text:
User:Caerwine/Like A Rock! (Xiaolin Showdown)

Like A Rock! is episode 102 of Xiaolin Showdown. It first aired in the United States on November 8, 2003.

Clay's effectiveness is doubted by his friends because of his relative slowness, but when he faces a new adversary, Le Mime, he shows that his ability to find simple solutions to problems causes him to succeed in his own time.

Synopsis
Description of what happened.

Shen Gong Wu
Jack Spicer appears to have acquired the Third Arm Sash in Paris without opposition. The Fist of Tebigong is found on a sylvan mountainside and is the goal of this episode's Xiaolin showdown.

Guest Character
Le Mime makes his only appearance to date in this episode (aside from a brief picture of him that appears in The Demon Seed). He is a French mime encountered by Jack and Wuya at a Parisian cafe. He has the ability to make his mime gags affect reality in an invisible manner. Since he is a mime, he has no voice actor portraying him.

Showdown
Jack Spicer wagered his Third Arm Sash against Clay's Eye of Dashi for the Fist of Tebigong. The contest was to catch a robin. While Jack flew after the robin trying to catch it with his Third Arm Sash, Clay collected seeds in his hat and enticed the bird to come to him instead, thereby winning the showdown.

Clay's Downhome Sayings
Clay: Fellas, I'd like to think we all learned a little something today. Kimiko: Never lose faith in a friend? Omi: The value of simple solutions? Raimundo: Omi can't use slang? Clay: Nope. We learned everybody hates a mime.

Kimiko's Techno-Fashion
Hairstyle: Pulled into pigtails with bangs that come across, pigtails are separated into rectangular strips. Red highlights fan out from hair ties on pigtails and fade to pink. Red highlights also fan out from her part. Top: A pink turtleneck short sleeved shirt with a green face on the front, purple sash, two red wrist bands on her wrists (one has a froggy thing on) Bottom: Light pink skirt and pink and blue knee high boots Gear: furry blue backpack

Raimundo's Schemes
Raimundo often schemes to make his life at the temple easier.

The Wisdom of Master Fong
Master Fong is fond of inscrutable sayings. Here you can scrute them.

Dojo’s Wu Sense
Dojo often suffers a rash or itch when Wu reveal themselves.

Jack Spicer’s Bots
While searching for the Fist of Tebigong, Jack makes use of modified Jack Bots that have rotating conical drills in place of the shoulder units and thrusters.


text:
Uniform polyhedron

In geometry, a uniform polyhedron has regular polygons as faces and is vertex-transitive—there is an isometry mapping any vertex onto any other. It follows that all vertices are congruent. Uniform polyhedra may be regular (if also face- and edge-transitive), quasi-regular (if also edge-transitive but not face-transitive), or semi-regular (if neither edge- nor face-transitive). The faces and vertices need not be convex, so many of the uniform polyhedra are also star polyhedra.

There are two infinite classes of uniform polyhedra, together with 75 other polyhedra. They are 2 infinite classes of prisms and antiprisms, the convex polyhedrons as in 5 Platonic solids and 13 Archimedean solids—2 quasiregular and 11 semiregular— the non-convex star polyhedra as in 4 Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra and 53 uniform star polyhedra—14 quasiregular and 39 semiregular. There are also many degenerate uniform polyhedra with pairs of edges that coincide, including one found by John Skilling called the great disnub dirhombidodecahedron, Skilling's figure.

Dual polyhedra to uniform polyhedra are face-transitive (isohedral) and have regular vertex figures, and are generally classified in parallel with their dual (uniform) polyhedron. The dual of a regular polyhedron is regular, while the dual of an Archimedean solid is a Catalan solid.

The concept of uniform polyhedron is a special case of the concept of uniform polytope, which also applies to shapes in higher-dimensional (or lower-dimensional) space.

Definition
define uniform polyhedra to be vertex-transitive polyhedra with regular faces. They define a polyhedron to be a finite set of polygons such that each side of a polygon is a side of just one other polygon, such that no non-empty proper subset of the polygons has the same property. By a polygon they implicitly mean a polygon in 3-dimensional Euclidean space; these are allowed to be non-convex and intersecting each other.

There are some generalizations of the concept of a uniform polyhedron. If the connectedness assumption is dropped, then we get uniform compounds, which can be split as a union of polyhedra, such as the compound of 5 cubes. If we drop the condition that the realization of the polyhedron is non-degenerate, then we get the so-called degenerate uniform polyhedra. These require a more general definition of polyhedra. gave a rather complicated definition of a polyhedron, while gave a simpler and more general definition of a polyhedron: in their terminology, a polyhedron is a 2-dimensional abstract polytope with a non-degenerate 3-dimensional realization. Here an abstract polytope is a poset of its "faces" satisfying various condition, a realization is a function from its vertices to some space, and the realization is called non-degenerate if any two distinct faces of the abstract polytope have distinct realizations. Some of the ways they can be degenerate are as follows:
 * Hidden faces. Some polyhedra have faces that are hidden, in the sense that no points of their interior can be seen from the outside. These are usually not counted as uniform polyhedra.
 * Degenerate compounds. Some polyhedra have multiple edges and their faces are the faces of two or more polyhedra, though these are not compounds in the previous sense since the polyhedra share edges.
 * Double covers. Some non-orientable polyhedra have double covers satisfying the definition of a uniform polyhedron. There double covers have doubled faces, edges and vertices. They are usually not counted as uniform polyhedra.
 * Double faces. There are several polyhedra with doubled faces produced by Wythoff's construction. Most authors do not allow doubled faces and remove them as part of the construction.
 * Double edges. Skilling's figure has the property that it has double edges (as in the degenerate uniform polyhedra) but its faces cannot be written as a union of two uniform polyhedra.

Regular convex polyhedra

 * The Platonic solids date back to the classical Greeks and were studied by the Pythagoreans, Plato (c. 424 – 348 BC), Theaetetus (c. 417 BC – 369 BC), Timaeus of Locri (c. 420–380 BC), and Euclid (fl. 300 BC). The Etruscans discovered the regular dodecahedron before 500 BC.

Nonregular uniform convex polyhedra

 * The cuboctahedron was known by Plato.
 * Archimedes (287 BC – 212 BC) discovered all of the 13 Archimedean solids. His original book on the subject was lost, but Pappus of Alexandria (c. 290 – c. 350 AD) mentioned Archimedes listed 13 polyhedra.
 * Piero della Francesca (1415 – 1492) rediscovered the five truncations of the Platonic solids—truncated tetrahedron, truncated octahedron, truncated cube, truncated dodecahedron, and truncated icosahedron—and included illustrations and calculations of their metric properties in his book De quinque corporibus regularibus. He also discussed the cuboctahedron in a different book.
 * Luca Pacioli plagiarized Francesca's work in De divina proportione in 1509, adding the rhombicuboctahedron, calling it an icosihexahedron for its 26 faces, which was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci.
 * Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) was the first to publish the complete list of Archimedean solids, in 1619. He also identified the infinite families of uniform prisms and antiprisms.

Regular star polyhedra

 * Kepler (1619) discovered two of the regular Kepler–Poinsot polyhedra, the small stellated dodecahedron and great stellated dodecahedron.
 * Louis Poinsot (1809) discovered the other two, the great dodecahedron and great icosahedron.
 * The set of four was proven complete by Augustin-Louis Cauchy in 1813 and named by Arthur Cayley in 1859.

Other 53 nonregular star polyhedra

 * Of the remaining 53, Edmund Hess (1878) discovered 2, Albert Badoureau (1881) discovered 36 more, and Pitsch (1881) independently discovered 18, of which 3 had not previously been discovered. Together these gave 41 polyhedra.
 * The geometer H.S.M. Coxeter discovered the remaining twelve in collaboration with J. C. P. Miller (1930–1932) but did not publish. M.S. Longuet-Higgins and H.C. Longuet-Higgins independently discovered eleven of these. Lesavre and Mercier rediscovered five of them in 1947.
 * published the list of uniform polyhedra.
 * proved their conjecture that the list was complete.
 * In 1974, Magnus Wenninger published his book Polyhedron models, which lists all 75 nonprismatic uniform polyhedra, with many previously unpublished names given to them by Norman Johnson.
 * independently proved the completeness and showed that if the definition of uniform polyhedron is relaxed to allow edges to coincide then there is just one extra possibility (the great disnub dirhombidodecahedron).
 * In 1987, Edmond Bonan drew all the uniform polyhedra and their duals in 3D with a Turbo Pascal program called Polyca. Most of them were shown during the International Stereoscopic Union Congress held in 1993, at the Congress Theatre, Eastbourne, England; and again in 2005 at the Kursaal of Besançon, France.
 * In 1993, Zvi Har'El (1949–2008) produced a complete kaleidoscopic construction of the uniform polyhedra and duals with a computer program called Kaleido and summarized it in a paper Uniform Solution for Uniform Polyhedra, counting figures 1-80.
 * Also in 1993, R. Mäder ported this Kaleido solution to Mathematica with a slightly different indexing system.
 * In 2002 Peter W. Messer discovered a minimal set of closed-form expressions for determining the main combinatorial and metrical quantities of any uniform polyhedron (and its dual) given only its Wythoff symbol.

Uniform star polyhedra
The 57 nonprismatic nonconvex forms, with exception of the great dirhombicosidodecahedron, are compiled by Wythoff constructions within Schwarz triangles.

Convex forms by Wythoff construction

The convex uniform polyhedra can be named by Wythoff construction operations on the regular form.

In more detail the convex uniform polyhedron are given below by their Wythoff construction within each symmetry group.

Within the Wythoff construction, there are repetitions created by lower symmetry forms. The cube is a regular polyhedron, and a square prism. The octahedron is a regular polyhedron, and a triangular antiprism. The octahedron is also a rectified tetrahedron. Many polyhedra are repeated from different construction sources, and are colored differently.

The Wythoff construction applies equally to uniform polyhedra and uniform tilings on the surface of a sphere, so images of both are given. The spherical tilings including the set of hosohedrons and dihedrons which are degenerate polyhedra.

These symmetry groups are formed from the reflectional point groups in three dimensions, each represented by a fundamental triangle (p q r), where p > 1, q > 1, r > 1 and 1/p + 1/q + 1/r < 1.

 * Tetrahedral symmetry (3 3 2) – order 24
 * Octahedral symmetry (4 3 2) – order 48
 * Icosahedral symmetry (5 3 2) – order 120
 * Dihedral symmetry (n 2 2), for n = 3,4,5,... – order 4n

The remaining nonreflective forms are constructed by alternation operations applied to the polyhedra with an even number of sides.

Along with the prisms and their dihedral symmetry, the spherical Wythoff construction process adds two regular classes which become degenerate as polyhedra : the dihedra and the hosohedra, the first having only two faces, and the second only two vertices. The truncation of the regular hosohedra creates the prisms.

Below the convex uniform polyhedra are indexed 1–18 for the nonprismatic forms as they are presented in the tables by symmetry form.

For the infinite set of prismatic forms, they are indexed in four families:
 * 1) Hosohedra H2... (only as spherical tilings)
 * 2) Dihedra D2... (only as spherical tilings)
 * 3) Prisms P3... (truncated hosohedra)
 * 4) Antiprisms A3... (snub prisms)

Summary tables
And a sampling of dihedral symmetries:

(The sphere is not cut, only the tiling is cut.) (On a sphere, an edge is the arc of the great circle, the shortest way, between its two vertices. Hence, a digon whose vertices are not polar-opposite is flat: it looks like an edge.)

(3 3 2) Td tetrahedral symmetry
The tetrahedral symmetry of the sphere generates 5 uniform polyhedra, and a 6th form by a snub operation.

The tetrahedral symmetry is represented by a fundamental triangle with one vertex with two mirrors, and two vertices with three mirrors, represented by the symbol (3 3 2). It can also be represented by the Coxeter group A2 or [3,3], as well as a Coxeter diagram:.

There are 24 triangles, visible in the faces of the tetrakis hexahedron, and in the alternately colored triangles on a sphere:
 * Tetrakishexahedron.jpg Disdyakis 6 spherical.pngSphere symmetry group td.png

(4 3 2) Oh octahedral symmetry
The octahedral symmetry of the sphere generates 7 uniform polyhedra, and a 7 more by alternation. Six of these forms are repeated from the tetrahedral symmetry table above.

The octahedral symmetry is represented by a fundamental triangle (4 3 2) counting the mirrors at each vertex. It can also be represented by the Coxeter group B2 or [4,3], as well as a Coxeter diagram:.

There are 48 triangles, visible in the faces of the disdyakis dodecahedron, and in the alternately colored triangles on a sphere:
 * Disdyakisdodecahedron.jpg Disdyakis 12 spherical.pngSphere symmetry group oh.png

(5 3 2) Ih icosahedral symmetry
The icosahedral symmetry of the sphere generates 7 uniform polyhedra, and a 1 more by alternation. Only one is repeated from the tetrahedral and octahedral symmetry table above.

The icosahedral symmetry is represented by a fundamental triangle (5 3 2) counting the mirrors at each vertex. It can also be represented by the Coxeter group G2 or [5,3], as well as a Coxeter diagram:.

There are 120 triangles, visible in the faces of the disdyakis triacontahedron, and in the alternately colored triangles on a sphere:

(p 2 2) Prismatic [p,2], I2(p) family (Dph dihedral symmetry)
The dihedral symmetry of the sphere generates two infinite sets of uniform polyhedra, prisms and antiprisms, and two more infinite set of degenerate polyhedra, the hosohedra and dihedra which exist as tilings on the sphere.

The dihedral symmetry is represented by a fundamental triangle (p 2 2) counting the mirrors at each vertex. It can also be represented by the Coxeter group I2(p) or [n,2], as well as a prismatic Coxeter diagram:.

Below are the first five dihedral symmetries: D2 ... D6. The dihedral symmetry Dp has order 4n, represented the faces of a bipyramid, and on the sphere as an equator line on the longitude, and n equally-spaced lines of longitude.

(2 2 2) Dihedral symmetry
There are 8 fundamental triangles, visible in the faces of the square bipyramid (Octahedron) and alternately colored triangles on a sphere:
 * Octahedron.jpg Sphere symmetry group d2h.png

(3 2 2) D3h dihedral symmetry
There are 12 fundamental triangles, visible in the faces of the hexagonal bipyramid and alternately colored triangles on a sphere:
 * Hexagonale bipiramide.png Sphere symmetry group d3h.png

(4 2 2) D4h dihedral symmetry
There are 16 fundamental triangles, visible in the faces of the octagonal bipyramid and alternately colored triangles on a sphere:
 * Octagonal bipyramid.png

(5 2 2) D5h dihedral symmetry
There are 20 fundamental triangles, visible in the faces of the decagonal bipyramid and alternately colored triangles on a sphere:
 * Decagonal bipyramid.png

(6 2 2) D6h dihedral symmetry
There are 24 fundamental triangles, visible in the faces of the dodecagonal bipyramid and alternately colored triangles on a sphere.

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

title: Uniform polyhedron


text:
Cestas

Cestas is a commune in the Gironde department in Nouvelle-Aquitaine in southwestern France.

Economy
Cestas Solar Park was the biggest solar park in Europe when Neoen opened it in December 2015.

title: Cestas


text:
YST

YST may refer to:

 * Yolk sac tumor, a cancer
 * Yukon Standard Time, a defunct timezone of Alaska, US
 * St. Theresa Point Airport, Manitoba, Canada
 * Yamaha Sound Technologies Inc., part of Yamaha Corporation
 * Ronin Warriors (Yoroiden Samurai Torūpā), an anime series and manga

title: YST


text:
YRS

Yrs or YRS may refer to:

People

 * Yrsa, a tragic heroine of Scandinavian legend
 * Yahya Rahmat-Samii, Iranian engineer

Other uses

 * Years
 * Year-round school
 * Young Rewired State, a series of British hacking events
 * Ytterbium dirhodium disilicide, an intermetallic
 * Yorkshire Ridings Society, England
 * Red Sucker Lake Airport, Manitoba, Canada (by IATA code)

title: YRS


text:
Gair Rhydd

Gair Rhydd (, meaning "free word"; stylised as "gair rhydd") is the official student newspaper of Cardiff University. It is a fortnightly, free, tabloid-sized paper established in 1972. Its sections cover local and international news, finance, politics, science, student opinions, campus life and sport, alongside the Welsh-language section "Taf-od".

History
Gair Rhydd has won several student media awards, including Newspaper of the Year at the Guardian Student Media Awards 2005.

Past editor Tom Wellingham and two other student journalists were suspended when, on 4 February 2006, they reproduced a controversial cartoon depicting Mohammed. The issue was withdrawn from publication (98% of copies retrieved) within a day of being released, and the Cardiff University Students' Union issued an apology. Cartoons were reinstated as a regular feature in issue #1081 in 2016.

title: Gair Rhydd


text:
Talk:Merlion

Page fix
Can Godzilla be removed from this page? I made that mistake a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:72A0:14BD:199E:993:9BF5 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Red teacup eyes
The statement about eyes of the Merlion in the Merlion Park being made "from small red teacups" appears to be incorrect. I can't find any official information about what the statue is made of, but the part about red teacup eyes can be traced back to the page https://www.asia-planet.net/singapore/landmarks-memorials.htm which google dates as Aug 2, 1997. The page says "A smaller Merlion statue was also built by Mr Lim and located at the same site 28m behind its bigger counterpart. The Merlion Cub measures two metres high and weighs three tonnes. The body is made of cement fondue, the skin from porcelain plates and eyes from small red teacups." The statement about red teacup eyes appears to be referring to the smaller Merlion statue, not the big one. This is most probably a case of a copy-paste that went wrong, and I think it should be corrected. Also, the part about porcelain is most probably incorrect, too. numba1313 (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Vomiting
The part about Singaporeans interchanging "Merlion" with " Vomiting" is completely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagasaki7 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indented line

"Merlioning" or "to do a merlion" is used as common slang, particularly amongst undergrads, for vomiting. A quick google search will show you. Can't find a good source, though singlishdictionary.com agrees with me. Shall cite this and remove the above comment in the coming fortnight if no one opposes.--Millionmice (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As aforementioned, the Singlish phrase "to Merlion" is "to vomit", similar to how the statue spews water. The use of this slang is still common and valid among Singaporeans today.––KJsheng (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"The" Merlion
Isn't the large statue on Sentosa Merlion? The reader might think the statue depicted here is the tourist draw, when the one on Sentosa (which you can ascend, has a short movie etc.) is the actual crowd pleaser. Marskell 17:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The first (original) statue was constructed at Merlion Park, and was moved (in one piece) to its current location adjacent to One Fullerton. Thus, it is considered "the" Merlion, while the one on Sentosa is considered a replica. Secondly, to see the Merlion at One Fullerton is free, but to see the Merlion on Sentosa will involve an Island admission charge of S$2 and an admission charge of S$8 for the Merlion itself. ZhongHan 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the native name for the Merlion? The article only mentions the English name. --Starwed 08:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since English is one of the official (or native) languages of Singapore, and since Merlion is a 1964 creation by a native English speaker, there really is no "native name" for Merlion other than Merlion. There are however nicknames and translations in Chinese, Malay, Tamil among other languages. 82.123.157.185 01:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Although originally created by a native English speaker, the Merlion is and remains till this day, an asset owned by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB). As such, I think STB's translations for the name 'Merlion' should be sufficient to serve as the official translations of the name. As of today, the Malay/Indonesian translation for the name 'Merlion' used on STB's Visit Singapore website is 'Merlion'. Will this be enough as an official translation to the name in Malay? ––KJsheng (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Etymology
The article gives the etymology of Merlion as "mermaid + lion", but since "mermaid" itself is constructed from the latin root mer- (sea) and maid, isn't the etymology given here somewhat redundant? As in, shouldn't it simply be "mer + lion"? 82.123.157.185 01:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree somewhat; A merman isn't a mermaid + man is it, and the lion is male. -fireryone 118.208.156.50 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions
Does anyone have the demensions of the statue outside Fullerton Hotel? I think It would help the article for that data to be included. Picaroon9288 01:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Height of 8.6 metres, per Singapore Tourism Board's wesite. --ZhongHan (Email) 13:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merlion struck by lightning
Anyone can add more info on the Merlion getting struck by lightning? Chunchuan (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merlion name in Malay
Why it is called Harimau Laut (Sea Tiger) in Malay? Isn't Singa Laut (lit. Sea Lion) more suitable? It is supposed to be half-lion, not half-tiger. Any explanation? Gombang (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does the Merlion spew water?
I am curious about the reason why the Merlion spews water. Is there any reason or folktale to explain so? --116.87.174.111 (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

it is said to be that if you have conversation near the merlion it sprays water on your head. the reason is still unknown to me!!!!!!!!!??? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.180.154.199 (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as my research went, there isn't a particular backstory or source that I could find as to why the Merlion spews water. This is most likely a characteristic of a typical statue with a water feature as a place of interest and attraction, in relation to the origins of the Merlion (being related to the sea). As for the 'getting sprayed on the head with water' myth, this is the first time I am hearing this, so I don't think this myth or belief exists. There is also little evidence available to support the presence of such a belief among Singaporeans as well. KJsheng (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Manila Merlion

According to this reference, on May 30, 1596, King Philip II of Spain gave the City of Manila her own specific coat of arms.

 * "On the upper half of the coat of arms is a castle of gold on a red field, with a door and windows in blue, atop the shield a crown. On the lower half, on a blue field is a figure half lion half dolphin in silver, with colored claws and tongue, the merlion holds in its paws an unsheathed sword..."

Isn't it the merlion first appeared in Manila than in Singapore and must be included in the article? The merlion is still kept in the modern city seal. Arius1998 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Also, isn't the term Merlion, Latin in origin? From the Spanish and Latin term for Sea, "Mer" and "Lion" taken from the Coat-of-Arms of Leon and Castille? If there is any nationality that should be using the "Sea-lion" terminology, it should be the Singaporeans, not the Filipinos. Why? Sea-Lion is English, the Singaporeans were colonized by the British, while Merlion is Latin and Spanish in origin. This is stupid, we have a clear Spanish/Latin origined terminology ruthlessly claimed by Singaporeans while the English terminology befiting for England-colonized Singapore, applied to Manila instead.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

more references
poster for one of the Doraemon movies (could be listed under "In anime and TV series"): https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=doraemon+the+movie&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSjAEaiQELEKjU2AQaBAgBCAkMCxCwjKcIGmAKXggDEij1CMoIlBH0CPMI7gjnCLEDhgyBF6YpqynPN_1khpznON6cjqCn4IdA3GjDPms_1j7iM0_1R1QAcTv_1QYYprtlc3JF2Q5IjefD4qr5JYl7Sx-A245fEiwgv2W9MS8MCxCOrv4IGgoKCAgBEgT9r-g1DA&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ2A4oAWoVChMI0LGbmLyNyAIVC3COCh37hQzb&biw=1536&bih=748#imgrc=mU1PikVmoXoz2M%3A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.10.186 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Merlion. 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/20110304133937/http://www.straitstimes.com:80/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_640037.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_640037.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305095404/http://938live.sg:80/portal/site/938Live/menuitem.43735da1634c4377d21b2910618000a0/?vgnextoid=a96bb1d5b8cbf110VgnVCM1000001f0aa8c0RCRD to http://938live.sg/portal/site/938Live/menuitem.43735da1634c4377d21b2910618000a0/?vgnextoid=a96bb1d5b8cbf110VgnVCM1000001f0aa8c0RCRD&mcParam=18d2638896593110VgnVCM100000e101000aRCRD
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021022431/http://www.imef-fwd.usmc.mil:80/imef/imef-public.nsf/sites/2ndBat_8thMar to http://www.imef-fwd.usmc.mil/imef/imef-public.nsf/sites/2ndBat_8thMar

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 10:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Merlion. 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/20090305095404/http://938live.sg:80/portal/site/938Live/menuitem.43735da1634c4377d21b2910618000a0/?vgnextoid=a96bb1d5b8cbf110VgnVCM1000001f0aa8c0RCRD to http://938live.sg/portal/site/938Live/menuitem.43735da1634c4377d21b2910618000a0/?vgnextoid=a96bb1d5b8cbf110VgnVCM1000001f0aa8c0RCRD&mcParam=18d2638896593110VgnVCM100000e101000aRCRD

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Merlion and Sea-lion
Both are about the same topic and should be in the same arricle. The contents of Sea-lion are already here. This discussion is just to make it official. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi! Sorry, but the Merlion article is specifically about the statue in Singapore while the Sea-lion is about the general term. I see that you have made some changes in the Merlion article . If you don't mind, could you please rollback you changes to WP:STATUSQUO --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 Hi, thanks for replying. There is no need for two articles about the same thing. If you read both articles (before today's edits) there is pretty much an ovelap. The Sea-lion article is also very stubby and is unlikely to grow. It would better to focus on a single article now then fork it later on.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, but merging is not the solution. The Merlion is notable worldwide as specifically the one in Singapore. It has it's own history and quite a lot of other info attached to it. I would suggest rather to move some of the other content (such as the part about Phillipines sealion) to the Sea-lion articele. In the sealion article, there could be a section about the Merlion which links to the main article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 * The Singapore one should have an article titled "Merlion (Singapore)" this is a heraldic symbol that has been used for centuries. Singapore only began using it during the 20th century so it would be unfair for it to be the main topic. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. But the term "Merlion" seems to have been used by Singapore. If I am not wrong, the heraldic symbol is still called a sea-lion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Some parts of this article can be diverted to the other one. There seems to be three possible articles here but they all need work. If you can do it, thanks. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which three articles you are referring too. Personally, I only see 2 articles. The Merlion and the Sea-lion. The Merlion deserves its own article since it is a notable symbol. The Sea-lion on the other hand is related to heraldry. Which is the third article you are talking about? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merlion (Singapore), Merlion/Morse (Philippines), and a generic one that incorporates both. It's better to start with a single article the split it later on. The current one mixes the Singapore one with the others.Shhhhwwww!! (talk)

The "In popular culture" section are not Singapore-exclusice since the symbols from the United States are derived from the Philippines. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the article in the current form needs cleanup. Let me try to move the parts which are not relevant to the generic sea-lion article first. I'm not sure if the Philippines sea-lion is also termed "Merlion" though. I would be glad if you could show me some references for it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's fine. The term Merlion is probably Singapore exclusive.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I moved some parts to the Sea-lion article, including the part about the 8th Marine Regiment, which is clearly not related to the Singapore merlion. I will have a look at this article again and help clean up later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you guys are wrong in stating that Singapore uses the term Merlion while Sea-Lion is for the Philippines. Remember, Mer is Latin for sea while sea is an English word. The British colonized Singapore and thus would use English terminology, i.e. "Sea-Lion" whereas the Spanish colonized the Philippines and Spanish is a Latin-derived language, hence by technicality, Merlion is more apt for the Philippines' seal while Sea-Lion is for Singapore's.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Merlion was created when Singapore was independent, long after the British had left. In any case, the vast majority of reliable sources use Merlion specifically for the Singaporean statue. Sea-lion is the generic heraldic term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 "vast majority of reliable sources".

That's a deliberate sidestep. What sources are you thinking of? The English language sources which the Glory-hog Singaporeans have flooded that the Merlion belongs to them? As far as I know the Spanish sources has been referring to the Philippines' symbol is more profuse amounts and it called the Seal of Manila that since the 1500s (Oldest evidence of its use there vs the recent one in Singapore)

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Merlion mythology
According to folklore, villagers living by the southern coast of Temasek were awakened by howling winds and crashing waves one night. Dark clouds came over the sky and blocked out all light, resulting in complete darkness. This resulted in the terrified villagers singing to their knees in prayers. During this moment, a bright light was observed emerging from the southern waters. A massive creature, half lion and half fish, roared in anger. The battle between the fierce mystical animal and nature was intense, and after some time, the winds began to die down, the waves subsided and the sky started to clear. The gigantic sea beast had won the battle against the nature. As it claimed its victory, it stood proudly on Mount Imbiah of Pulau Belakang Mati. By morning, the Merlion had retreated into its waters, leaving behind a bright colourful trail.

I have removed this article for discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had to revert your edit since it was based on a self published blog. However, I would be glad to discuss the myth and see if any better sources can be found for it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Merlion. 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/20081202050644/http://app-stg.stb.gov.sg:80/asp/form/form01.asp to http://app-stg.stb.gov.sg/asp/form/form01.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216220012/http://www.sentosa.com.sg:80/en/attractions/imbiah-lookout/the-merlion/ to http://www.sentosa.com.sg/en/attractions/imbiah-lookout/the-merlion/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305095404/http://938live.sg/portal/site/938Live/menuitem.43735da1634c4377d21b2910618000a0/?vgnextoid=a96bb1d5b8cbf110VgnVCM1000001f0aa8c0RCRD&mcParam=18d2638896593110VgnVCM100000e101000aRCRD to http://938live.sg/portal/site/938Live/menuitem.43735da1634c4377d21b2910618000a0/?vgnextoid=a96bb1d5b8cbf110VgnVCM1000001f0aa8c0RCRD&mcParam=18d2638896593110VgnVCM100000e101000aRCRD

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) 21:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Merlion at Tourism Court picture
The picture shown in the article is misleading and it is not the official Merlion recognised by STB. The official one is in this article: https://www.timeout.com/singapore/things-to-do/merlions-in-singapore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.127.33.29 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merlion. 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/20081202050658/http://app.stb.gov.sg/asp/new/new03a.asp?id=5203 to http://app.stb.gov.sg/asp/new/new03a.asp?id=5203
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003121206/http://app.stb.gov.sg/Data/news/1/94130ea17023c4837f0dcdda95034b65/Annex%20-%20Hoarding%20and%20canvas%20designs.doc to http://app.stb.gov.sg/Data/news/1/94130ea17023c4837f0dcdda95034b65/Annex%20-%20Hoarding%20and%20canvas%20designs.doc

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) 20:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Merlion


text:
Alberto Baillères

Alberto Baillères González (22 August 1931 – 2 February 2022) was a Mexican billionaire businessman. , he had an estimated net worth of US$10.1 billion according to Forbes. He was the chairman of Grupo BAL, and of ITAM.

Early life
Baillères was born in Mexico City on 22 August 1931, as the son of Raúl Baillères. Baillères attended Culver Military Academy, in Culver, Indiana, US. In 1953 he received a bachelor's degree in economics from the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM, a school founded by his father), in Mexico City.

Career
He took over as head of Grupo BAL aged 28, following the death of his father.

Baillères owned Grupo BAL, which controls a large number of other companies including Industrias Peñoles / Peñoles, the second most important Mexican mining company and the world's largest silver producer, El Palacio de Hierro, a chain of department stores mainly located in Mexico City, Grupo Nacional Provincial, the largest insurance company in Mexico, Grupo Profuturo, a pensions and annuities business. He sat on the board of directors of Fresnillo plc.

He was also a head member of the board of ITAM, one of Mexico's top higher education centers and thinktank, and owner of other businesses related with financial services, agriculture and bullfighting. He was the owner of the 92m yacht Mayan Queen IV.

In October 2012, Bloomberg listed Baillères as the 35th richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of US $19.3 billion.

Belisario Domínguez Medal of Honor
The Senate of the Republic awarded Baillères the Belisario Domínguez Medal of Honor, Mexico's highest honor, on November 12, 2015.

Personal life and death
Baillères was married to Teresa Gual, they had seven children, and lived in Mexico City.

He died on 2 February 2022, at the age of 90.

title: Alberto Baillères


text: User talk:200.62.152.214

title: User talk:200.62.152.214


text:
Castleton Lyons

Castleton Lyons near Lexington, Kentucky, is an American horse-racing stable and breeding business best known by the name Castleton Farm.

History
The farm was established in 1793 when Virginian John Breckinridge, a future U.S. senator and attorney general, purchased 2,467 acres (10 km2) of land and on a portion of it established a Thoroughbred horse-breeding operation. On his death, the property transferred to his daughter, Mary Ann, the then Mrs. David Castleman, who eventually built a mansion on the horse-farm site and gave it the family name. Under the Castlemans, Castleton Farm continued as a Thoroughbred operation, but added the breeding of American Saddlebreds and Standardbreds for harness racing.

Development by James R. Keene

The original property changed hands several times, occasionally small parts being divvied up and sold to multiple different parties. In the early 1890s, Wall Street tycoon James R. Keene acquired the farm and purchased additional land to bring the operation to almost 1,000 acres (4 km2). Keene usually referred to the farm as "Castleton Stud", and under his direction, it became one of the greatest Thoroughbred operations of its day. The farm bred and/or raced future U.S. racing Hall of Fame horses Kingston, Domino, Ben Brush, Colin, Sysonby, Maskette, and Peter Pan.

As part of a program honoring important horse racing tracks and racing stables, the Pennsylvania Railroad named its baggage car #5865 the "Castleton Farm".

Upon the death of James R. Keene in 1913, the farm was taken over by his son Foxhall P. Keene. He continued the operation on a slightly reduced basis, but sold it in the 1920s to fellow New Yorker, David Look. Look had considerable success in harness racing, but was forced to sell the farm after experiencing personal financial setbacks during the Great Depression.

Mid- to late 20th century

In the early 1940s, heiress Frances Dodge founded the Dodge Stable. She was the daughter of Michigan automobile pioneer John F. Dodge and a half-sister of Isabel Dodge, owner of the highly successful Brookmeade Stable. In 1945, Frances Dodge, with her husband (polo player and hunter/jumper rider) James B. "Jimmy" Johnson, purchased Castleton Farm and relocated her Dodge stables there. Their Standardbred breeding operation included two Hambletonian winners and a Little Brown Jug winner. After she married Pennsylvania native Frederick Van Lennep in 1949, the farm underwent major renovations to breed and raise Standardbreds. The Van Lenneps made Castleton Farm one of the pre-eminent operations in both disciplines. Under Mrs. Johnson, Dodge Stables' show horse Wing Commander became a six-time world grand champion, and with her husband, she enjoyed enormous success in harness racing that included a number of Hambletonian and Little Brown Jug victories from horses such as United States Harness Horse of the Year and Harness Racing Museum & Hall of Fame inductee Victory Song (1947), Hambletonian Stakes winners, Hoot Mon (1947), Emily's Pride (1958), and Speedy Scot (1963). Among the other noteworthy harness horses bred by Castleton Stud were Ensign Hanover, winner of the 1946 inaugural Little Brown Jug, and 1972 Jug winner Strike Out, which won in world-record time. Strike Out went on to sire 1979 winner Hot Hitter, bred by Castleton in conjunction with Anthony Tavolacci.

2000s

In 2001, Irish businessman and racing enthusiast Tony Ryan acquired Castleton Farm from the Van Lennep Family Trust. Ryan renamed it Castleton Lyons after his Irish estate Lyons Demesne, and undertook renovations to the property while returning to its original roots as a Thoroughbred operation.

Gravesite
The Castleton Farm Cemetery lies at an "intersection of two of the tree-lined farm roads, and is an open green space flanked on one end by a 12-ft-high, horseshoe-shaped hedge." It is not only the final resting spot of a number of Standardbred and Saddlebred mares and stallions, including Wing Commander, but also, in unmarked graves, of the Thoroughbred stallions Commando (circa 1898–1905) and Kingston (circa 1884–1912).

title: Castleton Lyons


text:
Souls at Zero (band)

Souls at Zero was an American heavy metal band. They were originally known as Wrathchild America. The name change occurred after Wrathchild America was dropped from Atlantic Records in 1992, and was accompanied by a slight change in musical style, adopting a mixture between alternative metal and groove metal (similar to those of Pantera and Helmet) while also retaining some of the thrash metal roots of Wrathchild America. Souls at Zero released three albums on Energy Records before disbanding in the mid-1990s.

Name origin
The name "Souls at Zero" was taken from a chapter in the book The Great and Secret Show by horror writer Clive Barker. The name was originally intended for Shannon's and John "Tumor" Fahnestock's side project MF Pitbulls which also included 3/5 of the future band Snot.

History
With the onset of grunge in the early 1990s, mainstream interest in metal was on the decline. Wrathchild America became a casualty of the grunge-era, being dropped from Atlantic Records. Changing their look and style, they became Souls at Zero. Shannon Larkin left the band in 1994 to fill the drum seat in Ugly Kid Joe; he currently plays in Godsmack. Jamie Miller replaced Larkin, and played on A Taste for the Perverse. He left to join Snot, and currently plays in TheSTART, ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead, Normandie and Bad Religion. After touring in support of A Taste for the Perverse, the band broke up.

Band members

 * Former members
 * Terry Carter – guitar, backing vocals (1992–1996)
 * Shannon Larkin – drums, backing vocals (1992–1994)
 * Brad Divens – bass, lead vocals (1992–1996)
 * Jay Abbene – guitar, backing vocals (1992–1996)
 * Jamie Miller – drums, backing vocals (1994–1996)
 * Rich Spillberg – guitar, backing vocals (1995)

Studio albums

 * Souls at Zero (1993)
 * A Taste for the Perverse (1995)

EPs

 * Six-T-Six (1994)

title: Souls at Zero (band)


text:
User talk:Levins

Image Tagging for Image:Chriswu.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chriswu.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Levins


text:
Category:Quebec sovereigntist media

This is a collection of articles about media in favour of Quebec sovereignty.

See also: List of Quebec sovereigntist media.

title: Category:Quebec sovereigntist media


text:
XUI

XUI may refer to:

 * X User Interface, a VMS Graphical user interface by DEC
 * XOS (operating system), formerly XUI
 * Xui (crater), on Mars
 * XUI, Standard Carrier Alpha Code for Xpress United Inc.

title: XUI


text:
Talk:Uniform polyhedron

Initial comment
The article could be expanded with brief sections on Platonic, Archimedan, and Kepler solids, the 53 non-convex uniform polyhedra and the prisms and antiprisms. But it seems to me this is not the place for an exhaustive discussion of any of these subjects, but just a place to define and describe this class of polyhedra and refer the readers to other in-depth articles.

the definition of uniformity
Technically, "identical vertices" is not enough; a famous counterexample is J37. Uniformity requires that the vertices all belong to the same equivalence class under some rotation group; is there a more concise way to say that? --Anton Sherwood 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Compare to Semiregular polyhedra
 * A semiregular polyhedron is a geometric shape constructed from a finite number of regular polygon faces with every face edge shared by one other face, and with every vertex containing the same sequence of faces, and, moreover, for every two vertices there is an isometry mapping one into the other.
 * Tom Ruen 08:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * So now I'm wondering why Semiregular and Uniform are two separate articles. Is there a difference that I've failed to spot?  (And what's the word for polyhedra whose vertices and edges are alike, such as the cuboctahedron?  I've seen "quasiregular" used both for those and for the Catalans.)
 * Anton Sherwood 21:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I added the semiregular polyhedra article originally because that's what I had always called them. Then I found out about the uniform polyhedra which include nonconvex forms. I had never heard of uniform polyhedra before. I'm perfectly okay with removing off on the semireg. article and putting it all under uniform polyhedron. Quasiregular is given in the polyhedron article Polyhedron, as the two Catalans with rhombic faces. This would be "face-uniform" and "edge-uniform". Tom Ruen 05:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonconvex Archimedeans, now? Does that mean those with convex vertex figures? —Tamfang 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually reverse I figured - polyhedra with all convex faces and nonconvex vertex figures. Tom Ruen 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * ... Alright, I don't know what I'm talking about, just thought 'Stellated Archimedeans made no sense. Obviously this page need a lot of work! Tom Ruen 00:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd divide the nonconvex polytopes into orientable and non, mainly because I find the former set prettier! I took "nonconvex Archimedeans" to be a subset of orientables.  —Tamfang 04:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a useful division, but then it should state as such, "Orientable Nonconvex Uniform Polyhedra". Tom Ruen 06:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep seperate articles for the various families of uniform polyhedra. Mainly as a way of grouping polyhedra with similar properties. Here the Wythoff symbol is very useful the familes are I've created a page grouping the polyhedra by their wythoff symbom.
 * regular: p|q2 vertex figure qp
 * quasi-regular: p|qr (q!=2,r!=2) vertex figure (q.r)p two sub familes
 * 2|qr: v.f. (q.r)2 cubeoctohedron etc. (semi-regular)
 * 3|qr: v.f. (q.r)3 ditrogonal-semi-regulars
 * Wythoff p q|r vertex figure p.2r.q.2r
 * p q|2: p.4.q.4 rhombic (p,q integer) quasi-rhombic (p or q fractional)
 * 2 q|r: 2r.q.2r truncated and quasitruncated (r fractional)
 * p/m p/n|r: 2r.p.2r.q hemi-hedra (versi-regular)
 * Wythoff p q r| vertex figure 2p.2q.2r
 * 2 q r| quasi-truncated and some rhombic forms
 * Wythoff |p q r snub-polyhedron

So semi-regular is a special form of quasi-regular. I'd avoid the term "nonconvex Archimedeans" as its not a standard term used in the litrature. --Salix alba (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (formally pfafrich)

How can there be nonconvex polyhedra among the uniform? how do you map a convex vertex into a nonconvex vertex with an isometry? Gbnogkfs 24 August 2006, 5:46 (UT)

 * You don't need to. A uniform polyhedra will always have all convex verticies or all non convex vertices. The isometries will map the non-convext verticies onto each other, and never to a convex vertex. --Salix alba (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * there can't be a polyhedron with all nonconvex vertices.
 * However, eventually I got it: the "nonconvex vertices" are not vertices of the lattice defining the polyhedron: only the convex vertices are. That is: not all the 0-dimensional intersections between the faces are in fact vertices. That is not clear at all in many ployhedra-related articles: is there anyone able to better clarify this? Gbnogkfs 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UT)

 * Good point. Yes we do need to make clear the differenence between points of intersection of 3 or more faces are not all verticies. Likewise not all the lines intersections of faces are what are classed as edges. To find the edges find the faces (excluding some of the snubs) a face will be the largest flat regions, the edges will be the boundary of the faces, and the verticies the corners of the faces, i.e. the boundary points of the edges. --Salix alba (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On merge with polyhedron section
I reduced this article (back) to a simple description and summary. I agree further merging is desireable. Specifically Polyhedron is too long. I'd actually suggest moving content there to here.

I'm yet in process in a compact complete list of uniform polyhedra and associated some 80+ individual object articles and images! I'll leave it up to someone else for now if anyone wants to merge this with polyhedron.

Tom Ruen 06:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd actually suggest moving content there to here. Yes, and may I make some more suggestions for the merge:
 * Wikify each of the named objects (don't forget the duals!) into individual articles (as Tomruen started doing). This way, anyone can add unique quirks of each.
 * Subclassify the named objects as far as they can go, and give each named group an article, like, say, Quasi-regular non-convex polyhedron. See how they did it in Wikispecies.  This way, visitors can drill down as they please, and group properties are just in one place.
 * Mirror this categorisation unto Wikipedia's Category feature. That is, the Cuboctahedron article is in Category:Convex polyhedra and in Category:Quasi-regular polyhedra and Category:Archimedean solid (and therefore sub to Category:Uniform polyhedra and sub further to Category:Polyhedra).
 * Compile all the Schlafi, Wythoff, etc. symbols, in a table called list of polyhedra. IMO they're hard to absorb in list or paragraph form, and list of uniform polyhedra is limited to uniform forms.
 * Retain the list of characteristics in the main polyhedron article, and wikifying each characteristic. I'll also be adding Schlafi symbol, Wynthoff symbol, etc., to this list.
 * What do you guys think?
 * --Perfecto 17:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we're in agreement, even in regards to moving more content back here from polyhedron.
 * I don't understand categories in wiki, if this is something special.
 * For uniformity I do plan to REPLACE my first test template
 * Template:Infobox Polyhedron with vertfig
 * That I made from:
 * Template:Infobox Polyhedron
 * with a new one that more closely matches entries in list of uniform polyhedra
 * Template:Infobox Uniform Polyhedron
 * But I also need to add some columns to list of uniform polyhedra at least including Symmetry Group, and perhaps other information.
 * Overall I'm overwhelmed just completing the uniform polyhedra stubs and pictures, and yet I see that does encourage a little more care to do things right a first time if possible.
 * We might try a more orderly coordinated approach.
 * My primary concern now is getting an agreement on data to include in:
 * Template:Infobox Uniform Polyhedron
 * There's actually somewhat of a mess now, between at least three template versions and direct coding. I'm really not sure if all uniform polyhedra need identical templates, or if it isn't better to keep a set of them between different variations. Certainly the duals can use a different template, as can the planar tilings.
 * Perhaps I'll suggest some formats and get some feedback on sample articles using templates before jumping back into article creation.
 * Tom Ruen 01:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"...see that does encourage a little more care to do things right a first time if possible." You nailed it. I'm asking you to step back and consider a template that fits all named polyhedrons and tilings, not just the uniform ones. Please correct me if I'm wrong: are there characteristics that regular polyhedra have that Catalan solids don't? are there characteristics that tilings have that the tetrahemihexahedron doesn't? Only one template is needed for all polyhedra.

Again I suggest that we broaden List of uniform polyhedra into a List of polyhedra. If we don't do it now, then I won't be surprised someday someone will make a completely different stab at organising the Catalan and Johnson solids. That's another mess someday someone will need to fix.

You mentioned "Symmetry Group" -- that's another one! Please exhaust the table first, then the one template will be clearer to you. :)

"I don't understand categories in wiki, if this is something special." Please look at Category:Polyhedra and the mess it is in. Along the way, it'd be wonderful to turn Category:Polyhedra into a beautiful hierarchy (no overlaps!) of polyhedra and polyhedron articles. If you don't know how Wiki categories work, peek inside an article there. :) --Perfecto 22:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. What do you guys think of wikifying all named polyhedra, whether they have existing articles or not? There'll be a lot of reds now, but less work later!

 * I respect your desire for order and a beautiful hierarchy, but I'm not convinced it can be done. At least not as a tree, even as relations exist between various groupings.
 * I'm happy to support an article List of polyhedra which is would attempt a comprehensive listing of polyhedra, categorically, and individually. I would say such an article would be best done simply with: A thumbnail picture, and 1+ names below that link to a individual article. I don't know if the names can be done systematically, but this would allow different names to be listed under the same object.
 * Equally valuable would be an Index of polyhedra which would be alphabetical and possibly list the same object link multiple times under different names.
 * And even Wythoff symbol index of polyhedra and tessellations which would group polyhedra ordered by their systematic symbolic names.
 * And so on. :
 * You can see I also added another list List_of_Wenninger_polyhedron_models which lists 119 polyhedra in the numbering system used by Wenninger in his 1971 book. I included a full table like List of uniform polyhedra, mostly because I'm using it to cross reference data for correctness.
 * In the long run, such a list might be better off with minimal information because duplicates increase the likelihood of errors, and worse, partially corrected errors! (Unless there's a way of making a wikitable row reference an external description which would provide the column data(??)
 * You can put the data of each row in a separate template, for use in multiple tables. It is easiest if the format for each table is the same. If data have to be extracted and rearranged, somewhat complicated template techniques are needed.--Patrick 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I also created List of uniform planar tilings as a short listing of the 11 uniform tilings and their duals. I appreciate compact list articles that can independently demonstrate different relations, rather than attempting a hierarchical structure which would be only able to relate a single hierarchy which I don't think necessarily exists.
 * On characteristic differences, definite differences between uniform polyhedra and duals at least.
 * My proposal would start by an article Index of polyhedra which would summarize the structural groups offered under polyhedron.
 * On all named polyhedra, I'd say great. Ideally I'm hoping for a scripting system to generate stubs, but maybe hand-building blank articles that say "In geometry, XXX is a polyhedron." is worth something?
 * Tom Ruen 23:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * For organizational plans, how about we create:WikiProject_Geometric_objects
 * See: Category:WikiProjects
 * Example: WikiProject_Astronomical_objects
 * It would attempt to standardize explicit named geometric objects of any dimensions.
 * Tom Ruen 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I looked over the wiki geometric categories..
 * Found these, and linked them more extensively, although not comprehensively
 * Category:Polyhedra
 * Category:Platonic solids
 * Category:Archimedean solids
 * Category:Chiral polyhedra
 * Category:Catalan solids
 * Category:Johnson solids
 * Category:Deltahedra
 * Category:Tiling
 * Added
 * Category:Uniform polyhedra
 * Category:Prismatic polyhedron
 * Category:Quasiregular polyhedra
 * Category:Polyhedral net - for images
 * Category:Polyhedral image - for images
 * Seems a useful starting place to get these categories applied for further organizational work

REMOVED SECTIONS BELOW
Okay, given these text below was incomplete (bad links), I moved it below until it can be sorted out or safely deleted.

Tom Ruen 06:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also removed "Mathematics" section (moved below). It seems too general to be in this article since it applies to all convex polyhedra.

Tom Ruen 05:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-convex quasi-regular polyhedra
Quasi-regular means vertex- and edge-uniform but not face-uniform, and every face is a regular polygon. This implies that there are two kinds of faces, and that at every edge one of each meet; and that the two kinds alternate around every vertex.

The quasi-regular polyhedra include the two convex polyhedra and 14 non-convex polyhedra (Hart): The Small dodecicosahedron has a ditrogonal vertex figure but is not edge uniform.
 * Cuboctahedron
 * Icosidodecahedron
 * 2 with a rhombic vertex figure (convex vertices with 4 adjacent faces):
 * Dodecadodecahedron
 * Great icosidodecahedron
 * 9 Hemihedra: ditrigonal vertex figures, (non-convex verticies with 4 adjacent faces):
 * Tetrahemihexahedron
 * Octahemioctahedron
 * Cubohemioctahedron
 * Small icosihemidodecahedron
 * Small dodecahemidodecahedron
 * Great dodecahemiicosahedron
 * Small dodecahemiicosahedron
 * Great dodecahemidodecahedron
 * Great icosihemidodecahedron
 * 3 triambic polyhedra (each vertex has 6 adjacent faces):
 * Small triambic icosidodecahedron (small ditrogonal icosidodecahedron)
 * Triambic dodecadodecahedron (ditrogonal dodecahedron)
 * Great triambic icosidodecahedron (great ditrogonal icosidodecahedron)

Non-convex semi-regular polyhedra
Main article Semiregular polyhedra.

The remaining uniform polyhedra are all semi-regular non-convex polyhedra and include the 17 nonconvex Archimedean solids:

 * 3 have cubic symmetry:
 * Great cubicuboctahedron
 * Cuboctatruncated cuboctahedron or cubitruncated cuboctahedron
 * Quasitruncated hexahedron or stellated truncated cube
 * 11 have icosahedral symmetry:
 * Quasitruncated small stellated dodecahedron or small stellated truncated dodecahedron
 * Quasitruncated great stellated dodecahedron or great stellated truncated dodecahedron
 * Great truncated dodecahedron
 * Great truncated icosahedron
 * Rhombidodecadodecahedron
 * Icosidodecatruncated icosidodecahedron **
 * Small ditrigonal icosidodecahedron **
 * Great ditrigonal icosidodecahedron **
 * Great quasitruncated icosidodecahedron or great truncated icosidodecahedron
 * Great dodecicosidodecahedron
 * Great ditrigonal dodecicosidodecahedron **
 * 3 have the symmetry of the snub dodecahedron:
 * Snub dodecadodecahedron
 * Great inverted snub icosidodecahedron or great vertisnub icosidodecahedron
 * Great inverted retrosnub icosidodecahedron or great retrosnub icosidodecahedron

There are 23 more semi-regular non-convex polyhedra:

 * ? have octahedral symmetry:
 * Small cubicuboctahedron
 * Small rhombicube
 * Great rhombicube
 * Great truncated cuboctahedron
 * ? have icosahedral symmetry:
 * Rhombicosahedron
 * Small rhombidodecahedron
 * Great rhombidodecahedron
 * Small dodecicosahedron
 * Great dodecicosahedron
 * Small dodecicosidodecahedron
 * Icositruncated dodecadodecahedron
 * Great truncated dodecadodecahedron
 * Vertisnub dodecadodecahedron
 * Icosidodecadodecahedron
 * Snub icosidodecadodecahedron
 * Small dodekic icosidodecahedron ??
 * Great dodekic icosidodecahedron ??
 * Small icosic icosidodecahedron ??
 * Great icosic icosidodecahedron ??
 * Great snub icosidodecahedron
 * Snub disicosidodecahedron
 * Retrosnub disicosidodecahedron
 * Great snub icosidisdodecahedron
 * Great snub disicosidisdodecahedron

TODO: Check this list for duplicates/alternate names

Given two polyhedra of equal volume, one may ask whether it is then always possible to cut the first into polyhedral pieces which can be reassembled to yield the second polyhedron. This is a version of Hilbert's third problem; the answer is "no", as was shown by Dehn in 1900.

Mathematics
Euclid was the first to show that for a convex polyhedron the vertex angles of the polygons at each vertex must add up to less than 360°. For example the angles at each vertex of a cube are 90°+90°+90°=270°<360°.

The angle defect at each vertex 360° less the angles of the adjacent polygons, for a cube this is 90°. Descartes proved that for convex polyhedron the total angular deficit for all the vertices is 720°. For a cube this is 8 × 90° = 720°.

Euler's theorem shows that for convex polyhedron V-E+F=2.

Cleanup (Feb 06)
I added the cleanup tag because this article needs more work. I'm mostly content with the listing by symmetry groups, but perhaps even that is better moved to list of polyhedra by symmetry groups, if this article was better defined.

As of now, the sections are not overly complete or rationally included. I'm always more content at simple "lists" than definitions, but if no one else wants to help here, I'll see what I can do too.

Also new stubs: I've added quick stub articles for all polyhedra as named in list of uniform polyhedra. I just have images and one line indexing them. I hope to have a table format added via User:Salix alba's templates - User:Pfafrich/test to prevent unnecessary duplication of data. Well, I've not taken time to understand it, but his tests looked promising!

Also new images: I've also got a FULL BATCH of replacement images for all 75 and prismatic forms to upload (replacing my PNG images), new ones created by Robert Webb and his Great Stella software. So far just uploaded Skilling's figure, and still wondering what licensing statement to offer for his images. (hopefully I'll have some time to upload all 90 some images this weekend.)

Tom Ruen 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you've noticed the change to Small dodecahemicosahedron I've now included some details on it using a template. I'm using this as a test example to check the template inclusion. You may want to have a look at it.

You may well be right on Skilling's figure. Wenninger listed it in the chapter on non-convex snub, and I always assumed it was. However looking at the image there does appear to be reflection symmetry.

In Point_groups_in_three_dimensions they only have T, Td, Th, O, Oh, I, Ih. So the other snub polyhedron should be just I and not Ih.

p.s. I've now changed my user name to User:Salix alba.

 * The uncrossed pentagram antiprism is D5h, not D5d. My intuition isn't quite good enough to assign the other star antiprisms but – if it has a reflexion plane perpendicular to the highest rotation axis it's Dnh, if all reflexion planes contain the highest rotation axis it's Dnd (or Dnv, I can never remember), if it's chiral it's Dn.  The full tetrahedral group is Td, the pyrite group is Th.  —Tamfang 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

 * User:Salix alba and Tamfang, thanks for the corrections on symmetry groups. I get stupid when I get more ambitious than I ought to be, well and they are a little confusing too!

 * Looks like star antiprisms need to be rethought on symmetry - I'm confused, but agreed crossed/not are different. I'll have to construct a few more of them to convince myself what I know or don't know.

 * I saw the added template paragraphs in Small dodecahemicosahedron - very impressive. I have no suggestions for improvement, even if wording can always be tweaked.
 * Perhaps Kaleido should be externally relinked to either of these?

 * Tom Ruen 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I reckon that classifying by symmetry group is as good a way as any, since the presence of a symmetry group is part of the definition of uniform. —Tamfang 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup notice.

With only two sections history/list-by-symmetry, it could use a little expansion, but I'm content here. (Symmetry header linked articles are a bit messy yet with images)

You'll also notice I uploaded a full set of new images from Robert Webb and his Great Stella software. I replaced most of my png from nonconvex forms, and a few unused older convex images under png, but unreferenced.

A few of the image names were changed, but mostly just moving from jpg images. I also updated links on list of uniform polyhedra, but other pages also could be updated on newer images. (Green transparent jpgs are fine to keep as well, just a matter whether a page wants to use a consistent set.)

I also fixed up the symmetry a bit more, a number of snub forms are achiral.

Tom Ruen 07:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Skilling Figure. We state this was discovered by Skilling in 1975. However my copy of Polyhedron models asserts this to Coxeter et al, being number 92 in Coxters numbering. Skillings paper, did not find the new polyhedon, instead it showed that the list was complete. --Salix alba (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Octahedral symmetry
As an experiment, I regrouped the octahedral polyhedra by "convex hull" vertex arrangements, and named groups like polychoron defined terms.

I'm not sure if the terminology applies like this, but seems consistent anyway.

By "convex hull", I mean taking the vertex set and adding faces by the convex hull. This mostly defines a single vertex geometry, but can also define topologically similar polyhedra with nonregular faces.

Example (Common 4.6.8 topology)

Obviously the same thing can be done with the Icosahedral symmetry, although takes a bit of work!

Tom Ruen 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, I regrouped Icosahedral as well. I also subgrouped like "small truncated" for smaller truncations, although visually I can't tell how many categories could be created like this. ALSO I expanded the tetrahedral section similarly, including octahedron/tetrahedron with higher symmety, but also tetrahedral symmetry if different symmetry face coloring used (and created image:snub tetrahedron.png for icosahedron]] as an example too. Tom Ruen 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe I'm done for the day, with dihedrals as well, and two new images Image:tetragonal prism.png and image:trigonal antiprism.png. I also tried term ''irregular' for vertex arrangements with convex hull faces which are not regular polygons. Seems reasonable, even if there's DIFFERENT types/poroportions of irregulars! Tom Ruen 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

undecim, hendeca
oh the embarrassment, to get caught confusing Greek with Latin in that way, when I'm usually the pedantry police! —Tamfang 06:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Subsections
I'm not sure moving the symmetry subsections "up" one level was an improvement. The major section heading indicates a subsequent listing by symmetry, so it seems reasonable for those listings to be subsections of that section. I won't revert the change, however, unless further discussion here indicates that others share me feelings. Paul D. Anderson 22:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree – and like you, I wasn't gonna bother moving it back merely to please myself. —Tamfang 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree also, held off reverting, but since I made the sections, I'll please myself and reverted it ! :) Tom Ruen 01:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (Not to say other improvements aren't needed!)

Cleanup/merge
All of our articles on polyhedra could use a comprehensive reworking someday. I propose that List of uniform polyhedra be merged here; its ordering doesn't match anything else anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I definitely disagree on a merge, whatever work is needed. A list is a list, not intended for more detailed information about theory or symmetry relations. Tom Ruen 05:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Well all the uniform polyhedra are shown in this article anyway. The distinction between 'nonconvex with convex faces' and 'nonconvex with nonconvex faces' has no justification, and I've never seen it anywhere else. The way, the truth, and the light 06:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The ordering of the list is somewhat arbitrary. My goal was to use the template databases to make header-sorttable tables (clicking on headers jumped to different list articles), some tests at: Tom Ruen 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Tomruen/List_of_uniform_polyhedra_and_tilings
 * User:Tomruen/List_of_uniform_polyhedra_and_tilings2

User:The way, the truth, and the light, Why did you delete forms from the prism listing? Tom Ruen 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I wanted to restrict to forms having 3,4,5,6,8,10,12 faces for mathematical reasons - we don't have any pages on 9,11 anyway. This page is already long, and will be even longer if merged with the other one. Finally, I wanted to be able to have a column in the table for retroprisms, which is only possible if 7,9,11 are excluded - though as you can see, I couldn't really figure out the formatting. The way, the truth, and the light 06:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the index of uniform polyhedra in this article as noted in the edit summary. I also moved the pentagrammic antiprism to D5d - while it's technically incorrect, it's probably what readers expect. Revert that part of my changes if you want. The way, the truth, and the light 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I restored the original prism table. If the table is by symmetry, there's no question on where they should be, unsure why you'd say anything else. Tom Ruen 07:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Fixed the symmetry. Still can't figure out how tables work. The way, the truth, and the light 07:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * How is it FIXED if you've still removed content I want there? Tom Ruen 07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I seriously don't understand why you insist on having the longer list of prisms. Also the 'retrograde' category is important, at least in my thinking. The way, the truth, and the light 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It's DECEPTIVE/UNIFORMITIVE to skip inconvenient forms because they don't fit your desires. Goodnight. Tom Ruen 07:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Ridiculous. There are an infinite number of prisms, and we can only list finitely many. So obviously we have to skip almost all of them. Calling that 'deceptive' is just wrong. The way, the truth, and the light 23:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It's deceptive because on a first look on your table, looks like there's always only a few. A complete listing of images up to 12 is reasonable to show the variations and progressions, even/odd symmetry, etc. Tom Ruen 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bowers-style acronyms
I second this sentiment. Despite several attempts to find them, there appear to be no reliable sources to the words. A mailing list is not a reliable source. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so the Bowers column in List of uniform polyhedra is not a source (and it is doubtful the column should exist in the first place.) Weregerbil 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The websites and mailing list, I say, are enough to show notability in this field. They constitute reliable source for this purpose - showing that the terms are in use. WP:RS specifically says that common sense must be used, and that there are no absolute guidelines (except BLP issues) for what is a reliable source. Since this material is not contentious or extraordinary - and is clearly useful - the bar to inclusion should be rather low. The way, the truth, and the light 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi, I'm sorry but the comment above, which you posted on my talk page makes no sense to me. I deleted 5 redirects to a nonexistant part of an article, which previously had had zero sources. In a general case, a mailing list isn't a reliable source, since anyone can post in one. I've no clue on what website you're talking about, so I can't comment on that. Please take the time to explain what you are talking about if you're going to cross-post things. Thanks. - Bobet 12:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

 * No, a person making up words and posting them on a mailing list is not "clearly useful", reliably sourced, or notable. Weregerbil 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Whether a concept is 'useful' has nothing to do with the origin of the concept. Also, this concept has been used by many other people besides Bowers; that was my point. The way, the truth, and the light 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * No reliable sources = not on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * That claim is absurd, of course, as much of Wikipedia has no sources at all (which is not a bad thing). In any case, what is a reliable source is relative to what claim is being discussed. The key is whether it is reasonably verifiable. Here, no factual claims are being asserted (and as I stated above, BSAs are neither controversial not extraordinary) so verifiability can consist only of verifying that the things are actually used, which is what I have done.

 * There is only one Google hit other than Wikipedia and his own site, but that's simply because they are not usually referred to as 'Bowers style acronyms' when they are used. The way, the truth, and the light 05:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * That claim is policy. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an effective argument. Self-published sources are not reliable sources, please see WP:ATT and WP:RS. Weregerbil 05:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * No, it isn't policy. WP:V doesn't actually cover nomenclature, but the closest thing it does say is 'Material from self-published sources ... may be used in articles about themselves' - in the case of naming conventions, every source is writing about themselves, as the only claim is to the use of the names itself. WP:RS specifically says that common sense should override it. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think that it may often be valid of specific articles, but when used as I did, to apply to all of this encyclopedia, it's absurd. The way, the truth, and the light 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * There has been no evidence presented that these "acronyms" are used outside of Bowers' sites and Wikipedia (and Wikipedia mirrors).
 * At best, 'Material from self-published sources ... may be used in articles about themselves' means that Bowers' acronyms could be used in the Bowers article, if they were sufficiently notable there.
 * "Clearly useful", although false, is not relevent. If the acronyms were used in a peer-reviewed published paper, or by a recognized expert in the field of higher-dimensional polytopes, such as Coxeter (but not Jonathan Bowers), there might be a case to be made for notability.
 * — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Bowers is not himself notable, so his acronyms wouldn't be if he were the only one using them. Examples of use by others were given in the AfD discussion, and Tom Ruen has given them below.

 * I don't see how you can judge that they aren't useful when the people that work with them find them so. To be fair, I did say 'clearly' useful, and that may be an overstatement. The way, the truth, and the light 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Also, by retracting your argument that it's not 'clearly useful' or notable in its field, you are conceding those claims. The way, the truth, and the light 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Re: Also, by retracting your argument: no I'm not retracting anything. I am merely avoiding re-re-re-restating the same thing over and over again. Please do not make up unhelpful rules of discussion, or misrepresent the position of others. Thank you. Weregerbil 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not making anything up. You, in fact, ceased to defend those claims. I don't think you are qualified to evaluate their being useful or notable if you have no experience with polytopes. The way, the truth, and the light 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I ceased to repeat the same thing. If you interpret that as anything other than me getting bored repeating the same thing, you are simply wrong. As wrong as I would be if I claimed that you have stopped believing everything you have written previously but did not defend in your 18:50, 21 May 2007 message. This is getting pretty silly, huh...? Weregerbil 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I can't read your mind. I talked about usefulness and notability and you replied with 'no reliable sources'. That's what I saw and that's what I had to reply to. The way, the truth, and the light 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 * My 2 cents - I created the table List of uniform polyhedra, and someday(?!) will substitute a template/database version like User:Tomruen/List_of_uniform_polyhedra_and_tilings2 which will make it easier to add/remove column data. I removed references to BSA from everywhere else when the original article was deleted. I hope Bowers or another will be interested in publishing their usage. They get more useful in the higher uniform polytopes when trying to describe them. My PRIMARY reason for including them at all was that I wanted a quick translation table when reading about polytopes from people who use them on a polyhedron email list. I tried to include ALL the different names/indexing I could, partly just for cross-referencing and error correction. (For my own use, I also have an excel list from Richard Klitzing of all the names defined up to 8 dimensions, only cross referenced to email dates from the list.) Anyway, I won't fight here, although I think Wikipedia is somewhat inconsistent - popular culture can quote gossip rags as gospel, while harmless useful terminology is neglected in mathematics. YES, I understand Wikipedia isn't intended to help make terminology popular, although it seems a worthy goal as I sort through books all using different names and notations.

 * Tom Ruen 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference, online sources I know include:
 * 1)  Roger Kaufman
 * 2)  Richard Klitzing
 * 3)  Jim McNeill
 * 4)  Robert Webb, Stella (software)
 * 5)  George Olshevsky - graphically lists the convex uniform polyhedra with Bowers names
 * 6) Symmetry: Culture and Science, Vol. 11, Nos. 1-4, 139-181, 2000

 * Tom Ruen 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC), Tom Ruen (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

grammar cleanup
I saw some minor errors with number (singular/plural) and possessive in the large table under Convex forms and fundamental vertex arrangements, and what seemed to be a cut-and-paste error, and I fixed them; but I'd forgotten to sign in. Some geometer, please make sure my changes didn't introduce errors. -- Thnidu (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reworking sectioning
I wanted to expand the Wythoff construction of the convex forms so I moved the nonconvex forms to a subarticle. This is reasonable since there's very limited explanation of what the nonconvex forms are at all so far.

Currently it's a bit of a mess while I rework it. It might be better to move the convex forms also to a subarticle and make this article a shorter summary. So, I'll see what I can do in the coming days to get it cleaned up in a better way.

Tom Ruen (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Stereographic projection
I'm working on some stereographic projections of the convex uniform polyhedra (as spherical tilings), and got caught short on time for now. I still need to clean up and decide how to present, but thought I'd share a summary (quick&messy) compilation here since they are pretty:
 * [[Image:Uniform polyhedron stereographic projections.png|600px]]

Tom Ruen (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Columns left to right are: Regulars, truncations, rectifications, cantellations, and omnitruncations.
 * The regular forms by row from top to bottom are: tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron.
 * The rectified, cantellated, omnitruncated forms are presented from two different face centers for the regular-dual pairs.
 * There's no snubs yet, or prisms. The faces are colored to match the uniform polyhedra at Uniform_polyhedron.
 * I'll also make some Schlegel diagrams too (linear edges).
 * It's funny to me I've not seen these complete projections anywhere. The duals are also pretty, but single colored by face symmetry.
 * A large part of my motivation is comparison with the uniform polychora which can only be displayed as 3d projections.
 * For example, I started a 3d/4d comparison at: 120-cell

 * Hm, some of the outermost arcs look noncircular; did you fudge them so as not to have to reduce the inner faces too much? —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * There's no fudging the lines, pure computation, although I did "visually center" the orientations of the projection so the symmetrical arcs will not be identical. I agree many of the arcing edges seem to be elliptical. I'll check the calculations to see if something is wrong, but pretty simple so I'm not sure. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I looked at my code and found I DID have a "fudge factor". This perspective is actually slightly above the sphere (by 1% of the radius). Apparently this squishes the outer most edge arcs in the largest forms. I'll reduce the factor to 0.01% for my "real" uploads later. The tolerance is mainly for "vertex-first" projections, so everything is in front of the view. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

another complaint from the language purist
I disapprove of "[p,q]-hedron", which I guess is yet another example of using hedron ('face') as a synonym for polyhedron ('[thing with] many faces'). A {p,q} does not have [p,q] faces, whatever that would mean. —Tamfang (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, removed. I was trying to make a summary of terminology between Kepler's names and Johnson's, but wasn't clear enough as an abstract comparison. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to find my polyhedron!
I've now spent something like two hours trying to find my specific polyhedron. It's *really* hard when you start with descriptive qualities. And I know this isn't really the place where I should start discussing the issue, this being far too specific. But please indulge me, and help the issue along, since I probably couldn't carry this much further myself.

As background, my problem was that I would have liked to find the precise polyhedron which you get by twisting the bottom of a cube 45 degrees against its top. I *know* it has a name, and quite a lot of theory associated with it as well. It's bound to be on Wikipedia, somewhere. Yet I don't seem to be finding it. Evenas it's pretty crucial wrt an audio technology post I'm right now trying to respond to.

As such, polytopes should in mind be more easily findable. Better indexed. I suggest all of the polytopes/commonly-known-simplex-complexes should be thoroughly and visibly indexed by a) vertex count, b) edge count, c) face count, d) all of the higher order counts for higher dimensional simplex-complexes, e) the usual topological integer invariants such as the Euler one, but also a dozen more, where applicable, f) by the name of the attached symmetry group, e) systematically crosslinked by known derivatives/duals/biduals/twisted forms/whatnot that we know from literature. And so on. I think the topics should be systematically tagged, so as to be systematically crosslinked using automatic means, when the time comes.

My point is that most of this sort of tagging could be done purely mechanically. Most of the crosslinking could be about the same thing, if computationally heavy. And yet, it could help countless people find their very basic, nicest mathematical abstraction in the end -- I mean, my rant started with a fucking platonian solid, and didn't go beyond its slightly twisted form. This is stuff that a first grader with a cubical piece of Play-Doh could want to know about... Decoy (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Try square antiprism. It is listed in this article, section Uniform_polyhedron. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 * What, by the way, is a bidual? —Tamfang (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Animated gif
I have created and uploaded this 19 [sic]-second animation showing the convex uniform polyhedra: I had in mind that it could be used on this page. I'm afraid the dithering isn't nice (it was done by the encoder, ffmpeg). I could try re-rendering with a more restricted range of shades, or flat-shade it instead. It could take a different path through the graph of truncations/cantellations/snubifications, if anyone has an opinion on that. Buster79 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Uniform polyhedron


text:
Automatic parallelization

Automatic parallelization, also auto parallelization, or autoparallelization refers to converting sequential code into multi-threaded and/or vectorized code in order to use multiple processors simultaneously in a shared-memory multiprocessor (SMP) machine. Fully automatic parallelization of sequential programs is a challenge because it requires complex program analysis and the best approach may depend upon parameter values that are not known at compilation time.

The programming control structures on which autoparallelization places the most focus are loops, because, in general, most of the execution time of a program takes place inside some form of loop. There are two main approaches to parallelization of loops: pipelined multi-threading and cyclic multi-threading. For example, consider a loop that on each iteration applies a hundred operations, and runs for a thousand iterations. This can be thought of as a grid of 100 columns by 1000 rows, a total of 100,000 operations. Cyclic multi-threading assigns each row to a different thread. Pipelined multi-threading assigns each column to a different thread.

Parse
This is the first stage where the scanner will read the input source files to identify all static and extern usages. Each line in the file will be checked against pre-defined patterns to segregate into tokens. These tokens will be stored in a file which will be used later by the grammar engine. The grammar engine will check patterns of tokens that match with pre-defined rules to identify variables, loops, control statements, functions etc. in the code.

Analyze
The analyzer is used to identify sections of code that can be executed concurrently. The analyzer uses the static data information provided by the scanner-parser. The analyzer will first find all the totally independent functions and mark them as individual tasks. The analyzer then finds which tasks have dependencies.

Schedule
The scheduler will list all the tasks and their dependencies on each other in terms of execution and start times. The scheduler will produce the optimal schedule in terms of number of processors to be used or the total execution time for the application.

Code Generation
The scheduler will generate a list of all the tasks and the details of the cores on which they will execute along with the time that they will execute for. The code Generator will insert special constructs in the code that will be read during execution by the scheduler. These constructs will instruct the scheduler on which core a particular task will execute along with the start and end times.

Cyclic multi-threading
A cyclic multi-threading parallelizing compiler tries to split up a loop so that each iteration can be executed on a separate processor concurrently.

Compiler parallelization analysis
The compiler usually conducts two passes of analysis before actual parallelization in order to determine the following:

 * Is it safe to parallelize the loop? Answering this question needs accurate dependence analysis and alias analysis
 * Is it worthwhile to parallelize it? This answer requires a reliable estimation (modeling) of the program workload and the capacity of the parallel system.

The first pass of the compiler performs a data dependence analysis of the loop to determine whether each iteration of the loop can be executed independently of the others. Data dependence can sometimes be dealt with, but it may incur additional overhead in the form of message passing, synchronization of shared memory, or some other method of processor communication.

The second pass attempts to justify the parallelization effort by comparing the theoretical execution time of the code after parallelization to the code's sequential execution time. Somewhat counterintuitively, code does not always benefit from parallel execution. The extra overhead that can be associated with using multiple processors can eat into the potential speedup of parallelized code.

Example
A loop is called DOALL if all of its iterations, in any given invocation, can be executed concurrently.

The Fortran code below is DOALL, and can be auto-parallelized by a compiler because each iteration is independent of the others, and the final result of array  will be correct regardless of the execution order of the other iterations.

There are many pleasingly parallel problems that have such DOALL loops. For example, when rendering a ray-traced movie, each frame of the movie can be independently rendered, and each pixel of a single frame may be independently rendered.

On the other hand, the following code cannot be auto-parallelized, because the value of  depends on the result of the previous iteration,. This does not mean that the code cannot be parallelized. Indeed, it is equivalent to the DOALL loop

However, current parallelizing compilers are not usually capable of bringing out these parallelisms automatically, and it is questionable whether this code would benefit from parallelization in the first place.

Pipelined multi-threading
A pipelined multi-threading parallelizing compiler tries to break up the sequence of operations inside a loop into a series of code blocks, such that each code block can be executed on separate processors concurrently.

There are many pleasingly parallel problems that have such relatively independent code blocks, in particular systems using pipes and filters.

For example, when producing live broadcast television, the following tasks must be performed many times a second:

 * 1) Read a frame of raw pixel data from the image sensor,
 * 2) Do MPEG motion compensation on the raw data,
 * 3) Entropy compress the motion vectors and other data,
 * 4) Break up the compressed data into packets,
 * 5) Add the appropriate error correction and do a FFT to convert the data packets into COFDM signals, and
 * 6) Send the COFDM signals out the TV antenna.

A pipelined multi-threading parallelizing compiler could assign each of these six operations to a different processor, perhaps arranged in a systolic array, inserting the appropriate code to forward the output of one processor to the next processor.

Recent research focuses on using the power of GPU's and multicore systems to compute such independent code blocks( or simply independent iterations of a loop) at runtime. The memory accessed (whether direct or indirect) can be simply marked for different iterations of a loop and can be compared for dependency detection. Using this information, the iterations are grouped into levels such that iterations belonging to the same level are independent of each other, and can be executed in parallel.

Difficulties
Automatic parallelization by compilers or tools is very difficult due to the following reasons:
 * dependence analysis is hard for code that uses indirect addressing, pointers, recursion, or indirect function calls because it is difficult to detect such dependencies at compile time;
 * loops have an unknown number of iterations;
 * accesses to global resources are difficult to coordinate in terms of memory allocation, I/O, and shared variables;
 * irregular algorithms that use input-dependent indirection interfere with compile-time analysis and optimization.

Workaround
Due to the inherent difficulties in full automatic parallelization, several easier approaches exist to get a parallel program in higher quality. One of these is to allow programmers to add "hints" to their programs to guide compiler parallelization, such as HPF for distributed memory systems and OpenMP or OpenHMPP for shared memory systems. Another approach is to build an interactive system between programmers and parallelizing tools/compilers. Notable examples are Vector Fabrics' Pareon, SUIF Explorer (The Stanford University Intermediate Format compiler), the Polaris compiler, and ParaWise (formally CAPTools). Finally, another approach is hardware-supported speculative multithreading.

Parallelizing compilers and tools
Most research compilers for automatic parallelization consider Fortran programs, because Fortran makes stronger guarantees about aliasing than languages such as C. Typical examples are:
 * Paradigm compiler
 * Polaris compiler
 * Rice Fortran D compiler
 * SUIF compiler
 * Vienna Fortran compiler

title: Automatic parallelization