Talk:Lozenge (shape)

Requested move 17 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Lozenge → Lozenge (shape)
• Lozenge (disambiguation) → Lozenge

– There is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term. Outside of those with knowledge of geometry, it seems that the subject most commonly know as a "lozenge" could be Throat lozenge. However, per the page views comparison between the aforementioned two subjects and Lozenge (heraldry), none of these topics can make the claim to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For this reason, I suggest the disambiguation page be moved to the ambiguous term so readers can decide which subject they are attempting to locate when searching for "lozenge". Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• support per nom—blindlynx 14:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• support in addition rhombus is used much more often for this shapeSpitzak (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support (strongly) per nom. No clear primary topic between Lozenge (the article about the shape), Throat_lozenge, and Lozenge_(heraldry). The safest bet is to move the disambiguation page to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I would have thought of a throat lozenge first, by a wide measure. BD2412 T 01:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support the shape doesn't appear to serve as a broad-concept article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I agree that the shape is not at all the intuitive first thought Blumenblatt (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Nominator comment: Since I was curious, I decided to check the incoming links for Lozenge, and it seems some of them are intended to link to Lozenge (heraldry) instead. Steel1943 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ..Uttarakhand Flag(INDIA).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

45° --- or greater!

The lead says

especially one with acute angles of 45°

and the statement is correctly sourced to Wolfram. The talk section #45° or greater above suggests this used to be "45° or greater", and has been changed to agree with the source. The problem is, I am pretty sure "45° or greater" would be more correct, i.e., the source is wrong, or perhaps only correct in certain mathematical contexts. The solution would be to find another source, I suppose ... mine is (e.g.) a google image search for "lozenge shape", which clearly isn't a valid source ... anyone? Nø (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Parquetry

In the intro, the sentence on Parquetry has this qualifier: "…often used in parquetry (with acute angles that are 360°/n with n being an integer higher than 4, because they can be used …)" First of all, any lozenge can be used in parquetry, period. No qualifiers are needed. Second, except for squares, all lozenges will have two acute angles that are 360°/α, where α is any positive real number higher than 4, integer or not, and two more where α is any real number less than 4. (If α is equal to 4, 360°/4 = 90°, so you have a square.) The only restriction this puts on the lozenge is that α must be an integer. But it doesn't need to be an integer to be used in parquetry. This qualifier also has no reference, so I can't figure out what was originally intended. I propose we remove it, unless somebody can explain what this qualifier is actually trying to say. MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, delete. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)