Talk:Polygon

"900-gon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 900-gon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#900-gon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"120-gram" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 120-gram and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#120-gram until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Can We Add Names for Fake Fractional Polygons?

What's a ${\frac {1}{2}}$-gon's name? Or a $7{\frac {13}{19}}$-gon too? We need the fractional names! Mariomaker-4 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for publishing or asking about neologisms and original research. And this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article based on published references. You need to look elsewhere for your speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe somewhere else? I didn't mean just on Wikipedia. Mariomaker-4 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

To repeat: this talk page is not the place for anything other than possible improvements to the polygon article. Other discussion does not belong here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A 713⁄19-gon, Schläfli symbol $\{{\frac {146}{19}}\}$, is one of many 146-grams (the denominator can be any odd number 1<n<73). So what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And your { 1⁄2 } is a double cover of a henagon. —Tamfang (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank You! Also, can you make the page for a 146-gon? I don't want it to be a redirect. It's true name, I think, is a Hecatontetracontakaihexagon. I'll get work on the Regular Polygon db of it. It sadly won't be completely finished, but it's okay, right? Mariomaker-4 (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

NO. There is nothing to say about this polygon, specifically, that is not true of polygons in general. It is not notable, in the sense that Wikipedia demands for articles: there are not multiple publications that cover it in-depth, independent of other polygons. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What if I make a... never mind. I can't even make websites! I'll ask someone else to make the page! Yeah, that's a good idea! Also, for now, it can be a redirect. Okay? I'm very sorry.  :) Mariomaker-4 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't see my talk edit yet?I would like you to check before long. 219.104.224.225 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)