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:Maths ratingmathematics articles
Shouldn't the shapes be nested differently? For example, shouldn't square be under Polygon > Regular polygon > Square? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And why is swastika there? It's not icosagon, neither a polygon. Actually it isn't even a geometrical shape i think 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave Cuisenaire rods in related articles. But don't put them back in Architecture! --stochata 12:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC).
Is there any way this page can be presented so that an image of the shape appears alongside its name? It would be a drastic improvement! Colin Newman 200605190920 (GMT)
Amen Colin! I came here to say the same thing: Would be nice to have an image of each shape alongside the name! For us non-techies it would not require google-image every name before finding the right one!
BW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This definitely needs images, is there a way to flag an article that needs pictures ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chance1234 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Clicketyclack|Clicketyclack]] 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Reuleaux polygon redirects to Reuleaux triangle, which is sublisted under rotor. Should the triangle be listed under the polygon and/or the wikilink to polygon be removed? Is the list structure correct in that a rotor is distinct from a Reuleaux polygon? Hoof Hearted 14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
would be nice to see the # sides in parentheses after shape name when applicable.
I also agree seeing the shapes would be an improvement, and with the comment about nesting (ellipse-circle etc)--Billymac00 (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus the consensus is against merging List of surfaces, with only a week consensus for the other two, but it such a stale discussion that no consensus seems the better option for now. --Salix (talk): 16:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
One argument is that the topics are not clearly distinguished and have considerable overlap. The notion that a sphere does not belong among the geometric shapes but only counts as a "mathematical shape" – whatever that means – because it is not two-dimensional is rather strange. A second argument is that the three articles are all in bad shape, and hopefully it is more doable to maintain one article in a reasonable shape. The topic is not of particular importance to mathematicians, but it has some appeal to the general public with an interest in mathematics, and there is no excuse for presenting them with low-quality mathematical articles.
I oppose the merger of List of surfaces to List of geometric shapes. For one thing, the list of surfaces is organized in a way that I do not foresee being workable in a list of more generic geometric shapes. The list of surfaces can clearly be expanded, and unlike a "List of geometric shapes", the topic is clearly defined (much like List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes, and the like). I also weakly oppose the merger of the other two lists. It seems like "List of geometrical shapes" is about planar shapes, whereas I'm not really sure what "List of mathematical shapes" is about (nor indeed whether it should exist at all). I think the best thing to do is to figure out what this last list is about, and then rename it (or delete it). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
For shapes that have topological dimensions, we can arrange them by dimension. As surfaces are by definition two-dimensional manifolds, they would all be grouped together. Note that most surfaces of interest to mathematicians that they might be inclined to look up in a list are algebraic surfaces, which have their own list (List of algebraic surfaces), which would not be merged to here. Would you agree that surfaces are also geometric shapes? If you agree, is it better to duplicate the contents of the list of surfaces here, or should we rename the article to something like "list of geometric shapes that are not surfaces"? --Lambiam 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I know what the term "geometric shape" means. Is there a definition of "geometric shape" that would include surfaces but exclude polygons, polyhedra, and polytopes (for which there is already a separate list not included in this proposal)? As for the other point, the differential-geometric study of surfaces is somewhat separate from the algebraic study of surfaces – the former just being "surfaces" and the latter "algebraic surfaces" in common parlance. I do see some utility in having separate lists organized according to the different criteria of the separate fields (algebraic geometers don't usually study things like minimal surfaces as such). Finally, I think we should embrace the more restrictive notion of "geometric shape" to be "plane figures", as would be familiar to an pre-calculus audience. A different title might be appropriate however. To me the only problematic list seems to be the List of mathematical shapes, as this seems to have no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a considerable confusion in definition of various objects, as in distinction between these 3 lists; in mathematical topics we may use more precise definitions. Actually, the list named now "list of geometric shapes" is dedicated to the realplane geometry (planimetry), but stereometry, complex geometry etc. are geometries too. Certainly, it must be renamed. But to what extent of planimetry should we restrict it? May such "planes" as real projective plane, Lobachevski plane and spherical geometry be considered too? They also have lines, segments and circles. Similarly, the term "surface" have several interpretations. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The consolidated article (as I envisage it) is written for the interested mathematical amateur, and would be confined to what they are likely to be interested in when looking for "geometric shapes". So the list should definitely not attempt to exhaust the topic, and thereby the reader. There is no a priori reason to confine this to Euclidean geometry. Since Klein bottles are regularly mentioned in popular mathematics articles, for example, they should have an entry. I'm not aware of any commonly known shapes defined in hyperbolic geometry though (I don't think hyperbolic triangles are being thought of as "shapes", and we should not include them just for the sake of completeness), but if there are, then they might merit an entry. --Lambiam 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Shape has long bothered me, the article concentrates on the way of describing the shape of an object, rather than the more common use as a geometric object. Its a highly linked article but I think most people are looking for second usage rather than the first. There might be a case for renaming List of geometric shapes to geometric shape and making it more like an article.
C'mon, no images? They would make this article many times more useful. I suggest a table format in addition to the existing list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epheterson (talk • contribs) 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This article seriously needs IMAGES! If you know what a geometric shape looks like and you want to find the name of it, it's very annoying to have to click every name to find it. There should be images for every shape in this article. Do a good deed and add them.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)