Talk:Compound of five octahemioctahedra

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority 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.

Well, if we want to avoid membranes, the shared parts of the coplanar hexagons ought to cancel each other out, leaving a vertex-connected (I think?) hollow shell. I'll make a picture of this with Stella... Double sharp (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stella filling (density for orientables, modulo-2 for non-orientables, coplanar faces can cancel each other out under some circumstances) will produce different results for iddei (5 ohoes), gari (5 choes), rasquahr (5 grohs). Double sharp (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done for all three. Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This article does a poor job of explaining why this uniform compound of uniform polyhedra is notable enough to merit its own article rather than simply being an entry in the Uniform polyhedron compound list. We have a single source in a paper that, while I cannot get access, probably only deals with the compound of five octahemioctahedra in passing. If we removed the section on filling, which probably belongs in the aforementioned list, we would have a single sentence that explains nothing about the polyhedron we are supposedly writing an article about. Considering the amount of duplicate content that would have to be added to every one of the uniform polyhedron compound articles to make them useful as stand-alone articles, they should be merged back into their list. Rockphed (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have incorrectly tagged the article. There is no template:notabilty. Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we did this with this polyhedron compound, we would have to do it with the other 74, and that would be a mess. Yes, this isn’t a very notable object on its own, but the article still has some room for expansion. Cartesian coordinates and a construction of this figure are notably missing. If someone eventually publishes some list with metric properties for the uniform polyhedra (or if we manage to fit that into WP:CALC somehow), that’s further room for improvement. It will probably take a while for this to get out of stub state, by that doesn’t mean it will never do so. OfficialURL (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]