![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Map projection was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Classification of old maps without projection?
[edit]In Commons we have problem with old maps and their projections. Wise advices will be needed in here: Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/01/Category:Maps with unidentified projection--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Gigantic
[edit]"The projections are described in terms of placing a gigantic surface in contact with the Earth" - violation of NPOV? Who defined the surface as gigantic? Is that encyclopedic? Euro2023 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you believe that the use of English adverbs and adjectives is automatically unencyclopedic, and that encyclopedic language should be limited only to nouns, verbs, and connecting words? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I changed the wording to convey the same meaning. Gigantic is relative, and map projection is not only limited to the Earth. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
light shining through a globe - then the spacing of parallels would follow a very limited set of possibilities
[edit]"If maps were projected as in light shining through a globe onto a developable surface, then the spacing of parallels would follow a very limited set of possibilities." [1] - How that? Why should there be a limitation? Is there projection of a particular point on a surface that cannot be reached by "light shining through a globe"? Euro2023 (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- The set of projections defined by projective geometry is grossly limited compared to the the set that is possible from more general mathematical transformations permitted in the common definition of cylindrical projection. Strebe (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- "in the common definition of cylindrical projection" isn't contained in the claim, or the text next to it, that I copied from the article. And where is the evidence that such a "common definition of cylindrical projection" exists? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22common+definition+of+cylindrical+projection%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 : "There were no results matching the query." Euro2023 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- The common definition, whatever it is or isn’t, does encompass the Mercator projection, as per all the literature in existence. Meanwhile, the Mercator projection cannot be represented just by “light shining through a globe onto a developable surface”. Therefore, given that we have an example (and scores more) of cylindrical projections that cannot be represented by “light shining through a globe onto a developable surface”, the statement is fine. Strebe (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject
[edit]I have created a proposal page for Map projections. Please feel free to add your name to the support section, discuss, disseminate, and otherwise edit. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC) @Justinkunimune:@GeogSage:@Elphion:@Fgnievinski:@Alvesgaspar:@Paul Koning:@Peter Mercator:@EdwardLane:@Jacobolus:@Apocheir:
See also , ,
[edit]See also, geoinformatics has 2 commas in a row separated by a space. I can't figure out if there's something missing or how to remove one of them. 82.135.221.10 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks! The extra commas were part of the geoinformatics article's short description. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)