Talk:Pentagon

message: I don't have time at the moment to do this, but this page could use substantial revision. I may try to get to this.
It's really great that people have put a lot of time into this page and that there are several constructions here-- that's what led me here in the first place. But now that they're here, it'd be nice to systemize the presentation and make it more unified.
after all, all the constructions (compass and straightedge constructions, that is) begin in the same way: construct the midpoint and the perpendicular to the given radius. the alternative method and  that using the Carlyle circles follow each other for even longer. All the constructions could have, for example, the same notation for the same objects and common steps described in common. There's at least three other constructions that should be included in detail -- Euclid's; a variation where (using the notation of the alternative method) one goes through step 4 of the alternative method, then takes a circle centered on D through point O; two of the five vertices lie on the intersection of this circle with the original and point B is another. Finally, a very nice construction that might or might not be due to John H. Conway and seems the simplest of all: using the notation of the alternative method, go through step 3; take point E to be the intersection of segment AB with the circle centered on midpoint C passing through O and B. Now take the circle centered on A passing through E-- presto! The intersection of this circle with the original gives two vertices. 
A construction of penta, given an edge would also be nice to include.
Additional comments: the proof given is kinda beside the point. A purely synthetic proof would be more in the spirit of compass and straightedge, and would be simpler and much less intimidating to some people. All of these constructions set up a golden section and then plop it around; all that's needed is that the golden section appears in the penta as advertised. There are many simple variations -- Euclid's is great. 
The so-called direct method really seems kinda, well, stupid. Certainly not at all of the same spirit as the others.
In any case, nice material, but now that it's here, can be taken to a more professional standard.99.175.93.95 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for improvements 

message: I thought you might find this interesting: http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/polygons.htm Shinobu (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origami pentagon 

message: Can a pentagon also be called a quintgon?24.150.136.68 (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Please stop doing using Wikipedia as a discussion forum for original research. You can read more about original research, and why it is not allowed in Wikipedia, at the page WP:OR. If you'd like to help contribute positively to Wikipedia, there is a good capsule guide to Wikipedia's policies at WP:PILLARS. -- The Anome (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   See WP:NOTNEO. --Thnidu (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quintgon? 

message: I noticed that there could be some confusion between the pentagon (shape) and the intelligence base going by the same name. It's probably too much hassle but thanks for taking the time to read this!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diasambiguation