Template talk:Polygons

Silly Polygons

I have removed

Tricontagon, as misspelt. It should be parallel to Icosagon
Pentecontagon, also misspelt, and since the article is a redirect to Polygon; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hectagon for the consensus to redirect these articles if not deleted.
Hectagon as a non-word, and also a link to a redirect. Hecto- is 100 only as an obsolete metric prefix; the Greek for 100 is hekaton.
- A scholar.google.com search for hectagon returns 21 results. All but one of them, however, are in contexts like "any other cross section such as triangular, square, hectagon, or octagon" which make clear that it is an error for hexagon or heptagon (sometimes for octagon.)

I agree with the consensus, btw, that these polygons are of no inherent interest; they are barely distinguishable from circles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two polygons that look like circles but still may clear notability: the 257-gon and 65537-gon, which are contructible. Double sharp (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the last section

The articles on chillagons, myriagons and megagons are all now redirects to the main article, so I've removed them from the template. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 14:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polygons → Template:Regular polygons – This template is about regular polygons, not polygons in general. This has led to confusion, with editors being confused as to why, for example, this template links to square, not quadrilateral, and incorrectly "improving" the template by editing it to make that change. The rename makes the subject of this template unambiguous, and also frees up the name Template:Polygons for a more general template in future. The Anome (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The set of irregular polygons is so large that the perceived need to be explicit is ridiculous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a sensible move which will make the purpose of the template much clearer. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A qualifier to the template name seems harmless and maybe helpful. I just moved it. But all the usages Special:WhatLinksHere/Template_talk:Regular_polygons are still under the old name. There are not many named irregular polygons beyond quads, but perhaps another template can exist for those. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this out-of-process move. There is certainly confusion here, and misunderstandings. I'm researching the history, and will clarify this soon. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template was about polygons in general, before Tom Ruen changed the scope:

19:26, 10 March 2011: Polygon → Regular polygon
05:48, 27 May 2011: Quadrilateral → Square (Regular quadrilateral = square)
05:51, 27 May 2011: Triangle → Equilateral triangle (Regular triangle = equilateral triangle)

Beyond 4-sided polygons, we do not have separate articles for the regular polygon. Regular pentagon redirects to pentagon. Regular hexagon redirects to hexagon. And so on. But pentagons and hexagons, are not, by definition regular. Granted, the content of these articles focuses on the regular polygon special case. But the pentagon article also covers equilateral pentagons and pentagonal tiling. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but note the changes I made to add clarity. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little wary of scope creep. Category:Polygons is a big category and I'm not keen on making this a monster-size template by adding links to everything in the category. Maybe it should be limited to "Polygons by number of sides". Adding the regular polygon links was a concession to the fact that most of these articles are focused on those, with very limited mention of irregular polygons. wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn following edits to template -- the template is now about polygons in general, and no longer just the regular ones, and with this change I think the problem has now gone away. I've changed the template a bit more to acknowledge that the special cases in parentheses are not just the regular polygons: rectangles, for example, are a special case of quadrilaterals, but are not in general regular. -- The Anome (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.