Talk:Straightedge-only construction

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Mathematics Low‑priority 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Proposed merge of Poncelet–Steiner theorem with Straightedge-only construction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No merge.

---

Similar and/or overlapping concepts Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge — I understand how the two topics might be similar to each other, since at first glance "Straightedge-only construction" just looks like a superset of "Poncelet–Steiner theorem". But I think their content is different enough to justify having separate articles.

Poncelet–Steiner theorem only covers a specific theorem of straightedge-only constructions that involve a circle on the plane. The article contains the history of the theorem and a list of variants, which seems too specific to include in this article. The majority of the article also contains the entire proof of the theorem which wouldn't fit in this article if merged.

Straightedge-only construction focuses more on what's possible using the straightedge alone, which is more closely related to projective geometry. This article contains constructions like "pole and polar" and "tangents to a conic" which don't really fit the scope of the other article. —lightbulbMEOW!!! (meow) 11:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge: the Pocelet–Steiner theorem includes a circle and its center, while straightedge-only has only a straightedge. Seems perfectly acceptable to have separate articles. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is only recommended by people who lack any and all appreciation for the nuances of the topic, and truly are not interested in understanding it or learning much about it. They are the sorts of people who treat this site more as a blog than as an encyclopedia, wanting only the most superficial of discussions. To the person who suggested merging; why dont you defend that position, rather than having everyone who has built this article to defend separation. Nothing I hate more than the people who swoop in last minute to destroy whats been built by others. How can anyone read this article and think it isn't unique enough or verbose enough to warrant having its own article? Practically speaking, how would you even integrate it into the suggested article without losing valuable and distinct content? I've already watched as malicious actors have stripped this article dry, presumably to justify its merger later. Its totally bad faith. With respect to topics overlapping.... welcome to the world of mathematics. No, actually, welcome to existence. This is the nature of reality. "They overlap therefore they are the same topic" is quite possibly the most simplistic and unintelligent view one can have on any two articles. Its a testament to ones ignorance and intellectual immaturity, and nothing more. Sorry this doesnt fit into a soundbite or a 140 character twitter post, but some things require a deeper dive. 134.204.1.226 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors must not make personal attacks on each other, and should comment on the merits of the question. I have discounted this comment. -- Beland (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.