Marek14 wrote:In my opinion we shouldn't be afraid to change the numbers because of older posts. Those posts are only a month or two old, it's not as if it's a decades-old convention

I don't like changing the numbers, because the D numbers are supposed to be
arbitrary identifiers that uniquely identify a CRF, before we have enough information to name it properly. It's supposed to be a
unique identifier that lets us refer to a specific CRF without fearing that a later (re)naming will mess up all the old references to it. In retrospect, I somewhat regret introducing the numerical suffixes that suggest some kind of grouping of these CRFs; it would have been better if we just used a single incrementing number instead.
The reason I say this, is because at this early stage, we simply don't have enough information to make a good decision about how to categorize (or name) these CRFs -- for example, we thought the J92
rhombochoron was a unique structure until we discovered "modified" partial Stott expansion, the J92 pseudopyramid, and now the connection of the J92
rhombochoron with the D4.8.x CRFs. In some sense, even the name "J92
rhombochoron" is, in retrospect, a bit premature, since now it's revealed to be just one instance of a wider class of CRFs with similar constructions.
So I'd rather leave the current D numbers as-is, perhaps even using a flat numbering system from now on (i.e., D4.13, D4.14, etc.) instead of D4.4.x -- because who knows, maybe later on we discover that our initial categorization was all wrong, and we have to rearrange the entire numbering hierarchy? In the interim, maybe we should introduce actual categories for these things, preferably on the wiki, with links to the D numbers of the members of each category.
(I'm tempted to say that we should use random numbers for the D number assignments from now on, to dispel the notion that the D numbers have any connection with chronology -- currently they do, but this limits them in other ways -- we now cannot retroactively assign a D number to some of the CRFs discovered before we started using D numbers, whereas many of those CRFs really do deserve such an identifier, especially those that are difficult to name because we're not sure where they fit in the scheme of things. Ideally, we should have wiki pages for each of them, so that we can upload .def files, .off files for them, link their projection images, etc., and have a unique ID that links to that page no matter how we may decide the rename these shapes later on.)