Contents

Talk:Squircle

This article was nominated for merging with Superellipse on 27 February 2012. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

A fact from Squircle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that a squircle (pictured) is a variety of superellipse that has properties between those of a square and a circle? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/November.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Please elaborate more on the squirrels.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that "squircle" is a somewhat satisfying portmanteau but the term is being used here as if it was in widely accepted usage and has a recorded lineage. Nowhere in the article does it mention how the term came into use. Without that, it's as if I just said that a "pentallipsoid" is a shape that has five lobes but is otherwise ellipsoid. Okay, I can conceptualize that, but (a) who first used the term, and where and when, and (b) why not call it an "ellipentagon" or some other portmanteau? It's not enough to say that people are using a term that's not in any dictionary and expect people to accept it as part of the linguistic landscape. Can anyone help with background? Bricology (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematicians etc. use a lot of terms which are not listed in traditional dictionaries, so that can't be the sole criterion for Wikipedia. The historical background is discussed in the Superellipse article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no discussion of the term "squircle" on the Superellipse page. And the references in this article are largely marketing and product design, not mathematics. 82.110.138.242 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the historical background of the interest in superellipse-type curves in design contexts. The squircle was an offshoot of this... AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the discussion, but I'm completely with you, Bricology. I roll my eyes every time I see the word portmanteau. Mvblair (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Lewis Carroll feels deeply personally wounded... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The next time that Lewis Carroll contributes to editing an encyclopedia, I'll be careful how I treat him. Otherwise, citing a composer of fantasy verse could not be less relevant here. Bricology (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's the one who first applied the word "portmanteau" to a method of word composition, so love him or hate him, he's the originator. And his longer fictional works were fantasy prose... AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It probably contributed to usage of the term, in a kind of citogenesis (xkcd 978) about language. Now, besides Wolfram MathWorld, it is used in multiple academic papers, as a quick Google Scholar search shows, and thus it can't be taken off. Even if it is not a term in use in mathematics (due in part to superellipses in general not being a popular topic) it is clearly a term in use in design. This is probably a valid process when it is about language rather than facts, though I am not sure. Either way, I love this article and it provides me with boundless enjoyment. I am not sure how much you guys care about unregistered users, but it is my honest opinion. For my money, it could be a featured article. 179.228.66.29 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM--MaoGo (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is discussing the article itself (which is allowed), not squircles in general (which isn't). If we're quoting policy, see WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Modest Genius ^talk 16:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you enjoyed the article! However the quality is far too low to qualify as a featured article. The term squircle was in use in the academic literature before I created this article in 2006, but it may have become more widespread since then. Modest Genius ^talk 16:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

179.228.66.29 -- if you want a real "Citogenesis" look at Oxford spelling: there's little evidence that that phrase was used in that meaning before it appeared as the title of a Wikipedia article (though that inconvenient fact wasn't really discovered until 2010). However, I don't think that applies to squircle... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Rounded rectangle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 19 § Rounded rectangle until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these synonyms for semimajor and semiminor axis?

Independently, what can and the major radius is the geometric average between square and circle possibly mean? --Tamfang (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't look closely at the article until later, but the natural meaning would be the distance between the center and the closest and most distant points on the curve. "Semimajor and semiminor axis" are terms which have a unique defvinition for an ellipse, but would not for a squircle. AnonMoos (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]