A fact from Vegreville egg appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
I don't care what Resch claims - it's pretty obvious from the pictures that the triangles are not all simultaneously equilateral and flat. In fact, they don't appear to be congruent, or all the same single shape. And besides anything else, mathematically speaking sticking six equilateral flat triangles together results in an angle of 360 degrees, making the surface flat at that point - no way you could make the curved midriff of the egg that way. But of course I'm not going to just change the page because I don't have a verifiable source - just common sense. Too bad I haven't self-published comments about the egg like Resch has. 121.45.215.122 (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Dave[reply]
But it doesn't say that the triangles are flat. If you look at one of the sources it seems to indicate that some of the pieces were bent. I'm curious as to why you think the designer of the egg would lie about how he developed it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather,waits for audience applause,not a sausage 05:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
