Talk:Lozenge (shape)

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lazy copy and paste 'researchers'[edit]

This article is the source of lazy copy and paste 'scholars' who have blindly regurgitated the erroneous year of 1659 as the year of Browne's discourse, 'The Garden of Cyrus'. Year now corrected to the actual year of publication. Great evidence of the influence of Wikipedia and how people believe anything posted on Wikipedia. A quick perusal and checking of articles on Browne or 'Garden of Cyrus' immediately shows year as 1658. Any source stating 1659 in all probability originates from this erroneous entry.

Off by less than 0.3% ... That's not really that bad, is it? I think it's possible that a later edition was cited, not the first edition, right? --145.40.208.28 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shape?[edit]

If this page is about a shape, then would not a picture help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.221.97 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marnanel, could you rephrase, or rather expand, the paragraph on heraldry? As it is now it's really difficult to understand, and you seem to know something about the subject. All the best, |l'KF'l| 00:28, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Done-- could you let me know whether it's clear? Thanks. Marnanel 18:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great. That's much better now. Personally, I would have a couple of further questions concerning married and divorced women, but this is nothing to do with lozenges any longer. Thanks a lot, and best wishes, |l'KF'l| 19:39, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Cough drop[edit]

As the cough drop meaning is the more commonly used, shouldn't it be of more prominence? I want to hear you thoughts before changing things.

"This article should be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page."[edit]

Says who? As a contributor at least partially experienced in the inherent follies of Wikipedia, let me have a guess at what will happen if we do split up this article. Two things:

(1) The common root of the various meanings of the word will get lost. If you look at a disambiguation page, you have no idea why all those things have the same name, whether this is coincidental or—as in this case—not.

(2) The individual articles will be so short that in no time some eager contributor will do one (or even more) of three things: (a) add the stub sign; (b) want to move the entry to Wiktionary; or (c) put the article on the "Votes for deletion" list.

Splitting the article up is not worth the trouble. We are proudly working against each other here. <KF> 15:05, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Although, looking on here for the typographical mark, it got very confusing when several articles seemed to be merged into one. 90.198.184.215 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular, irregular[edit]

Citation: This resulted in the development of the so-called lozenge pattern, made up of irregular painted polygons.

The pattern in the image given looks rather symmetrically, instead of irregular. --Abdull 14:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

45° or greater[edit]

This doesn't match the MathWorld definition. Better would be "a rhombus with acute angles, especially 45°." -- Frank Adams-Watters

Typography?[edit]

I got to the article from a list of rarely used typographical symbols, like the Interrobang. What would the ◊ symbol be used for? --Awiseman 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have the same question. Does anyone know the use of the lozenge? Valley2city 07:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --AW 20:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer? It's been almost 7 months since Awiseman asked the question without receiving a response. I think it's time it got removed from the typographical template as its use in typography is not mentioned once. --Valley2city^Shalom‽ 08:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CP437[edit]

AFAIK there is no Lozenge in code page 437. At positon 4 there is the "Black Diamond Suit" U+2666 (♦) which is not outlined but filled. --Majoran 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

etymology?[edit]

French fr:losange (sounds the same) i would say. Paris By Night 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage?[edit]

How is this Lozenge used? 216.161.218.170 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main usage of this symbol is in printed accounting (not typography, as someone above said). I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet. I'll add something to the article. InscrutableTed (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I find some references... InscrutableTed (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lozenge as camouflage form of the WW1 airplanes...[edit]

Article shows nothing about this fact... wp --195.112.238.223 (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huge danish lozenge from 960[edit]

Around the vikingmonuments of Jelling in central Jutland was a palisade of lozenge form. It can be seen here:http://www.fysikhistorie.dk/merer/jelling.html. The size is 360 meters sidelength and the proportions between the diagonals and the side is 6 to 8 to 5. It would be nice if someone could transfer the image to the article. Mio Nielsen--86.201.67.37 (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe usage[edit]

Is the lozenge not used also in shoe manufacture? I'm pretty sure I've seen the symbol on shoe tags, distinguishing the materials used; lozenge is for synthetic material (I think), as opposed to other symbols for textile, leather etc. Anyone more knowledgeable please add it to the article. --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Is there a way to collapse the punctuation template? Thanks. USchick (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rautenflagge[edit]

An entire article on the mathematical lozenge and no mention of the Bavarian Rautenflagge? Kaum zu glauben... It even lends itself to an item for the imagery section.Protozoon (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2022[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support per nom. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom—blindlynx 14:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support in addition rhombus is used much more often for this shapeSpitzak (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. I would have thought of a throat lozenge first, by a wide measure. BD2412 T 01:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the shape doesn't appear to serve as a broad-concept article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that the shape is not at all the intuitive first thought Blumenblatt (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:06, 23 April 2022 (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.

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

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)[reply]

45° --- or greater![edit]

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)[reply]