limited 4-track magnetic stereo release but probably was mostly released monophonic. In any case, a 1.0 Dolby Digital mono track is included along with a 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio remix that sounds okay - it brings out Mancini's music better - but it's modest. 5.1 DTS tracks in Spanish, French, and Portuguese are also included, along with subtitles in Spanish, Portuguese, Korean, Cantonese, Mandarin, and Thai. English subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing also are included."

The Pink Panther Blu-ray Collector's Edition Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer | 1964 | 115 min | Not rated | Jan 27, 2009

Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC Video resolution: 1080p Aspect ratio: 2.35:1

Audio English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1 French: Dolby Digital 5.1

Subtitles English, French, Spanish

Discs 50GB Blu-ray Disc Single disc (1 BD) "During the opening credits, solid colors in the animation reveal the woeful condition of the source material in the 2.20:1 aspect ratio. Strobing and flickering, moderate dust specs, small grain and signs of digital enhancement--it's all there." -96.237.73.114 (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Inspector Clouseau Statistics
Why are the reception and gross for the film Inspector Clouseau not known? Alphius (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The NSU murder case video in Germany
In Nov. 2011 a terrorist group named National Sozialistischer Untergrund (NSU) was dismantled. They had committed 10 murders since 2000. When they were arrested, videos where found in which they bragged about their doings by showing a self-made video with the PINK PANTHER explaining their deeds. This perverted clip is a highly significant twist in the interpretation of the art of the pink panther. Please include in wiki or link to the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.218.229 (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Year of Movie
Every source states the movie is from 1963 so why does the wiki keep mentioning 1964?Mrs269 (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Couple of things
1. Is the statement "The Pink Panther is a series of comedy films" actually correct? It does not seem logically correct to me.

2. The connection between the cartoon character and the Clouseau films could be clearer. Is it simply a visual pun? The diamond was called the "pink panther" so someone drew a real pink pather for fun?

86.146.104.65 (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Series have often been named after the first item in it, such as "Game of Thrones", "All Creatures Great and Small", "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" and so on. Slightnostalgia (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Budget Not Applicable?
Surely a budget cannot be not applicable, even if unknown? Slightnostalgia (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring needed
This article really ought to have more information on the cartoons and television programs. I also think there should be an infobox and for the "Characters" section to be expanded and split in a separate article. Charles Essie (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Lugash" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lugash. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ミラP 23:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter Sellers 'stars' in most of the films?
Under the section 'Development', is it strictly correct to say that Sellers stars in most of the 20th Century films, when out of his 7 appearances, one of them is comprised of a photo cameo, and one is of footage cut from another film in the series. Interesting that Burt Kwouk's 7 appearances (all of which are actual new footage for each film) makes him arguably more worthy of the recognition of being in more films than Sellers.

Pink panther
Get ris of everything and put pink panther is purple 47.199.77.245 (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Lytton vs Litton
It's a small thing but Lytton is spelled with a "y" in the first Pink Panther; this is changed to "Litton" (with an "i") in Return of the Pink Panther and Trail of the Pink Panther. It's clearly the same character and nothing is intended by the change, but we should probably acknowledge it somewhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:The Pink Panther