This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The problem with most of these geometry articles is that they do not include any real-world applications. This would be much more helpful for the general reader. TheEvilPanda ( talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This sentence seems to be placed too early in the article:
Neither the symbol nor the notion of transverse colatitude appear before this sentence. How the transverse colatitude, , may be thought of as a "point" is not explained. The location of the pole for the "the great circle it is being measured on" is not clear.
The technique for finding the central angle by Cartesian subtraction seems to be placed too far into the article. This concept may be more familiar to the general reader.
Is not the symbol for the central angle simply ? As I read the article, it sounds like the symbol for transverse colatitude is and one way to calculate the central angle is by subtracting transverse colatitudes: . - Ac44ck ( talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I've greatly shortened this page by removing the material related to solving for great circles. This duplicates the coverage of the Great-circle distance page and doesn't belong in an article about elementary geometry. (The coverage is now approximately the same as the central angle pages in other languages.) cffk ( talk) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
To 91.216.197.186: I removed the irrelevant material again. The subject matter doesn't match this article! If there's something of value here, consider adding it to the great circle distance or navigation pages. However I should warn you that the equations that you added back are far from being in a useable form (missing definitions and explanations, non-standard notation, multiletter symbols, etc.). This would need a lot of cleaning up before adding it to another article. cffk ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
To 162.213.209.231: I removed the irrelevant material yet again (see above). The material that I've deleted is truly awful. It uses non-standard terminology (conjugate latitude, conjugate longitude, TvL), non-standard notation (sgn with an arrow on top, hats on various quantities), and overly complicated formulas. There's no explanation of that this stuff is doing on this page. I've updated the Great-circle navigation page so that the same results are given there in a clearer manner (and this is a appropriate page for this material). cffk ( talk) 15:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I stayed true to the content I found. I added formulas, images, references and links. Lfahlberg ( talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The notation
for describing the central angle seems to be quite common so it seems to be worth a mention. They are used in these documents, but I couldn’t find a source that actually describes the notation:
I could even find a rudimentary description of the notation itself here, but doubt about this source being a good source: "Central Angles and Arcs". CliffsNotes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-14. -- Yuwash ( talk) 01:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason why capital is used throughout the article instead of the more usual which readers will be used to seeing? Does anyone object to me changing all the instances of it to lowercase? I find it distracting when reading, and suspect others will too.
The in the diagram could be interpreted as either, but looks to me more like oversized lowercase than uppercase, so I don't think the change will introduce any conflict with that. Musiconeologist ( talk) 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The problem with most of these geometry articles is that they do not include any real-world applications. This would be much more helpful for the general reader. TheEvilPanda ( talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This sentence seems to be placed too early in the article:
Neither the symbol nor the notion of transverse colatitude appear before this sentence. How the transverse colatitude, , may be thought of as a "point" is not explained. The location of the pole for the "the great circle it is being measured on" is not clear.
The technique for finding the central angle by Cartesian subtraction seems to be placed too far into the article. This concept may be more familiar to the general reader.
Is not the symbol for the central angle simply ? As I read the article, it sounds like the symbol for transverse colatitude is and one way to calculate the central angle is by subtracting transverse colatitudes: . - Ac44ck ( talk) 05:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I've greatly shortened this page by removing the material related to solving for great circles. This duplicates the coverage of the Great-circle distance page and doesn't belong in an article about elementary geometry. (The coverage is now approximately the same as the central angle pages in other languages.) cffk ( talk) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
To 91.216.197.186: I removed the irrelevant material again. The subject matter doesn't match this article! If there's something of value here, consider adding it to the great circle distance or navigation pages. However I should warn you that the equations that you added back are far from being in a useable form (missing definitions and explanations, non-standard notation, multiletter symbols, etc.). This would need a lot of cleaning up before adding it to another article. cffk ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
To 162.213.209.231: I removed the irrelevant material yet again (see above). The material that I've deleted is truly awful. It uses non-standard terminology (conjugate latitude, conjugate longitude, TvL), non-standard notation (sgn with an arrow on top, hats on various quantities), and overly complicated formulas. There's no explanation of that this stuff is doing on this page. I've updated the Great-circle navigation page so that the same results are given there in a clearer manner (and this is a appropriate page for this material). cffk ( talk) 15:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I stayed true to the content I found. I added formulas, images, references and links. Lfahlberg ( talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The notation
for describing the central angle seems to be quite common so it seems to be worth a mention. They are used in these documents, but I couldn’t find a source that actually describes the notation:
I could even find a rudimentary description of the notation itself here, but doubt about this source being a good source: "Central Angles and Arcs". CliffsNotes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-14. -- Yuwash ( talk) 01:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason why capital is used throughout the article instead of the more usual which readers will be used to seeing? Does anyone object to me changing all the instances of it to lowercase? I find it distracting when reading, and suspect others will too.
The in the diagram could be interpreted as either, but looks to me more like oversized lowercase than uppercase, so I don't think the change will introduce any conflict with that. Musiconeologist ( talk) 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)