Talk:Platonic solid

message: I heard this term from professor V.Zalgaler, and it seems to be used before a lot for classification of different types of polyheda. 
I am thinking, maybe we should add such subcategory into "Category:Discrete geometry" and put there all kinds of related articles?
 Tosha 14:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization Geometric zoology

message: The following was proven by Descartes and Leonhard Euler.
:V - E + F = 2 \,\! (Eq.1)
where F is the number of faces, E is the number of edges, and V is the number of corners or vertices of a regular solid.
:nF = 2E \,\! (Eq.2)
:rV = 2E \,\! (Eq.3)
where r is how many edges meet at each vertex.
Substituting for V and F in Eq.1 from Eq.3 and Eq.4, we find
:\frac{2E}{r} - E + \frac{2E}{n} = 2 \,\! (Eq.4)
If we divide both sides of this equation by 2E, we have
:\frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{E} \,\! (Eq.5)
:\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{E} + \frac{1}{6} \,\! (Eq.6)
:\frac{1}{n} = \frac{1}{E} + \frac{1}{6} \,\! (Eq.7)
Charles Matthews 07:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put this back in, without showing the details of the algebra, since it is a good example of how topology is sometimes adequate to solve geometric problems. I did not attribute it to Descartes and Euler, since I don't have a reference. Joshuardavis 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof

message: Sorry that I don't have the time to edit the page properly, but the foldable paper models page is not there anymore. Anyone who know where it went please change the link.
----
Somebody should fix the "Ancient Symbolism" section:
This concept linked fire with the tetrahedron, earth with the cube, air with the octahedron and water with the icosahedron. There was logical reasoning behind these associations: the heat of fire feels sharp and stabbing (like little tetrahedra). Air is made of the most spherical solid, the dodecahedron; its minuscule components are so smooth that one can barely feel it. 
So is air an octahedron or a dodecahedron? Transfinite 19:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an octahedron. See Timaeus, sec. 55a-e. —The Doctahedron, 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link missing 

message: On this page there's a link to the non-existant page [[calcium floride]. Through some searches I found the page Fluorite, which mentions octohedrons and dodecahedrons in the opening paragraph. Is this the mineral that was supposed to be linked to? --Spug 12:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluorite 

message: why dodecahedrom is randomly bold in the list?
:Presumably as the highest percentage. I've changed it. Charles Matthews 10:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  will somebody explain 

message: The reorganization of 2 June 2006 was well done,  Fropuff. Thanks. I have just one complaint. In the Classification section you give two versions of the same proof. Both hinge, in my view, on the same fact: Item #2 in the first version, i.e. the "elementary result" in the second.
I vote that we replace one of these versions with a purely topological proof using Euler's formula (which you've already introduced) as the linchpin. To me this is a good example of how seemingly geometric facts are sometimes determined purely by topology. The proof was already in the earlier versions (put in by me — with details left out because it's a common exercise for students):
We know that p f = 2 e = vq and that v - e + f = 2. Multiplying the latter equation by p q we obtain p q v - p q e + p q f = 2 p q. Substutiting from the first equation we have 2 e p - p q e + 2 e q = 2 p q, which implies that e (2 p - p q + 2 q) = 2 p q. Now e and 2 p q are positive, so 2 p - p q + 2 q is as well. Since p and q must be at least 3, it is easy to see that the only possible values of (p, q) are (3, 3), (3, 4), (4, 3), (3, 5), (5, 3). Joshua Davis 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I somehow missed the point of that paragraph in the previous version. I've inserted a varation of the topological proof into the article (actually more akin to Charles's version above). Thanks for the comment. -- Fropuff 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topological proof 

message: Should that be mentioned?--user talk:hillgentleman 08:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay!  —Tamfang 04:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I had debated mentioning the discrete subgroups of SU(2) back when I did the rewrite of this article. Unfortunately, we don't have a good discussion of this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it would take too many words to describe the concept here. The section on the symmetry groups is already rather long. If a coherent treatment is given elsewhere it would be worthwhile to mention the relationship in this article and provide a link. -- Fropuff 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrete subgroups of SU(2)

message: (to User:Rsholmes) I am well aware not every dodecahedron is regular, but the place to discuss that is in thedodecahedron article not in the intro to an article on Platonic solids. In a context where one is only talking about regular solids, calling everything regular  is distracting and unnecessarily pedantic. It is also a rather technical point to be discussing in the article lead. If we must mention the distinction than I insist we put it in a footnote or somewhere more suitable than the lead. -- Fropuff 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's lots of places there's ambiguity of language, but here there's no debate on regularity. Tom Ruen 01:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree.  To say that "the dodecahedron (or icosahedron, or whatever) is one of the Platonic solids" is to state a falsehood -- unless "dodecahedron" is understood to mean "regular dodecahedron" in that context.  And so it should be; but a naive reader doesn't know that, unless it's stated.  (They may understand that you're discussing regular polyhedra, but not that "dodecahedron" can refer also to non regular solids.)  Of course the article should not say "regular dodecahedron" every time; that would indeed be distracting and pedantic -- but for us to be understood correctly by those who are not already famlliar with the subject, it's necessary to let them know the shorthand we're using.  It's one additional sentence up front, and it makes the meaning far more clear.  A similar point is made in the articles for each of the regular solids, and it should be made here.  I'm shocked that you expect the readers to figure this out on their own -- its obfuscation for its own sake.  I do, however, have no objection to moving the point into a footnote.  In fact I'll do that.  -- Rsholmes 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regularity 

message: I believe someone should add to this article information regarding Leonardo da Vinci and his study of the platonic solids; particularly in relation to the Flower of Life.  The following sources may conatin relevant information: 
* 
* Home.cc.UManitoba.ca : Leonardo da Vinci Drawings
* Crystalinks.com - Article on Leonardo da Vinci.
* 
* MonkeyBuddha.BlogSpot.com - Information about the FOL in regards to Da Vinci's Challenge games.
* Flower of Life
sloth_monkey 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonardo da Vinci 

message: Someone may want to add to this article information regarding water molecules in relation to the icosahedron platonic solid.
* See LSBU.ac.uk : Water Structure and Behavior - Water as a Network of Icosahedral Water Clusters
sloth_monkey 11:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are truncated icosahedrons. —The Doctahedron, 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icosahedral water clusters 

message: The description of solid angle is not clear, especially for someone who isn't already very familiar with platonic solids and geometry. Is there anyway we can elaborate on it? It is especially confusing given that the article named Solid Angle mentions, "the solid angle subtended at the center of a cube by one of its sides is one-sixth of that, or 2π/3 sr." Whereas the solid angle of a cube in the Platonic Solids table is bluntly listed as π/2, with no real distinction or explanation being made as to exactly what the table is referring to, in comparison to the statements of the other article. My main concern is that not enough context is provided for people to understand what it means to say, "the solid angle of a polyhedron..." Firth m (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solid Angle 

message: Hi all. I just happened to visit this page for the first time and very soon noticed the weird content of the broken link underneath the last solid, the icosahedron. At the time of writing, the text reads: ([[:imahallo yall 
(which to me signals either a case of misplaced typing or a deliberate change like spray-tagging on a wall).
I am not very familiar with reading the page history and, furthermore, there is no mention on the talk page that this is a desired change, so I will try my best to rectify the link.
For those of you more familiar with reading the tracking history of the page, would you be so kind as to point out to me when and which edit brought this about? --TrondBK (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going backward in the comparisons one by one, I find that it was done on March 15 by User:74.255.70.210.  —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or just a faullty edit? 

message: In the article it states "The fifth Platonic solid, the dodecahedron, Plato obscurely remarks, "...the god used for arranging the constellations on the whole heaven"." I believe he related the twelve faces to the Zodiac, though I can't seem to dig up a reference. If indeed he did so, it would hardly be obscure. I'll keep digging for a reference. Nazlfrag (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plato writes, in the Timaeus: "There still remained a fifth construction, which the god used for embroidering the constellations on the whole heaven."  Plato's statement is vague, and he gives no further explanation. Later Greek philosophers assign the dodecahedron to the ether or heaven or the cosmos. The dodecahedron has 12 faces, and our number symbolism associates 12 with the zodiac. (Copied from ).--John Wheater (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's categorisation of the dodecahedron 

message: I would like to eprsonally apologize. That was my class at school using laptops. You will see at one point the same IP who tried to stop the vandalism was vandalizing, that was because we all were on the same network.--NicholasHopkinzTalk! 01:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism of this page and [[tessellation]]s. 

message: :Category:Platonic solids is itself a category within :Category:Polyhedra. — Robert Greer (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Polyhedra]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Platonic solids]]  

message: is concerned that the text ought to suggest somehow that the word polar, as a synonym for dual, is clarified in Dual polyhedron; somehow he finds it inadequate that polar is mentioned explicitly as a synonym and that Dual polyhedron is explicitly linked in the preceding sentence. (See our personal talk pages.)  I find this concern a little bit silly; consider it poor style to link Dual polyhedron a second time and even worse style to say "(see dual polyhedron)" without linking; and if I shared his concern I'd find his solution(s) unsatisfying.  What language can make us both happy? —Tamfang (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I've never even heard of polar being used in this sense until I saw the recent edits. I've always known the concept by the name dual.—Tetracube (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dual or polar (see dual) 

message: For whatever it's worth, I agree with  about reverting the change by  to the expression of Euler's formula.  Since Glenn gave no reason for doing so I'd like to put one on the record.
I prefer V-E+F over F+V-E because it puts the elements in order of their dimension, and illustrates the beginning of a general (n-dimensional) pattern: the signs alternate. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euler formula 

message: I added the corresponding elements to the platonic solids in the table of "combinatorial properties", and now some intelligent person has decided to remove this relevant information. Do you think only mathematicians use this page of platonic solids?? I use it for meditation on the properties of the solids and the elements, when i first tried to see the solids and its elements, i had to browse up and down up and down to the relevant - difficult to find - sentence in the history section, and i decided to improve the article by making it easier to read!
if it wasnt for philosophers you wouldnt know what platonic solids is. mathematics and creation (elements) are all interconnected, if you havent reached the maturity to realize that, stop imposing your own lack of need for enlightenment on others, and let others use the articles for purposes more serious than you realize exists. i am now reverting the elements as "historically corresponding element".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.59.189.29 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like having them there; they don't crowd the page.  But I'm not in love with the title Historically corresponding element. —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently these elemental labels are in the "Combinatorial properties" section, which doesn't make sense. What if we moved them to the table in the lead section? Mgnbar (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, but then the chart would need headings, which would spoil its elegance somewhat. —Tamfang (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The header used to be just "Element" but it wasn't liked, so i added "historically corresponding" to it to make it more justifiable somehow, because someone didn't see it as relevant information. I see no problem with the elements being in "combinatorial properties" section. The numbers are though relevant to some, in regards to the elements. after all, "plato"nic solids and his school of philosophy is also about fundamental meanings of numbers, if im not mistaken. In that sense the corresponding element is in direct relationship to the numbers that the shapes represent and the other way around. I am happy the way it is, i was even happier before when the heading was just "Elements". If you want, you can perhaps change "combinatorial properties" to just "properties", and/or "h. c. element" to "element".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.58.27.116 (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "combinatorics" (or "combinatorial") is a predominantly mathematical term, rather than a term in general English usage, right? In mathematics it has a fairly specific meaning — more specific than "relating to numbers", anyway — and I don't feel that the elements fit into that meaning. For example, if the History section is correct, then the association between the solids and the elements is largely due to how pointy the solids are. Pointiness is a geometric property, not a combinatorial one. Almost everything in the "Combinatorial properties" section is actually combinatorial, except for the elements. So I still vote that the elements be moved out of that section. Mgnbar (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "medieval" elements, why? 

message: Shouldn't the article mention somewhere the relationship to sacred geometry?
Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which specific relationship, and what source for it? AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sacred geometry 

message: KirbyRider says that the 24-cell and regular hexagon are both "Truncation of a simplex-faceted polytope that has simplices for ridges and is self-dual".  What simplex-faceted polytope is truncated to derive the 24-cell? —Tamfang (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A 24-cell is a rectified 16-cell, but not a truncation. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rectification (why is it called that??) is most easily visualized as a deeper truncation! —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  24-cell and hexagon 

message: The abstract reads "With Duality, Truncation, and snubbing, the Tetrahedron first forms the other triangular platonic solids, then duality makes the two other ones." It's unclear what this is talking about, as truncation is only mentioned once elsewhere in the article and duality and snubbing are not mentioned at all. The irregular capitalization is also jarring. Should this sentence be clarified or removed? Qartar (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that belongs here, meaning show in table at Uniform_polyhedron#Summary_tables, octahedron is a rectified tetrahedron, and icosahedron is a snub icosahedron. Conway polyhedron notation also contains these relations and more, so constructionally all 5 can be generated from the tetrahedron: (T=T, O=aT, C=daT, I=sT, D=dsT) Tom Ruen (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

text: It is more accurate to say the octahedron is a rectification (geometry) of the tetrahedron, while a truncated tetrahedron is something a bit different. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's essentially the same process. Rectification, truncation, whatever. Except that rectification cuts off more of the solid than regular truncation. My point is, is this image suitable for use on Wikipedia, other than the fact that it needs to be vectorized and transparentized? —The Doctahedron (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duality, truncation, snubbing? 

message: A recent edit changed the statement "there are five Platonic solids" to the statement "there are five similarity classes of Platonic solids". While technically correct, this statement is counterproductive. It unnecessarily complicates the statement of the classification, by bringing in technical issues such as equivalence relation. I vote that it be changed back. Mgnbar (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I belatedly agree, and like the shortened statement. Ridcully Jack (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, “up to similarity” is elegant and precise, much better than my complicated formulation. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Up to similarity", however, is not proper English. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I utterly disagree. This construction is found in countless math textbooks. Whether or not you have heard it before now, it is idiomatic to mathematics writing, and it is correct and appropriate for this domain of discourse. Mgnbar (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I, as a mathematician, find it awkward and obscuring for people who aren't mathematicians; we are not committed to use of our jargon. Similarity (geometry) does not even use the phrase, nor do I see it used in (for instance) Archimedean solid. Personally, I would prefer to stick to "there are five Platonic solids" given that people intuit that size does not matter here. Mangoe (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay with me, to omit the phrase. As you can see from reading this section of the talk page, it was added by someone other than me. You're probably right, that people understand that size doesn't matter. Mgnbar (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity classes 

message: I've moved the sentence about the "Moon Model" for electron shells spaced at nested Platonic solids from the introductory paragraph. There are dozens of facts more important than this in the main body.
For now it is in the more appropriate "History" section. It's there because this is the other place where other spurious models of the real world which are not supported by the scientific community sit. There's nothing at electron shell model about the "Moon model", which is telling. Ridcully Jack (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon model 

message: Recently, there has been great activity in modifying the intro section. This is one of many math articles that are not esoteric and interesting only to mathematicians, but which ordinary people may read. It is essential that the intro remain clear, concise, and correct. If you wish to propose a modification to the intro, then please do so here, so that we can form consensus.
In particular, the most recent edits have employed convoluted sentence structure and unexplained jargon ("superposable") that I don't understand, even with an advanced degree in geometry. That's exactly what we need to avoid. Mgnbar (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do people keep making controversial edits to the intro, even after I've asked that we discuss such edits here? Please, please let's talk about it, instead of just reverting each other. Mgnbar (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried a much less technical version, given that this isn't just an article for mathematicians. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's no need to say "In Euclidean geometry", as there aren't some other Platonic solids in some other field. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. It's just that many Wikipedia articles begin with an explicit indication, of which discipline they belong to: "In mathematics", "in geometry", etc. Mgnbar (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

text: In what sense is "a Platonic solid is a polyhedron that is regular and convex" superior to "a Platonic solid is a regular, convex polyhedron"? I don't understand why Aughost is aggressively pushing the former. The latter expresses the same content, more succinctly. Mgnbar (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't. Mangoe (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

text: There might be some mention of the synonymous term "perfect solid" in the intro. Some non-mathematicians may search for that (dated) terminology. 75.150.168.6 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro section 

message: why there are only 5 platonic solids 
need to be prove in a reasonable way  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.194.118.16 (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for improving the article, not for giving mathematics help. Try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Also, there is a proof in the article. Also, this sounds like a school assignment. Mgnbar (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  need answer 

message: The current "mathematical" definition is incorrect as an infinite variety of solids meet that categorisation can someone write something better without the illusion of mathematical purity. So for example the Platonic solids are more fundamental, perhaps the 5 solids are the most fundamental varieties. It might be more accurate to mention Plato also and his theories of archetypes. DarkShroom (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Geodesic spheres use both hexagons and pentagons, so it is not true that all of their faces are congruent. In addition, for high-order geodesic spheres, not all the hexagons are regular. (Similarly, the geodesic spheres made out of triangles, with the exception of the icosahedron, contain triangles that are not equilateral and in general are not congruent to each other.) Therefore, they do not contradict the information in this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geodesic Sphere

message: The article collects info on Platonic solid in a very nice way, however some more info would be useful. Here is what I mean:
#A chart with coordinates of all 5 solids in the same place (now the info is to be found in separate articles on the solids).
# The edge central angle = the vertex-centre-vertex angle (with both vertices of the same edge) - no info so far anywhere, except on the tetrahedron (in the article on it). The values are: π − arc cos (1/3), arc cos (1/3), π/2, arc cos (√5/3), arc cos (1/√5) = arc tg 2 for the five solids respectively (which means 109.471221°, 70.528779°, 90°, 41.810315°, 63.434949° approx.).
# The face-vertex-edge angle (except the octahedron) - no info so far anywhere, except on the tetrahedron (in the article on it).
# The radius of exspheres. As for now, the info is available for the tetrahedron in the article on it, and for the cube and the icosahedron in the article on the exsphere. No info on the octahedron and the dodecahedron anywhere.
# The distance to exsphere center from a vertex.
# The solid diagonals (if any): their number and length.
Note that there is extensive info in the article on the tetrahedron - but not in articles on other Platonic solids. So, adding the information listed above would mean just levelling details in various articles.
31.11.242.188 (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a new section and table of coordinates, and some pictures that might help. 20:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals of more data in the article 

message: Can someone explain why a particular kind of bad edit happens so frequently on this page: switching the meanings of dodecahedron and icosahedron? Is there something in the text that confuses editors? Or is this a bizarrely persistent case of vandalism, from multiple accounts and IPs? Mgnbar (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion in the lower table is caused by the fact that it lists number of vertices and not faces, probably.  --JBL (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

text: My confusion was based on a bad/vague understanding of latin, assuming that "dodeca" surely meant "twice ten" and thus was the name of the twenty sided shape. Curiousepic (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so many dodecahedron vs. icosahedron edits? 

message: A table lists the "vertex angle" of an octahedron as "60°, 90°." According to the vertex angle article, "a vertex angle is an angle formed by two edges of the polyhedron that both belong to a common two-dimensional face of the polyhedron." The only 90° angle at a vertex of an octahedron is formed by two edges that DO NOT belong to the same face. ALL the angles formed by edges belonging to the same face are 60°. Unless someone can refute this, I'll make the change soon, or someone else can. Thank you. Holy (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing. The vertex angle has no source on the definition on a polyhedra. I traced the edit to an anonymous editor in 2009, . I'd say remove the entire column, UNLESS there's a clear reference for the definition on a polyhedra AND a source the describes these on the platonic solids. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I removed the column, not finding any sources. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Octahedron vertex angles 

message: It might be interesting to add a reference to a concept called "Metatrons Cube". See explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhSKFVCa3V0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.3.69 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a Platonic solid and is off-topic for this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be used to generate the Platonic solids...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.122.94 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No it cannot. It is a pile of circles on a hexagonal base and a pile of mystic woo piled on top of that. It is not a cube, not a polyhedron, not a construction method, and not relevant for this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay okay, delete this suggestion, if you may.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.135.122.94 (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Metatrons Cube 

message: all platonic solids have the property of being able to be inscribed in succession, as follows:
Icosahedron contains dodecahedron, that contains hexahedron, that contains tetrahedron, that contains octahedron.
Can that be indicated within the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.64.192.44 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense are you using the word inscribed? If it is merely that the vertices of one belong to the outer surface of another, many of these pairs can be inscribed in many different ways. What is special about the specific succession you describe? Do you have published reliable sources for it? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantapolyhedron/Omnipolyhedron 

message: It should be worth mentioning that Plato is a very great writer and stylist in purely literary terms. If I could find the place, the late RGM Nisbet called him the greatest prose stylist there had ever been, with Cicero second. We schoolboys and undergraduates had to try to write like him. (I was Seadowns until my name was changed through a muddle over passwords.) Esedowns (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia:Reliable sources can be found, then I can see adding this context at Plato (rather than Platonic solid). Mgnbar (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose Style 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kepler–Poinsot polyhedron which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Is there a reason to have the backgrounds of the diagrams in Platonic_solid#Stereographic_projection saturated yellow and red? It hurts the eyes and doesn't seem to add any value. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 03:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. JBL (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't seem to have any diagrams already made with less distracting colors, but because they're in svg format it should be really easy to recolor them. I'm not sure any color is needed at all here; it doesn't appear to convey any useful information. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Despite having a publication that mentions exactly these double-projections, I think you are correct. Accordingly, I have removed them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are stereographic projection backgrounds saturated colours? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Where's the d10? and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Where's the d10?" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This article says that the reason Platonic solids are used to make dice is that they can be made fair.  That's not the reason.  Plenty of other shapes could be made fair.
It also implies (if not states) that they're the only shapes commonly used to make dice, which is not true.  Games that use Platonic solids also usually use 10 sided dice, which aren't Platonic solids.
I fixed these errors, but for some reason someone reverted my fix.
From the section above this one, it looks like there's been some discussion of this in the past.  Although some of that was deleted, so it's hard to tell what happened.
- Burner89751654 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of other fair shapes is not evidence for your claim that fairness is not the reason for using Platonic solids. The existence of dice with other shapes is mostly off-topic for this article. And your additions to the article did not cite any published reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

text: You could add a mention that Platonic solids are not the only fair dice, with a link to the relevant section of Dice where the others are discussed at length. —Tamfang (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dice 

message: Could a sphere be an honorary platonic solid?
It is made up of congruent (honorary) regular polygons (circles) with the same number of faces at each vertex (0) 31.94.9.193 (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can find Wikipedia:Reliable sources supporting this idea, it would be Wikipedia:Original research and hence not suitable for this article. (Additionally, I do not understand your idea.) Mgnbar (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sphere?