This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I will be replacing images on the various map projection pages. Presently many are on a satellite composite image from NASA that, while realistic, poorly demonstrates the projections because of dark color and low contrast. I have created a stylization of the same data with much brighter water areas and a light graticule to contrast. See the thumbnail of the example from another article. Some images on some pages are acceptable but differ stylistically from most articles; I will replace these also.
The images will be high resolution and antialiased, with 15° graticules for world projections, red, translucent equator, red tropics, and blue polar circles.
Please discuss agreement or objections
over here (not this page). I intend to start these replacements on 13 August. Thank you.
Strebe (
talk)
22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cylindrical equal-area projection SW.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 27, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I tried to post an additional article-section to Cylindrical Equal-Area, but an automated filter prevented the edit, on the grounds that it was deemed uncomstructive or disruptive. In what way did the automated filter determine that my edit was unproductive or disruptive? In what way was it unconstructive or disruptive? ...so much so as to be prevented without discussion or explanation?
Additionally, my explanation and justification of the edit, at this talk-page was removed.
Writing in Wordpad, I'd used periods (".") as spaceholders for empty-lines between paragraphs, but the edit posted as all one paragraph. So I added html paragraph-tags. That worked in the Preview, but then the automated filter prevented the edit,due to unconstructiveness or disruptiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.140.85 ( talk) 19:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Since 2010-07-15 [1] there was the claim "There are always two standard parallels on the cylindric equal-area projection, each at the same distance north and south of the equator." This is false, so I removed it 2023-01-07 12:11 [2]. 19:08 User:Strebe reverts "It’s true. Undid revision 1132135156 by Euro2023" but alters the actual text to "Except in the case of the equator, for which there is only one standard parallel, the cylindric equal-area projection has two standard parallels, each at the same distance north and south of the equator."
I don't know whether this is true. User:Strebe, what is/are the standard parallel(s) for the projection, as shown in the third image of the article: File:Cylindrical_Equal-Area_Projection_Oblique_Case_Map_of_the_World.png ? Euro2023 ( talk) 13:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Strebe, I converted the article to be only about Normal cylindrical equal-area projection, move diff. I also adjusted the sizes of the images, so that they are nearly area-equal. Regarding the topic of this section, for S>1 I think the cylinder doesn't touch and no standard latitude exists. So it is: two, one, none. Euro2023 ( talk) 18:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cylindrical_equal-area_projection&oldid=1132363610#Description - is this true? Or is it only true for normal cylindrical equal-area projections? Euro2023 ( talk) 14:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I made the files nearly area-equal, using 100px height for Lambert as a basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Normal_cylindrical_equal-area_projection&diff=1132568326&oldid=1132563217 Formula : width = ((((pi*100)^2)/(pi/S))^0.5) where S is the stretch factor.
The Blue Marble images have borders, so they are not well suited for this table. Euro2023 ( talk) 14:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I took a bunch of "normal"s out of these cylindrical map projection articles. We can talk about the aspect somewhere, but putting "normal" in front every time anyone says "cylindrical" seems like overkill and does not match prevailing practice in any reliable source I have seen. – jacobolus (t) 22:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, it seems fine to discuss equatorial / transverse / oblique aspects of these projections in the same article(s). We don't need a proliferation of minor variants of each projection, unless there is some particularity that makes the specific choice of aspect worthy of its own article, with enough material to make it more than a stub. The goal here is to serve readers, not build a taxonomy. – jacobolus (t) 22:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Strebe: – maybe you want to weigh in here? As an aside, should we try to start a map projections WikiProject to centralize discussion about changes affecting many pages? (There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps but it is mostly about creating maps for geographical articles, not about map projections per se.) – jacobolus (t) 22:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
As said here: "this article is 99.9% about normal cylindrical projection, the mentioned oblique case is removed, so it is now 100% about normal cylindrical equal-area projection. Article content, section names etc. can be much simpler now." . All the named so called "specializations" are about the normal case. The normal cases are the most relevant. The other cases could be treated somewhere else, e.g. at Map_projection#Normal cylindrical projection. But probably it would make sense to have one page for all cylindrical projections. What is also questionable, is that there are pages for the specializations - what for? Mini pages. Their content could be merged here to the so called "family" of normal cylindrical equal-area projections. Euro2023 ( talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
"every wiki-link is going to unnecessarily be a redirect"- not true, not "every wiki-link is going to be a redirect" and if any *link* is going to be a redirect, then either it is not "unnecessarily" or if it is, it can be changed - has nothing to do with the restriction of the topic for this article.
"I think it is a bad idea to eliminate discussion of oblique and transverse aspects from this article"- while I gave reasons for doing it, you just claim "bad". Please make positive statements instead of normative ones.
"cylindrical projection" means an equatorial aspect, and that is assumed when someone writes or reads that term- by you and maybe others - sometimes. But it wasn't by me. And sometimes - when you vote for not restricting the content to normal, you show that leaving normal out in the title exactly allows for other meanings.
"Adding additional qualifiers is not helpful to readers, but just distracting/confusing- can you proof that? Am I not a reader? How can a less vague title be confusing?
a word as vague/over-subscribed as "normal"- it should be explained, and there is text trying to do that in the article - before I arrived: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Normal_cylindrical_equal-area_projection&oldid=1081135026#Cylindrical_projections
Having a large number of stub articles about obscure variants of map projections does not serve readers, adds maintenance burden for editors- so you support my hesitant but existing proposal to merge each article about a named normal cylindrical equal-area projections here?
leaving normal out in the title exactly allows for other meanings.– which is just fine. As I said, other aspects should also be discussed on the same page. Wikipedia page titles are not a precise scientific taxonomy. The goal is to put pages at the most common names (see WP:COMMONNAME) and then explain the context and details in the article text. – jacobolus (t) 00:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
merge each article about a named normal cylindrical equal-area projections here?– merging e.g. Behrmann projection, Hobo–Dyer projection, and Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection into here sounds fine to me. Gall–Peters projection has enough noteworthy non-technical content to merit its own article (see Wikipedia:Summary style). But before doing that change, you should make a proposal in a new talk page section, link from the relevant other article talk pages, and wait a while (say at least a week, or maybe longer since these are relatively low-traffic articles) before going ahead with the merge. There's no hurry. – jacobolus (t) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
How can a less vague title be confusing?– When you include unexpected qualifiers and change a standard term to a non-standard one, it jerks readers out of their reading flow and causes them to wonder at the cause of the discrepancy. Then they need to devote conscious attention to considering what "normal" means in this context, perhaps going on a research digression to look up the word.
I found the three: normal, transverse, oblique. The article had nothing about transverse, and oblique only for one graphic having the description "Cylindrical equal-area projection with oblique orientation" - no link, no explanation. All the rest of the article was about the normal "orientation"/"aspect" cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Normal_cylindrical_equal-area_projection&oldid=1081135026 . The formulae are only for the normal case, the table, the talk about specializations. For Mercator there are at least two articles:
not one for all three forms. There is also a graphic [3] having the text "Comparison of tangent and secant forms of normal, oblique and transverse Mercator projections" - the three again: "normal, oblique and transverse". The formulae for the oblique cylindrical equal-area projection are probably longer (= more "complicated"). It's fine to have them, I don't know if they are already in Wikipedia. The formulae for the transverse cylindrical equal-area projection are maybe not longer than for the normal case, but for these one too, I don't know if they are already in Wikipedia. But for the normal case formulae exist, images exist, individual mini articles exist. One could merge them and by doing so avoid a lot of duplication, since the differences are minimal. Why would one argue against splitting with respect to "oblique" (one graphic with text) and "transverse" (zero content) projections, but at the same time not care for merging the existing mini articles containing content for the "normal" projection? Euro2023 ( talk) 02:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
at the same time not care for merging the existing mini articles– Did you make a clear proposal about this somewhere? Did anyone oppose it? If not, go ahead and add a new talk page section with a merge proposal, mention it on the talk pages of all of the relevant articles, and open a conversation about it. I suspect other editors would support such a merge, but if not they could explain their reasoning for keeping those articles separate and we could discuss and come to some consensus. My personal opinion is that there are a substantial number of stub map projection articles which would be more useful to readers if carefully combined so they could be put into context. – jacobolus (t) 02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it’s unnecessary to rename this page to "Normal cylindrical equal-area projection" and include the word "normal" every time "cylindrical equal-area projection" is mentioned. That’s not what authors in the literature call it, and writing "normal" repeatedly clutters up the text and makes it harder to read. Yes, it’s technically incorrect, but I think most English sentences are technically incorrect; what matters is whether the way readers interpret the sentence is correct, and I expect readers to understand that "cylindrical projection" usually refers to a cylindrical projection in the equatorial aspect. If it’s confusing the way it was, then we can add a note to the lede saying that, unless otherwise specified, this article is about projections in the normal aspect. If we don’t put the transverse/oblique info on this page, then we can link to it wherever it is with a summary-style section so that the title of the article accurately reflects its scope. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 13:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Euro2023: you need to stop edit warring. It is extremely counterproductive. I don't want to get administrators involved here, but you are now well outside Wikipedia guidelines and will be temporarily banned from editing if you persist. – jacobolus (t) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I find these recent edits by Euro2023 to be extremely disruptive and I disagree with their motivation, as per the discussion we were conducting until Euro2023 unilaterally decided everything had to be their way. I agree with jacobolus in all the reasons the articles should not be split up into practically useless stubs.
The problems Euro2023 seems to be trying to solve could be dealt with simply by remarking at the beginning of the article that the article text applies to the conventional presentation for the projection, which in this case is straight, horizontal equator with north up and west-to-east-equals-left-to-right. Strebe ( talk) 01:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with their motivation, as per the discussion we were conducting until Euro2023 unilaterally decided everything had to be their waydare to explain what motivation and what you mean by "everything had to be their way"? Where was that so? What discussion?
I agree with jacobolus in all the reasons the articles should not be split up into practically useless stubs- are you joining jacobolus in spreading false attack information? I didn't suggest "the articles" to "be split up into practically useless stubs". On the contrary, I suggested to merge small articles about the "spezializations" here.
By contrast, you just signed up last week and are already picking a big fight.- I was attacked, first by Strebe, then by you. And you claim I am "already picking a big fight"? Because I am new, you are allowed to treat me like shit, not answer questions related to claims made (Strebe), ...
What I am worried about (and I suspect Strebe has the same concern) is that you will try to take every separate aspect of every map projection on Wikipedia and try to split them into separate articles...did I create any new article about a projection? I think I didn't. But have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gall_isographic_projection&diff=909848433&oldid=889763216 - Strebe 2019 and ongoing didn't care about merging that mini "article"
then if you would please explain clearly what you do wantas can be seen from my edits I want to make this article error-free, remove any duplication contained in it, remove broken links, remove content not fitting with the main part of the article. I would like to add better images and made three requests in Commons regarding that, two users responded, Strebe not. Outside the article, I would like to see better explanations of the classifications of map projections. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Map_projection&oldid=1132670105#Classification - starting: "A fundamental projection classification is based on the type of projection surface onto which the globe is conceptually projected." doesn't explain "fundamental" nor why this one is listed first. And a little later "Many mathematical projections, however, do not neatly fit into any of these three conceptual projection methods." So, the fundamental is only fundamental for some projections that fit neatly? "conceptual" - did the authors of this section have a "concept" when putting words into it?
The page is fully protected in the last stable version. It is also move protected. If you can't solve the problems using the above section the go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Separate from the discussion about aspect, @ Euro2023 mentioned above wanting to merge some of the stub pages for cylindrical equal-area projections into this page. That seems like a good idea to me, as they generally don’t involve enough specific detail to stand alone, and in my opinion would be clearer in the context of a general article. I would propose making a section of this article for specific parameter choices, and then making subsections for each one that seems interesting / noteworthy enough. We can merge and redirect Lambert cylindrical equal-area, Behrmann projection, and Hobo–Dyer projection, and then also add subsections about the Tobler world-in-a-square projection, and possibly also the Smyth, Edwards, and Balthasart projections if sources can be found discussing their importance. The Gall–Peters projection should also have a section here, but involves significant non-technical commentary that in my opinion is best served by keeping it as a separate article (cf. Wikipedia:Summary style), as the whole social/political debate seems out of scope for this article. – jacobolus (t) 20:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I will be replacing images on the various map projection pages. Presently many are on a satellite composite image from NASA that, while realistic, poorly demonstrates the projections because of dark color and low contrast. I have created a stylization of the same data with much brighter water areas and a light graticule to contrast. See the thumbnail of the example from another article. Some images on some pages are acceptable but differ stylistically from most articles; I will replace these also.
The images will be high resolution and antialiased, with 15° graticules for world projections, red, translucent equator, red tropics, and blue polar circles.
Please discuss agreement or objections
over here (not this page). I intend to start these replacements on 13 August. Thank you.
Strebe (
talk)
22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cylindrical equal-area projection SW.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 27, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I tried to post an additional article-section to Cylindrical Equal-Area, but an automated filter prevented the edit, on the grounds that it was deemed uncomstructive or disruptive. In what way did the automated filter determine that my edit was unproductive or disruptive? In what way was it unconstructive or disruptive? ...so much so as to be prevented without discussion or explanation?
Additionally, my explanation and justification of the edit, at this talk-page was removed.
Writing in Wordpad, I'd used periods (".") as spaceholders for empty-lines between paragraphs, but the edit posted as all one paragraph. So I added html paragraph-tags. That worked in the Preview, but then the automated filter prevented the edit,due to unconstructiveness or disruptiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.140.85 ( talk) 19:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Since 2010-07-15 [1] there was the claim "There are always two standard parallels on the cylindric equal-area projection, each at the same distance north and south of the equator." This is false, so I removed it 2023-01-07 12:11 [2]. 19:08 User:Strebe reverts "It’s true. Undid revision 1132135156 by Euro2023" but alters the actual text to "Except in the case of the equator, for which there is only one standard parallel, the cylindric equal-area projection has two standard parallels, each at the same distance north and south of the equator."
I don't know whether this is true. User:Strebe, what is/are the standard parallel(s) for the projection, as shown in the third image of the article: File:Cylindrical_Equal-Area_Projection_Oblique_Case_Map_of_the_World.png ? Euro2023 ( talk) 13:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Strebe, I converted the article to be only about Normal cylindrical equal-area projection, move diff. I also adjusted the sizes of the images, so that they are nearly area-equal. Regarding the topic of this section, for S>1 I think the cylinder doesn't touch and no standard latitude exists. So it is: two, one, none. Euro2023 ( talk) 18:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cylindrical_equal-area_projection&oldid=1132363610#Description - is this true? Or is it only true for normal cylindrical equal-area projections? Euro2023 ( talk) 14:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I made the files nearly area-equal, using 100px height for Lambert as a basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Normal_cylindrical_equal-area_projection&diff=1132568326&oldid=1132563217 Formula : width = ((((pi*100)^2)/(pi/S))^0.5) where S is the stretch factor.
The Blue Marble images have borders, so they are not well suited for this table. Euro2023 ( talk) 14:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I took a bunch of "normal"s out of these cylindrical map projection articles. We can talk about the aspect somewhere, but putting "normal" in front every time anyone says "cylindrical" seems like overkill and does not match prevailing practice in any reliable source I have seen. – jacobolus (t) 22:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, it seems fine to discuss equatorial / transverse / oblique aspects of these projections in the same article(s). We don't need a proliferation of minor variants of each projection, unless there is some particularity that makes the specific choice of aspect worthy of its own article, with enough material to make it more than a stub. The goal here is to serve readers, not build a taxonomy. – jacobolus (t) 22:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Strebe: – maybe you want to weigh in here? As an aside, should we try to start a map projections WikiProject to centralize discussion about changes affecting many pages? (There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps but it is mostly about creating maps for geographical articles, not about map projections per se.) – jacobolus (t) 22:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
As said here: "this article is 99.9% about normal cylindrical projection, the mentioned oblique case is removed, so it is now 100% about normal cylindrical equal-area projection. Article content, section names etc. can be much simpler now." . All the named so called "specializations" are about the normal case. The normal cases are the most relevant. The other cases could be treated somewhere else, e.g. at Map_projection#Normal cylindrical projection. But probably it would make sense to have one page for all cylindrical projections. What is also questionable, is that there are pages for the specializations - what for? Mini pages. Their content could be merged here to the so called "family" of normal cylindrical equal-area projections. Euro2023 ( talk) 23:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
"every wiki-link is going to unnecessarily be a redirect"- not true, not "every wiki-link is going to be a redirect" and if any *link* is going to be a redirect, then either it is not "unnecessarily" or if it is, it can be changed - has nothing to do with the restriction of the topic for this article.
"I think it is a bad idea to eliminate discussion of oblique and transverse aspects from this article"- while I gave reasons for doing it, you just claim "bad". Please make positive statements instead of normative ones.
"cylindrical projection" means an equatorial aspect, and that is assumed when someone writes or reads that term- by you and maybe others - sometimes. But it wasn't by me. And sometimes - when you vote for not restricting the content to normal, you show that leaving normal out in the title exactly allows for other meanings.
"Adding additional qualifiers is not helpful to readers, but just distracting/confusing- can you proof that? Am I not a reader? How can a less vague title be confusing?
a word as vague/over-subscribed as "normal"- it should be explained, and there is text trying to do that in the article - before I arrived: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Normal_cylindrical_equal-area_projection&oldid=1081135026#Cylindrical_projections
Having a large number of stub articles about obscure variants of map projections does not serve readers, adds maintenance burden for editors- so you support my hesitant but existing proposal to merge each article about a named normal cylindrical equal-area projections here?
leaving normal out in the title exactly allows for other meanings.– which is just fine. As I said, other aspects should also be discussed on the same page. Wikipedia page titles are not a precise scientific taxonomy. The goal is to put pages at the most common names (see WP:COMMONNAME) and then explain the context and details in the article text. – jacobolus (t) 00:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
merge each article about a named normal cylindrical equal-area projections here?– merging e.g. Behrmann projection, Hobo–Dyer projection, and Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection into here sounds fine to me. Gall–Peters projection has enough noteworthy non-technical content to merit its own article (see Wikipedia:Summary style). But before doing that change, you should make a proposal in a new talk page section, link from the relevant other article talk pages, and wait a while (say at least a week, or maybe longer since these are relatively low-traffic articles) before going ahead with the merge. There's no hurry. – jacobolus (t) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
How can a less vague title be confusing?– When you include unexpected qualifiers and change a standard term to a non-standard one, it jerks readers out of their reading flow and causes them to wonder at the cause of the discrepancy. Then they need to devote conscious attention to considering what "normal" means in this context, perhaps going on a research digression to look up the word.
I found the three: normal, transverse, oblique. The article had nothing about transverse, and oblique only for one graphic having the description "Cylindrical equal-area projection with oblique orientation" - no link, no explanation. All the rest of the article was about the normal "orientation"/"aspect" cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Normal_cylindrical_equal-area_projection&oldid=1081135026 . The formulae are only for the normal case, the table, the talk about specializations. For Mercator there are at least two articles:
not one for all three forms. There is also a graphic [3] having the text "Comparison of tangent and secant forms of normal, oblique and transverse Mercator projections" - the three again: "normal, oblique and transverse". The formulae for the oblique cylindrical equal-area projection are probably longer (= more "complicated"). It's fine to have them, I don't know if they are already in Wikipedia. The formulae for the transverse cylindrical equal-area projection are maybe not longer than for the normal case, but for these one too, I don't know if they are already in Wikipedia. But for the normal case formulae exist, images exist, individual mini articles exist. One could merge them and by doing so avoid a lot of duplication, since the differences are minimal. Why would one argue against splitting with respect to "oblique" (one graphic with text) and "transverse" (zero content) projections, but at the same time not care for merging the existing mini articles containing content for the "normal" projection? Euro2023 ( talk) 02:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
at the same time not care for merging the existing mini articles– Did you make a clear proposal about this somewhere? Did anyone oppose it? If not, go ahead and add a new talk page section with a merge proposal, mention it on the talk pages of all of the relevant articles, and open a conversation about it. I suspect other editors would support such a merge, but if not they could explain their reasoning for keeping those articles separate and we could discuss and come to some consensus. My personal opinion is that there are a substantial number of stub map projection articles which would be more useful to readers if carefully combined so they could be put into context. – jacobolus (t) 02:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it’s unnecessary to rename this page to "Normal cylindrical equal-area projection" and include the word "normal" every time "cylindrical equal-area projection" is mentioned. That’s not what authors in the literature call it, and writing "normal" repeatedly clutters up the text and makes it harder to read. Yes, it’s technically incorrect, but I think most English sentences are technically incorrect; what matters is whether the way readers interpret the sentence is correct, and I expect readers to understand that "cylindrical projection" usually refers to a cylindrical projection in the equatorial aspect. If it’s confusing the way it was, then we can add a note to the lede saying that, unless otherwise specified, this article is about projections in the normal aspect. If we don’t put the transverse/oblique info on this page, then we can link to it wherever it is with a summary-style section so that the title of the article accurately reflects its scope. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 13:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Euro2023: you need to stop edit warring. It is extremely counterproductive. I don't want to get administrators involved here, but you are now well outside Wikipedia guidelines and will be temporarily banned from editing if you persist. – jacobolus (t) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I find these recent edits by Euro2023 to be extremely disruptive and I disagree with their motivation, as per the discussion we were conducting until Euro2023 unilaterally decided everything had to be their way. I agree with jacobolus in all the reasons the articles should not be split up into practically useless stubs.
The problems Euro2023 seems to be trying to solve could be dealt with simply by remarking at the beginning of the article that the article text applies to the conventional presentation for the projection, which in this case is straight, horizontal equator with north up and west-to-east-equals-left-to-right. Strebe ( talk) 01:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with their motivation, as per the discussion we were conducting until Euro2023 unilaterally decided everything had to be their waydare to explain what motivation and what you mean by "everything had to be their way"? Where was that so? What discussion?
I agree with jacobolus in all the reasons the articles should not be split up into practically useless stubs- are you joining jacobolus in spreading false attack information? I didn't suggest "the articles" to "be split up into practically useless stubs". On the contrary, I suggested to merge small articles about the "spezializations" here.
By contrast, you just signed up last week and are already picking a big fight.- I was attacked, first by Strebe, then by you. And you claim I am "already picking a big fight"? Because I am new, you are allowed to treat me like shit, not answer questions related to claims made (Strebe), ...
What I am worried about (and I suspect Strebe has the same concern) is that you will try to take every separate aspect of every map projection on Wikipedia and try to split them into separate articles...did I create any new article about a projection? I think I didn't. But have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gall_isographic_projection&diff=909848433&oldid=889763216 - Strebe 2019 and ongoing didn't care about merging that mini "article"
then if you would please explain clearly what you do wantas can be seen from my edits I want to make this article error-free, remove any duplication contained in it, remove broken links, remove content not fitting with the main part of the article. I would like to add better images and made three requests in Commons regarding that, two users responded, Strebe not. Outside the article, I would like to see better explanations of the classifications of map projections. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Map_projection&oldid=1132670105#Classification - starting: "A fundamental projection classification is based on the type of projection surface onto which the globe is conceptually projected." doesn't explain "fundamental" nor why this one is listed first. And a little later "Many mathematical projections, however, do not neatly fit into any of these three conceptual projection methods." So, the fundamental is only fundamental for some projections that fit neatly? "conceptual" - did the authors of this section have a "concept" when putting words into it?
The page is fully protected in the last stable version. It is also move protected. If you can't solve the problems using the above section the go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Separate from the discussion about aspect, @ Euro2023 mentioned above wanting to merge some of the stub pages for cylindrical equal-area projections into this page. That seems like a good idea to me, as they generally don’t involve enough specific detail to stand alone, and in my opinion would be clearer in the context of a general article. I would propose making a section of this article for specific parameter choices, and then making subsections for each one that seems interesting / noteworthy enough. We can merge and redirect Lambert cylindrical equal-area, Behrmann projection, and Hobo–Dyer projection, and then also add subsections about the Tobler world-in-a-square projection, and possibly also the Smyth, Edwards, and Balthasart projections if sources can be found discussing their importance. The Gall–Peters projection should also have a section here, but involves significant non-technical commentary that in my opinion is best served by keeping it as a separate article (cf. Wikipedia:Summary style), as the whole social/political debate seems out of scope for this article. – jacobolus (t) 20:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)