Talk:Squircle

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm sure Lewis Carroll feels deeply personally wounded... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Says who? 

message: The references for this article fail to establish it as a term in real use. References to an MP3 player and Nokia branding are really weak, and reek of fanboy-ism. The scientific literature references are scant. This needs stronger references or it should be considered a candidate for deletion. --Stybn (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that the MP3 player and Nokia references were added to "support" the word, then unfortunately you really don't seem to have the slightest idea what this article is about, and should not be editing it.  The term is reasonably well-known in its particular context (which is more recreational mathematics than general undifferentiated "science"), and deleting it would be rather nonsensical... AnonMoos (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no place for personal attacks, and you have no place telling me which articles I should not edit. Please take WP:NPA under advisement. You also removed a tag from this article. Per WP:TPFP you may only remove a tag if there is no "detailed complaint on the talk page". You are warned on both accounts. Reiterating the original point, if the term "squircle" is in fact well-known in its particular context as you claim, then it should be better-supported by relevant references. Deleting an article is not "nonsensical" if it violates our community's standards. A good reference would be a published encyclopedia of mathematics. --Stybn (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag because you have several basic misunderstandings about this article, and an apparent lack of knowledge about its basic subject matter which would appear to disqualify you from usefully editing it.  And merely saying that you lack competence to edit one particular article is not a "personal attack" -- I'm certainly not competent to edit many articles on Wikipedia (and I try to stay away from them).  However, your action to add annoying templates to my user talk page in violation of WP:DTTR certainly displays a certain chip-on-your shoulder attitude which you would do well to dispense with in future.  And unfortunately, the generic boilerplate wording about "mathematics encyclopedias" again displays your lack of knowledge about the subject -- in the recreational mathematics domain, a mention in Martin Gardner's Scientific American column would in fact be better than any "mathematics encyclopedias".  In short, I completely fail to see how your templating of this article serves any useful purpose or advances any worthwhile goal. AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing here for a few months, whether or not it makes you a "regular", does not exempt you from our community rules. You have violated rules by removing the templates from your user page. You have violated rules by removing tags from this article. You have violated rules by making another yet personal attack ("chip-on-your shoulder attitude") in the above comment. Whether the term "squircle" comes from formal mathematics, recreational mathematics, or anywhere else, it needs authoritative sources to back up its significance. I do not need knowledge about the subject matter to make that statement or take concordant action as an editor. I am giving you (and everyone) the suggestion, and indeed the chance, to properly reference this article. If there is indeed a Martin Gardner citation for this term, then add it. If you don't want to do that, it's your prerogative. --Stybn (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- I've been editing Wikipedia for not too far off from 13 years, as you could have easily discovered with minimal effort.  (You could have discovered that I've been editing for more than six years without hardly any effort at all by just lifting your eyes and looking at my 2010 comment on this page directly above.)  It doesn't mean that I have any special merit, but it does mean that your heavy-handed chip-on-your-shoulder approach of inserting generic warning boxes onto my user talkpage acquires a certain extra level of annoyingness.  You don't have to be an expert on the subject-matter of a Wikipedia article to be able to usefully edit it an unobtrusive manner.  However, if you aggressively and brusquely shoulder yourself forward with respect to a topic you know almost nothing about, so that the conversation naturally becomes as much about your personal characteristics as about the article itself, then you're doing it wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've yet to make a single statement about myself. You steered the conversation to my "personal characteristics", and you can blame nature for that as much as you like. I hope someone adds some good references. --Stybn (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

text: If the two of you want to bicker about who is or isn't competent, please take it to your user talk pages - it doesn't belong here. To address the actual issue with the article: reference 1 to Wolfram MathWorld is certainly a reliable source and clearly indicates that the term is real and in mathematical use. There's nothing promotional about the article. Some sections or individual statements are lacking citations, which should be improved, but that doesn't undermine the general use of the term. I'm going to remove the neologism tag, and switch the generic refimprove for identifying some specific parts that need supporting references. Modest Genius talk 11:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious term 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:NOTAFORUM--MaoGo (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I love this article 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 15:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Rounded rectangle]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]