Talk:First stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Polyhedra

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polyhedra, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of polygons, polyhedra, and other polytopes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolyhedraWikipedia:WikiProject PolyhedraTemplate:WikiProject PolyhedraPolyhedra articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

First sentence

The first sentence is correct:

<"In geometry, the first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron is a stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron."> ... Really?

But I think it could be even more accurate by saying:

<"In geometry, the first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron is the first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron.">

Am I right? :-)) I'm just joking in order to highlight the triviality of that sentence. Perhaps there is a better way to begin the article. --Little bishop (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the current first sentence is rather trite as well. Perhaps we could go straight into the description of the polyhedron rather than defining it as a stellation in the first sentence, but it seems a little wrong to dive straight into details without a topic sentence. QuarterNotes (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead to explain the title terms rather than merely repeating them. There was a bigger problem with the article: it confused two quite different polyhedra with the same visual appearance, the self-crossing one with 12 hexagonal faces that is the stellation and the non-self-crossing one with 48 triangular faces that is the boundary of Escher's solid. I have tried to clarify the distinction between these two polyhedra. It is likely that additional improvements are possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. That clarifies things quite a bit. Should we add a section on Escher’s solid? Or create an entirely new article? There does not appear to be an article on it yet; in fact, this is the only article in which Escher’s solid is even mentioned, and searching “Escher’s Solid” leads to a redirect to this article. QuarterNotes (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Would anyone object if I moved this to "first stellation of the rhombic dodecahedron"? The missing article is bothering me. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! Tom Ruen (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]