Talk:Tetrakis hexahedron

	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
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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Dual polyhedron

I think the dual should be truncated octahedron rather than truncated cube.

Agreed, I corrected it. Tom Ruen 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

This section was removed until verified. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric proportions

The tetrakis hexahedron can be seen to contain 2 types of edges, the 12 edges of the cube, and 24 lateral edges connecting the cube to the apex of the augmented square pyramids on each face.

If its latereral edge lengths are $a$ , and the cubic edges are length 1, its surface area is $\scriptstyle {\frac {16}{3}}{\sqrt {5}}a^{2}$ and its volume is $\scriptstyle {\frac {32}{9}}a^{3}$ .

In order for the tetrakis hexahedron to be convex, it must be the case that $\scriptstyle a<{\frac {\sqrt {3}}{2}}$ ; when $\scriptstyle a={\frac {\sqrt {3}}{2}}$ , pairs of triangular faces become coplanar and the polyhedron degenerates to a rhombic dodecahedron.

Why do I sometimes see "tetrakishexahedron" (no space)? 4 T C 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of removed material

@Dedhert.Jr, you just removed quite a lot of material without much explanation. Can you give some more specific rationale here, subsection by subsection, of why you think each part is unencyclopedic or unsupportable? For example, you took out the part about the spherical tiling, which seems pretty relevant and useful. –jacobolus (t) 04:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have remark this before, "unless there is some specific source supporting it". So if you prefer to restore the edit, you might want to support by supplying a citation. Most of the polyhedral articles are nothing but tables of WP:OR, including not giving the context at the very beginning. This has discussed before in WT:WPM. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion whirlwind wiping out plenty of unsourced but accurate material doesn't really make the article better though, or help readers. It just wantonly erases some previous Wikipedians' years of effort. The least you could do is give a point-by-point description here of exactly which material you are deleting and why. Ideally you could even try to spend a few minutes searching for sources about each topic to see if it's actually unsupportable. Adding "unsourced section" banners also doesn't accomplish anything except bashing readers in the face. The lack of little footnotes is already obvious to anyone paying attention. –jacobolus (t) 06:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]