![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ArchiveĀ 2 |
The 'controversy' section of this article, as discussed above, has some POV issues. It does not read like a neutral assessment of the debate, but rather a criticism of the Gall-Peters projection from someone opposed to it. I've edited it in an attempt to remove the non-neutral language; explanations of my removals are below:
The rest is basically acceptable, and I'll leave it for now. If you disagree with any of these edits, please discuss them below rather than just reverting. Terraxos ( talk) 05:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
References
Extended content
|
---|
Proposed Added Section, to go above the Controversy section, because objective properties, advantages & disadvantages are what matter. Some Properties, Advantages & Disadvantages of Gall-Peters: Advantages: Due to its rectangular shape, & its great NS height for a given width, Gall-Peters (GP) is a very large map for its width. (Width is typically the limiting-dimension for a wall-map.) Large map-area means more room for more detail, more labeling, &/or larger labeling. And it's obvious that EW expansion, at all latitudes, to the map's full equatorial width, combined with large NS expansion, must and does increase scale at every point in every direction. Large scale allows nearby points to be more easily resolved and distinguished. .Size & scale are particularly important for working maps, as opposed to decorative maps. In particular, classroom maps often or usually must be examined at a distance (from seat to wall) Thematic maps in atlases must often be small in width, due to the need to show so many such maps in an atlas. That width limitation makes it particularly important to maximize area & scale for a given map-width. Some Specifics: . Region where scale is nowhere less than equatorial scale: Between the latitudes 60 south & 60 north, from Antarctica to Oslo, Stokholm & Helsinki's approximate latitudes, on a GP map, there is no place where the scale in any direction is less than the scale along the equator. That's 87% of the Earth's surface That can't be said for other equal-area maps that are in use. GP's area for a given width is about 1.62 times that of Mollweide, Hammer, & Goode Homolosine. GP's area for a given width is 1.42 that Eckert IV. ...and likely similar for the similarly-shaped Eckert III, & Equal-Earth. ...with the greater average-scale that goes with that greater area. GP shares the other usefulness-advantages of cylindrical projections in general: With a position-&-properties ruler, it's easy to determine, on a cylindrical map, the following quantities: Latitude, Longitude, scale & magnification (for a conformal map), and EW-scale, NS-scale &their ratio (for an equal-area map such as GP). Cylindrical maps treat all longitudes equally. Simplicity: Cylindrical-Equal-Area (CEA), of which GP is an example, is the 2nd simplest equal-area map (The simplest is Sinusoidal, which isn't popular, due to its shape-distortion and low min-scale). Using a simple diagram showing the horizontal projection of a sphere's surface onto a cylinder around the sphere in contact with its equator, the construction of CEA is easily demonstrated, and the reason for its equal-area property is easily demonstrated and explained. Not so with other equal-area maps. The equal-area property of Mollweide & Eckert IV can be demonstrated without calculus, but nonetheless requires a relatively elaborate geometric & algebraic explanation. Equal-Earth's construction, and why it's equal-area, are far too elaborate to explain to people. Disadvantage: Poor shapes at low-latitude. ...resulting in not-so-attractive or realistic appearance, and maybe some usage-inconvence in tropical-regions of the map, due to NS scales being up to twice EW scales. GP isn't designed to win beauty-contests. It goes without saying that (as with anything else) the advantages are available if one accepts the disadvantage. All CEA maps have flattening in extreme north latitudes. With GP, at lat 60, the ratio of point-max scale to point-min-scale scale is 2. That amount, or more, of shape-distortion at lat 60 isn't unusual for equal-area maps . Comparison of GP's shape-merit with that of other CEA maps: The Behrmann CEA map has a standard parallel of lat 30 instead of lat 45. The equatorward half of the the Earth is compressed EW,and the poleward half is compressed NS. On Behrmann, at the equator, the NS scale is only 4/3 times the EW scale. On Behrmann, about 2/3 of the Earth is portrayed with that point-min/max scale of at least Ā¾...i.e. with shape no worse than at the Behrmann's equator. That 2/3 of the Earth's surface extends, approximately, in the north, up to Barcelona, Spain; and to Garrison, New York, Omaha Nebraska, & Mount Shasta in California. GP only achieves that Ā¾ point-min/max scale over 21% of the Earth's surface, from (in the Northern Hemisphere) the latitude of southernmost Tennessee, up to the latitude of Cambridge & Northampton in England, a bit north of London. GP's strength is area & scale, not shape. Of course Behrmann pays for that good tropical shape by increased high-lat shape-distortion. On Behrmann, at lat 60, the point-min/max scale is only 1/3, instead of GP's value of Ā½. Behrmann's region with point-min scale greater than equatorial-scale is only the same 2/3 of the Earth in which it has point-min/max-scale greater than Ā¾. ...compared to GP's 87% of the Earth having point-min-scale greater than GP's equatorial scale. As is well-known, CEA maps can't have good shapes at both high & low latitudes. Projections like GP, Balthasart or Tobler CEA, which have relatively good shape at non-polar high-lat, don't look as good at low-lat. So, then, why not just use them only at high-lat, where they bring improvement? e.g. It's at lat 41.41 that Behrmann starts having point-min/max scale less than Ā¾. So, stacked directly over a Behrmann map of the Earth, have a CEA map that has NS/EW scale = 4/3 at lat 41.41 ...and, with that map, map the region from lat 41.41 up to the north pole. Do the same in the Southern-Hemisphere. The result is a stack of 3 CEA maps, with point-min/max scale of at least Ā¾ over about 5/6 of the Earth's surface, from the tip of South-America up to Glasgow & Copenhagen. ...and with point-min-scale at least equal to equatorial-scale over about 90% of the Earth's surface, which extends from Antarctica up to about the middle of Iceland. That high-lat CEA map with NS/EW scale = 4/3 at lat 41.41 is nearly the same as Balthasart. Its standard parallel is at lat 49.49 It goes without saying that different maps are best for different purposes. Scale & area improvements like GP or the above-described "CEA-Stack" are for working-maps, such as classroom-maps & thematic-maps, for which precise or distantly-observed detail is likely to be needed. But of course if a map is mainly decorative, or if a realistic picture of the Earth is what is desired, and accurate measurement or examination everywhere isn't important, then a more globe-realistic map like Mollweide would be desirable. 97.82.109.213 22:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with copying & borrowing from sources. But something is very wrong when it's claimed to be disallowed to discuss Gall-Peters' advantages (only its disadvantage can be discussed) if a peer-reviewed source can't be cited. Anyway, the important basic points in the proposed section consist of things much too obvious to require citation of a peer-reviewed source. Wikipedia states that its rules aren't set in stone, and that there can be exceptions. Surely there's such an exception when the "rule" would allow discussion of disadvantages, but disallow discussion of advantages. Properties-facts easily demonstrable by the known & usual principles of Cylindrical-Equal-Area maps aren't "Original-Research". Anyway, I do have a Notable-Source. But first I re-emphasize that my proposed section contains two kinds of statements about fact: 1. Facts that are much to obvious to need citation of a "reliable source". ...such as what I said about the obvious relation between map-expansion & scale-increase. If you expand the map, or any part of it in one direction, making no change in the direction perpendicular to it, then obviously that will increase scales in some places, in all directions other than the one perpendicular to the explansion And if you expand all of the map in both dimensions, that will increase scale at every point in all directions. That's way too obvious to require a Notable Source. ...as is the fact that place-name labeling is easier to read if the lettering is bigger, and lettering can be bigger if map-area is bigger. ...and that determination of the geographical position of zone-boundaries in thematic-maps is easier if the map is bigger and the scale larger. ...and the fact that classroom ,maps are often or usually observed from at least partway across the classroom, from someone's desk to the wall. 2. Facts, about numerical map-properties over particular latitude-bands, require some calculation. If I determine and report such facts, you call it "Original Research". For one thing, that's really a misuse of that term, because it implies that I've discovered and studied a new area of study, and found out things that no one has previously known. No, the numerical specifics that I reported are about matters familiar to cartographers. ...nothing new or previously unknown. And, anyway, as I said, I have a Reliable-Source. ...unless you want to say that Daniel Strebe is unreliable. Strebe has demonstrated his willingness and motivation to refute Arno Peters' false-claims. He's evidently motivated to refute false claims that are in favor of Gall-Peters. Therefore, if any of my numerical claims are false, Strebe will refute them. ...and, if he doesn't, that amounts to a statement from a Reliable-Source, that my numerical claims are correct. Daniel Strebe is my reliable source. We're indeed fortunate at this article, to have a reliable source at this article-page. -- 02:34, 4 August 2021 97.82.109.213
Strebeā [quote] We don't construct arguments [/quote] When responding to a request for a pros/cons section, one gives reasons pro & con. You can call that āconstructing argumentsā, but a pros/cons section is inevitably going to sound like āargumentsā. Hereās a quote from Wikipedia: āSome sections do not have to be neutral. Examples include criticism sections and pro and con sections.ā Neither the āadvantagesā nor the ādisadvantagesā part of the proposed section can be āneutralā, and both inevitably will sound like āargumentsā. However, I stated both the advantages & disadvantages of GPā¦all the ones that Iām aware of. Thatās neutrality. I didnāt ignore GPās low-lat shape-problem, and the various kinds of resulting disadvantages. [quote] These Talk pages are not soap-boxes [/quote] Iāve been told that major changes to an article (such as a new section) should first be proposed at the talk-page, and thatās what I did. [quote] Wikipedia articles are not permitted to make claims, even "obvious" claims, without citing reliable sources. Strebe (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [/quote] Incorrect. Youāre attempting an inappropriately legalistic use of WP policies, attempting to use them as rules that you can interpret to disallow mention of GP advantages. ā¦to preserve the 1-sidedness of your articleās discussion. ā¦about which a number of people here have commented. Wikipedia says that an editor who wants to contravene the letter of a policy (they arenāt ārulesā) must give reasons to justify that. Iāve been doing so. 1`. My numerical statements are easily verifiable, given that we have an in-house resident cartographer at this article. 2. Legalistic adherence to the source-citation suggestion would mean that GPās advantages would be disallowed in the article. ā¦not good, for a pros & cons section. (See, below, the 1st sentence in Justin Kunimuneās reply.) Obviousness is an instance of what is meant by WPās advice to use common-sense instead of legalist application of policies as hard-&-fast ārulesā. I wonāt quibble about whether or not youāre a āsourceā, even though, by the dictionary definition, youāre indeed a source or potential source of reliable information about maps. My point was that, given that we have an in-house resident cartographer at this article, that must affect the notion of āverifiabilityā here. As I said, youāve demonstrated the inclination & motivation to refute false statements that favor Gall-Peters, and an inclination to take the time to debate, for many pages, the meaning of āIronyā, and the grammatical difference between āPeterā, āPetersā, āPeterāsā & āPetersāā Therefore, if the numerical facts in my section were false, youād say so. You havenāt. Due to your presence at the article, any objective facts that I state about maps, including the numerical facts in my proposed section, are indeed verifiable. Justin Kuimuneā [quote] Well, obvious claims can often be left uncited (as per WP:BLUE). personally, I'm less concerned with the list's factuality, and more with its length and subjectivity. [/quote] What??? A pros-&Cons section was requested, and Iāve listed, completely, the advantages & disadvantages that Iām aware of. ā¦and you object that itās too long? How about the long, long section on history & controversy? :D [quote] for a list of this scale, deciding what to include and what not to include will always be subjective, and will thus always run the risk of pushing a point of view. [/quote] I did my best to mention GPās usefulness advantages, and the various kinds of disadvantages detrimental to beauty, realism & usefulness resulting from GPās great low-lat shape-distortion. I emphasized GPās low (21%) percentage of the Earth shown as shape-accurate as Behrmannās equator (i.e. with point-min/max-scale of at least Ā¾). I was clear that one wouldnāt choose GP for its shapes, beauty or realism. And, yes, I spoke about GPās often-important usefulness-advantages of large area & scale for a working-map. [quote] that's what I mean when I call it original research, not that you have "found out things that no one has previously known", but that you have come up with original ideas that no one has previously published. [/quote] Are you really going to claim that readability & practical usefulness of a big, vs a small, map, or big, vs small, map-scale, isnāt mentionable at WP unless there are publications about it? Could it be that some things are too obvious to devote journal-publications to? ā¦but a pros-&-cons section for GP was requested, and I complied. I suggest that the relation of readability & usefulness to map-size & map-scale arenāt an āoriginal ideaā that Iāve ācome up withā. ā¦but rather just something too obvious to publish about in journals. [quote] I'm curious what you mean when you say that the rules "would allow discussion of disadvantages, but disallow discussion of advantages". It seems to me that the page already goes over a few of both, specifically as they are relevant to the surrounding controversy. are there specific disadvantages that you think are unfairly emphasized in the article as it is? Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [/quote] An excessively legalistic interpretation of a few WP policies (they arenāt ārulesā) would disallow mention of unpublished, but grossly, blatantly, obvious GP advantages. And no, those advantages are NOT covered in the article, though GPās shape-problem is well covered there. Thatās a bias and an imbalance, and a reason why the article needs an objective advantages/disadvantages section, such as the one that I propose. AnonMoos-- If the format is too abbreviated, and the wording needs more filling-out, then I'll be glad to fill it out more. So let me know where. Of course, for clarity, it's necessary to find a balance between detail & redundancy, vs brevity. I've tried to be as brief as possible, while still saying enough. But, definitely, let me know where I've erred too far in the direction of brevity. I emphasize that I wasn't comparing GP to Mercator. I was comparing it to other maps that are advocated over GP. ...mostly equal-area maps (...though I mentioned Robinson & Eckert III too). And I told of ways in which GP is better than other maps. ...but I also mentioned its disadvantage, because the proposed section is about both advantages & disadvantages. I wrote at some length about how the large low-lat scale-ratio is a disadvantage for realism, beauty, and even maybe for practical-use. So GP is better than other maps in some way, and they're better than GP in other ways. And isn't that always how it is? That's why I clarified for what uses GP is better, and for what other circumstances other, more realistic &/or beautiful maps would be desirable. -- 04:37, 4 August 2021 97.82.109.213
Strebe-- [quote] [quote] When responding to a request for a pros/cons section, one gives reasons pro & con. You can call that āconstructing argumentsā, but a pros/cons section is inevitably going to sound like āargumentsā. [/quote] That argument, and the rest of them, do not fly in the face of Wikipedia policies. [/quote] If youāre saying that they do fly in the face of Wikipedia policies, I remind you that policies arenāt rules. Wikipedia says that editors wanting to contravene a policy must tell justificationā¦as I have done in my most recent posts here. Iāve told why this is an exceptional situation, for two reasons that I stated in a numbered-list, and Iāve told why exceptions to policy are justified. Wikipedia says that itās common for editors to misrepresent Wikipedia policies as hard-&fast ārulesā, with no exceptions permitted, and to try to unjustifiably use them to prevent content that they disagree with or donāt like. [quote] No, we do not construct arguments to include as material for the article text. ā¦We do not create pro/con lists invented by ourselves. [/quote] I merely stated facts that are obvious to anyone, which is permitted by Wikipedia. [quote] An observation anyone could make is one thing, and is permitted [/quote] Good because thatās what I stated in my basic general non-numerical points. [quote] , but drawing conclusions about that observation is quite another thing, and it is not permitted. [/quote] I didnāt draw conclusions from the obvious observations. I merely stated them. If you want to claim that I drew conclusions in my basic non-numerical points, then a specification of instances would be required. [quote] Wikipediaās guidelines about ācommon senseā do not include the kinds of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that you are talking about. [/quote] I trust that you understand that a serious challenge would have to be a lot more specific than that. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue As I said, my general basic points state facts that are obvious to anyone, and donāt depend on constructing synthesis or drawing conclusions from them. And I repeat that my numerical statements in the proposed section are all verifiableā¦You, Strebe, could verify or refute them. ā¦or are you less āNotableā than some newspaper reporter & editor who donāt know squat about their topic? You arenāt going to? Fine. Wikipediaās verifiability policy doesnāt call for actual verification. Mere verifiability is sufficient.
[quote] The unsigned editor writes: I merely stated facts that are obvious to anyone, which is permitted by Wikipedia. Theyāre not obvious. Practically all of your claims are false, debatable, or else the significance is debatable. In other words, not obvious. [/quote] My main point was that a larger map is easier to use, to examine places, to judge or measure distances, to determine the geographical-position of a zone-boundary on a thematic map, to read the labeling, etc. False? Debatable original research? Debatable significance. Youāre joking, right? Thatās obvious common-knowledge. Itās why atlases with large page-area are printed & purchased, in spite of their relatively-higher price. A pocketbook-size atlas would be considerably less useful than one with the more typical large page-area. Itās why publishers print, and people buy, roughly 5āX3ā wall-maps instead of postcard-size wall-maps. Howās all that for original-research? Shall I name it after myself? :D [quote] If the points you are making were important enough to matter, you would find these points being made in citable literature. Theyāre not. [/quote] As Iāve already explained here, some things are too obvious to need or justify journal-articles. ā¦and therefore are not ācitableā. Is there a journal-article to cite that itās unwise to lie down in the bottom of a space thatās being filled with concrete, or that you get more exercise by lifting 15 pounds than 2 ouncesā¦so it canāt be said in a Wikipedia article? :D And you say or imply readability and usefulness are unimportant. :D Thatās a bizarre claim to make. [quote] That means they do not meet Wikipediaās threshold for inclusion. [/quote] It means that youāre playing fast-&-loose and creatively with Wikipediaās policies. [quote] To illustrate with your first five points: ā¢ Due to its rectangular shape, & its great NS height for a given width, Gall-Peters (GP) is a very large map for its width. (Width is typically the limiting-dimension for a wall-map.) With ālargeā undefined here, I donāt know what that intends to mean. [/quote] Merriam-Webster: āLarge: 4a Exceeding most other things of like kind, especially in size or quantity.ā āSize: Physical extent, magnitude, or bulk..ā The kind of āextentā referred to for maps is their area. Instead of making you look up āareaā, Iāll just say that the area of a rectangle is determined by multiplying its length by its width (qv). ā¦and that, for non-rectangular plane-regions, the areas of infinitesimal rectangles (or sometimes triangles) within a region are often summed to determine the area of a non-rectangular plane region. Area is expressed in linear units squared. e.g. square inches or square centimeters. [quote] You state, without evidence, that width is typically the limiting factor for a wall map. I disagree. [/quote] Well, look at a map on a wall. Above or below where itās mounted, one wouldnāt place a map. We donāt place maps up adjacent to the ceiling, or down adjacent to or near the floor. Therefore maps and other wall-posted things donāt compete for vertical-space, and so their vertical dimension isnāt their fit-critical dimension (their dimension that determines whether theyāll fit in a particular space. And, additionally, for nearly all maps in equatorial-aspect mounted with equator horizontal, the width is considerably greater than the height. [quote] ā¦and I also disagree that wall maps are necessarily what is important. [quote] Theyāre often important, as in classrooms. But atlases often have small thematic maps vertically stacked on a page. They adjoin eachother on edges that are (at least roughly) parallel to their equator, parallel to their X dimension. They donāt adjoin eachother along edges parallel to their Y-dimension. So their width is limited by the width of the page, and each mapās area depends on its space-efficiency (fraction of the mapās circumscribing-rectangle that the map fills) and the variable consisting of the mapās height (Y-dimension). If the book doesnāt need so many such maps as to tax the books page-capacity and make it too thick, then the area of the maps depends on their area for a given width. Often itās convenient to calculate that quantity by dividing their space-efficiency by their aspect-ratio. If the number of those small thematics maps needed is so great that they threaten to make the atlas require too many pages, then space-efficiency itself could become the critical map-quantity that limits the feasible combined-area of the maps. ā¦but, otherwise, the critical map-quantity is area for a given width. [quote] Large map-area means more room for more detail, more labeling, &/or larger labeling. Not so. [/quote] What a funny thing to say. Can you justify that strange claim? [quote] As an equal-area map, GallāPeters has exactly as much area as any other equal-area map. [/quote] Yes, it maps the same planet, and therefore a planet with the same area. World-maps differ in area. A world-map could be printed the size of a postage-stamp, or could cover a wall of a large room. In equatorial-aspect, with the X-dimension as the width, and for a given width, a Gall-Peters (GP) map has more area than any other world-map that has been used to any significant degree. ā¦much more area. ā¦because of its maximal space-efficiency (unity), and its very low aspect-ratio. Or if youāre just looking at how much area a map has as a percentage of the area of its circumscribing-rectangle, then of course thatās what I call āspace-efficiencyā, and the cylindrical equal-area projections collectively beat nearly all of the other equal-area maps. (ā¦other than the few rectangular non-cylindrical projections, whose construction is far too complicated to offer to the public). [quote] The massive left-right stretching in the mid- and higher latitudes is negated by increasing top-bottom compression toward the poles; likewise, the vertical stretching in the low latitudes is negated by the east-west compression. [/quote] Yes, an equal-area map doesnāt magnify some regions more than others. And, on an equal-area map, a point with greater X scale has proportionately less Y-scale. Itās intuitively obvious that thereās a cancellation of effects there, and a sense in which overall scale is unchanged. In fact, the geometric mean, over all the points on the map, and all directions at each point, is proportional to the square-root of the area of the map. (more detail below about that.) But it isnāt necessary to say that in the proposed section, because the cancellation between the expanded & shrunk scales at a point on an equal-area map is intuitively obvious. (The points considered donāt include the pole, because, for most equal-area maps, thereās an infinite scale there, and an infinite scale canāt be represented by a number.) Gall-Peters (GP) , with its maximal space-efficiency, and its low aspect-ratio, achieves a much greater area for a given width than other comparably-widely-used equal-area world-maps. [quote] ā¢ And it's obvious that EW expansion, at all latitudes, to the map's full equatorial width, combined with large NS expansion, must and does increase scale at every point in every direction. This is not only not obvious; I cannot even tell what you mean. Every map projection distorts scale. To claim āin every directionā is to claim something apparently false, since north-south compression on GallāPeters increases infinitely at the poles such that the scale in the north-south direction at the pole is zero rather than 1. [/quote] All or most equal-area world-maps other than pointed-pole maps such as Collignon, Sinusoidal, Craster-Parabolic, and Quartic-Authalic, have infinite-scale and zero-scale at the poles. .e.g. Mollwide, Eckert IV, and Equal-Earth do. So, when I spoke of increasing the scales in every direction at all points, yes thatās untrue at the poles. For most equal-area maps, there remain zero scale and infinite scale at the poles. So yes, add āexcept at the polesā to what I said. 1. Double the linear dimensions of any map, while keeping its original proportions, and you quadruple its area. i.e. Its area is proportional to the square-root of its dimension, when the shape & proportions are unchanged. Likewise,itās obvious that any linear distance on the map, anywhere, in any direction, on the map, will also increase in proportion to that uniform increase in the mapās dimensionsā¦and in proportion to the square root of the mapās area. Thatās for a map that changes only its linear measurements, uniformly, with no change in shape or proportions. 2. What about different equal-area cylindrical or pseudocylindrical maps with the same area? Say we start with some non-cylindrical pseudocylindrical world-map. Say, just for example, itās a Sinusoidal map. ā¦but it could be any non-cylindrical pseudocylindrical. Starting at the equator, divide the NE quadrant of the map into very many very thin east-west rectangular lat-bands parallel to the equator. Starting with the lat-band directly above the equator, expand it to the full width of the equator. Because we want to keep equal-area, that rectangular band must be shrunk in the Y-dimension by the same factor itās expanded by. Then do the same with the next ultra-thin lat-band above (north of) the previous one. ā¦and so on, for all the stacked ultra-thin lat-bands of the entire NE quadrant of the map. The result is a Cylindrical Equal-Area map having the same area as the initial pseudocylindrical map. What about the geometric mean of the scales. Because equal-area must be maintained, when a rectangle representing a particular part of the Earth on the map is expanded in one dimension, it must be shrunk in the mutually-perpendicular direction. It can be shown that, at any point, when the scale there is increased in one direction, and decreased by the same factor in the mutually-perpendicular direction, then, for any direction whose scale is increased, thereās another direction in which the scale is decreased by the same factor. ā¦meaning that the geometric-mean of the scales in all the directions at that point is unchanged. ā¦and that the geometric-mean of all the scales at all of the points in that rectangle is unhanged. ā¦and that the geometric mean of all the rectangular ultra-thin lat-bands that I mentioned on that map is unchanged. ā¦and that the area of the entire NE map-quadrant is unchanged. Each of the ultra-thin lat-bands was kept to constant area, and so the area of the whole map-quadrant hasnāt changed. So, constant area for an equal-area map means constant geometric-mean, over all the points on the map, and over all the directions at each point, of the scale. So GPās much greater area for a given width means a much greater average (geometric-mean) scale for a given width. ā¦just as bigger scale is intuitively obvious for a bigger map. And yes itās intuitively obvious that making a map will make its average scale bigger. ā¢ [quote] ā¢ Large scale allows nearby points to be more easily resolved and distinguished. ā¢ [/quote] It [Gall-Peters] doesnāt have ālarge scaleā by any meaning I know of. >p> GP has large mean scale. ā¦referring to the geometric-mean, over all points on the map (except the poles), and over every direction at each point. That geometric mean is proportional to the square-root of an equal-area mapās area. For a given map-width, do you know of any other widely-used equal-area map with as high a geometric mean scale (averaged over all points on the map, and over all directions at each point)? GP also has point-min-scale at least equal to its scale along the equator, all the way from lat 60 south, up to lat 60 north. Can you name another widely-used equal-area map for which that can be said? [quote] Severe north-south compression in the high latitudes ensures that points oriented vertically are less easily resolved (thanā¦ what?). Itās intuitively obvious that a bigger map has bigger average-scale. And it can be demonstrated that the geometric-mean, over all points on the map (except the two poles), and over all directions at each point, is proportional to the square root of the mapās area (ā¦as expressed in square-inches or square-centimeters). [quote] ā¢ Size & scale are particularly important for working maps, as opposed to decorative maps. It depends on what kind of work. [/quote]
How about the kind of work that requires the map to be readable and its labeling to be legible?
I made it quite clear that I was referring to map-use that involves precise measurement or examination, or distant-viewing (as from a desk to a wall-map in a classroom). [quote] , so this statement is also debatable and definitely wrong in some circumstances. [/quote] See above. I never said that one never uses a map other than at a great distance, and in a way that doesnāt require close measurement or examination. In fact, I said that for a primarily decorative map, or when one prefers realism to other considerations, a more globe-realistic map such as Mollweide would be desirable. [quote] There is nothing special about these five points; most of the others are similarly debatable. [/quote] All of your objections were answerable. [quote] 1The fact that these points are debatable and not citedā¦ [/quote] They arenāt debatable, and are too obvious to require citation. ā¦just as youāll never find a citatable journal-article about the fact that āsquareā and ānot-squareā arenāt the same. So you wouldnāt let a Wikipedia article state that either? [quote] More to the point, if a pro/con list were something important enough to be included in the article, then such lists could be found in the literature. [/quote] Youāve got to be kidding. The pros & cons of anything intended for any important use, including a map-projection, are important. If you think it should be in āthe literatureā, then write it there. I donāt claim to know or care why someone does or doesnāt write something, or why someone dislikes something so much that he doesnāt think it merits a pros-&-cons discussion. Itās none of my business, and itās irrelevant to the merits of GP. But shall I speculate? Iām not criticizing the people who write āthe literatureā, but just maybe they donāt like Gall-Peters, due to its unaesthetic and unrealistic low-lat shapes. Sure, I donāt like its low-lat shapes either. But some might feel that thatās a reason why GP doesnāt deserve a pros-&-cons listing, because, **in their own subjective-judgment**, itās entirely unacceptable, &/or is merits-dominated by all other equal-area world-maps, due to its bad low-lat shapes. Maybe GPās unpopularity among the other cartographers would deter a cartographer from mentioning that it has an advantage. One must think of oneās reputation. ā¦merits-dominated by all other equal-area world-maps because GP (in some peopleās perception) has no advantages to justify its use, given its bad low-late shapes & unrealism. And (just speculating) maybe GPās unpopularity among the other cartographers would deter a cartographer from mentioning that it has an advantage. One must think of oneās reputation. And certainly the shenanigans of Arno Peters, his false-statements, his claim of priority for Gall-Orthographic, and for equal-area maps in generalā¦maybe those decidedly un-academic-like acts has strongly prejudiced academia, to the extent that any academic would be embarrassed to speak of GP having an advantage, for fear of seeming to support the academically-unpopular Arno Peters. Look, your article about Gall-Orthographic REEKS of POV. Not only do you refuse to allow mention of Gall-Orthographicās advantages, citing some inapplicable and invalid legalistic-claim that misinterprets Wikipedia policyā¦but you also fill the article about Gall-Orthographic with irrelevant prejudicial material about the antics of some who didnāt introduce it :D Talk about bias, and POV! Most articles about a map-projection are only about the projection. You fill your article with (as I said) voluminous irrelevant and prejudicial material about Arno Petersāwho wasnāt even the introducer of the map. Alright, Iāll claim that I invented the Mollweide Projection. Now you have to fill the Wikipedia article with information about my false claim that I invented Mollweide, and whatever false claims I choose to make about it. ā¦Oh, whatās that? You say that the only reason you wonāt do that is because I donāt have Arno Petersā publicity connections, savvy, & ready-opportunity? The Gall-Peters article needs thorough overhaul. Add pros & cons, and move all the Peters history, & controversy to the Arno-Peters page. Heās famous enough to rate a Wikipedia page about him, but not enough to dominate the article about Gall-Orthographic, which he didnāt introduce. All that derogatory scandal-history with which youāve stuffed the article about Gall-Orthographic is intended to discredit James Gallās Orthographic projection by tying Arno Peters to it. Your article intentionally confuses academic reaction to Petersā false claims, with the merits of the map itself. Well guess what: GP does have advantages, and Iāve named some of them. And theyāre blatantly, grossly obvious. Iāve described them in general, and Iāve specified them quantitatively.
Justin-- Thanks for the reply. I guess itās a matter of individual preference. For me, subjectively, for some applications, a little practical-advantage outweighs a lot of unrealism & ugliness. But of course to each their own. Iām delighted by GPās amount of use. And, anyway, again itās just a matter of personal opinion, but I feel that Wikipedia is way too cautious about crackpots. I feel that content should be judged on its own merits, and that the matter of whom itās from is relatively irrelevant. Iād like to mention an extreme case as an example. As you know, there have been numerous authors who advocate very questionable archaeological theories. One of them, among the other things he said, suggested that the Vernal-Equinox was in Leo in 10,000 BC or 10,500 BC (I donāt remember which). An astronomer (a notable person) said that it wasnāt in Leo in that year. He justified his claim by saying that Planetarium software said so. But the R.A. & declination co-ordinates that he gave for the Vernal-Equinoxās position in that year was exactly, right to the arc-second (or whatever precision it was given in), the position that it would have had if precession had had its *current* rate all the way back to 10,000 BC. But it didnāt. By a graph of precessional rates over that duration, from a very esteemed & notable expert source (maybe Laskar), and based on the proper-motion of the stars in Leo, I determined that, in the year in question, the Vernal-Equinox was indeed in Leo. It was inside the triangle that forms Leoās rump, at the rear (east) end of Leo. The astronomy professor had, erroneously or intentionally, given an incorrect position based on planetarium software that was using an obviously wrong precessional-rate. That astronomy prof, a notable-source, was talking pseudoscience bull-____. But Wikipedia insisted on taking his word for it, and not allowing any mention of the obvious questionableness of a Vernal-Equinox position that precisely matches the position given by assuming that todayās precessional-rate has always obtained. It was impermissible to mention that. I pointed out, to whoever was answering communications, that they neednāt take my word for it. All thatās necessary would be to look at the position given for the Vernal-Equinox by planetarium-software that assumed constant precessional-rate at the current-value. But no. Evidence doesnāt count. Whatever a ānotableā person says is sacrosanct and not to be questioned, even by looking at obvious readily-available evidence. I donāt believe the archaeology-charlatanās theories, but I didnāt like it that easily demonstrable pseudoscience from a āNotableā person trumps readily-available evidence that anyone can check, regarding the astronomy profās claim about where the Vernal-Equinox position in 10,000 or 10,500 BC. ...that a notable astronomer could say pure obvious pseudoscience, and no one was allowed to mention the, available-to-all, evidence that makes his statement more than a little questionable. Sure, he wanted to debunk a charlatan, but it shouldnāt be done with the use of falsity & pseudoscience. I mention that episode because it shows that a notable source isnāt really always a reliable source.
Justinā Well, I fear that Wikipedia isnāt going to allow the experiment that would resolve that wager. About wall-mapsā fit-critical dimension: Let me re-emphasize this: Look at a wall-map, at the space above & below it. Would you want to put a map there? No one wants a wall-map, or any other wall-posted thing, to be up adjacent to the ceiling, or down near the floor. Therefore that space isnāt used, and is available for the mapās vertical-dimension. Thereās room to have the mapās vertical dimension as large as you want. Gall-Peters? Sure. Square Tobler CEA? Sure. I admit that there could be some book-page situations where a mapās X-dimension might not be its fit-critical dimension. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, for those little thematic maps, several to a page, that some atlases have, it can be convincingly argued that their fit-critical dimension is their X-dimension, unless there need to be so many pages of them that they threaten to make the atlas too thick. ā¦in which case pure space-efficiency might become more relevant. Another thing: For both Sinusoidal and Lambert CEA, the average (geometric-mean) scale over the whole map (except at the points at the poles), in every direction, is exactly equal to the scale along the equator. ā¦suggesting that thereās something significant & special about the equatorial-scale, the scale along the equator. I refer to the geometric-mean of scale over the map, in every direction, referenced to, expressed in terms of, the scale along the equator, as āav-scaleā. So Sinusoidal & Lambert CEA have av-scale of unity. Most equal-area projections have av-scale greater than unity. An exception is Collignon, which has av-scale of only .89 Here are the av-scale values for some equal-area projections: Sinusoidal: 1 Lambert CEA: 1 Behrmann: 1.155 Mollweide: 1.111 Eckert IV: 1.184 Gall-Peters: 1.414 -- Above comment by User:97.82.109.213 @ 97.82.109.213:, I think you need to review some basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
A more minor, but still important WP standard: I certainly agree with you that the article needs to talk about both the advantages and the disadvantages of Gall-Peters, and I look forward to your contributions in that direction... but you need to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to move that forward. Thanks, -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Makrakisā ā¢ [quote] ā¢ No original research -- Wikipedia doesn't publish its editors' own analyses, but only reports on what reliable sources say about a topic. I ā¢ [/quote] Weāve been over that. In my proposed section, I didnāt include āOriginal-Researchā. I merely stated facts that are obvious to anyone, and to which the āOriginal-Researchā & āVerifiabilityā exclusions donāt apply. ā¦and quantitative statements that are easily verifiable, because they could be easily verified or refuted by Strebe, an in-house resident cartographer at this article. And, as I've mentioned, Wikipedia policy doesn't emphasize verification itself, but rather mere verifiability--the availability of accuracy determination, should it be desired. Youāre applying Wikipedia policy in a manner different from what Wikipedia's written guidelines and policy-explanations say. ā¢ [quote] ā¢ t shouldn't be hard to find some reputable source that covers the issues you mention above. ā¢ [/quote] As Strebe pointed out, most cartographers arenāt interested, probably because there seems to be a rule that the only relevant standards for comparison of equal-area projections consist of various ways of expressing difference the mapsā point-max-angular-error (its global-average, zonal values, global-max, etc.). ...and because, as Justin Kunimune suggested, most cartographersā subjective feeling is that the usefulness-differences are too small to matter. Iāll just add here that, from what Iāve read, Walter Behrmann said that Behrmann CEA has less average point-max-angular-error than any other equal-area world map-projection. ā¢ ā¢ [quote] ā¢ Collaboration with other editors is the way to get things done. ā¢ [/quote] I didnāt say or imply otherwise. Of course I value suggestions and additions, and thereās no reason to suggest otherwise. [quote] Talk pages are for productive discussion about the article, not for treatises on the subject-matter of the article. [/quote] My post today was discussion about the merit and justification of things that I said in my proposed section. ā¦i.e. things relevant to the article itself. It was a reply on the matter of whether map-width &/or equatorial-scale is a good reference-quantity. ā¦and support for things that I said in my proposed section. ā¢ ā¢ [quote] ā¢ Concision is valued--don't write long, repetitive posts on Talk. ā¢ [/quote] TV has conditioned many people to want soundbites, but some topics arenāt well addressed in that way. But, if something can be said briefly, then of course that's how I want to say it. ā¢ ā¢ [quote] ā¢ I would add: format your contributions so that they're more structured and thus easier to read. ā¢ [/quote] I didnāt ignore structure, and I tried for clarity. But I always welcome comments & suggestions that would improve clarity and brevity. A problem with brevity is that it can reduce clarity. A balance must be sought between brevity & sufficiency of explanation & expression. As I said, I welcome suggestions & comments.
Strebe-- ā³it must be verifiable before you can add it." Of course. My numerical-statements in my proposed section could be verified (or refuted) by you. ...could be verified. That's what matters. You could choose to say whether they're correct or incorrect. ...or not, as you choose. But the relevant fact is that you could. ...and if you said that they're correct, then there wouldn't be any concern that readers would be misled by false statements in the article. ...and if you don't say, it remains that the statements are verifiable, meaning that they could be verified if desired. -- Above comment by User:97.82.109.213
Will do! I assume that the colon must be added to the beginning of each line. It would be a convenient way to copy when replying in Word, without having to do the copying-procedure at the Wikipedia editing-space.
Iām not sure whether youāre referring to my proposed section, or to my replies at this talk-page. If youāre referring to the proposed section: Though maybe, sometimes, one repetition is alright and can be helpful if itās unobtrusive, and called-for for a reason such as a seeming-contradiction, I agree that itās undesirable to repeat something so as to put readers off. I said that I was interested in suggestions, and so thereās no need for your hostile tone, and implied claim of uncooperativeness that accompanies your suggestion. If youāre referring to the talk-page: I wonāt deny that, when answering the same objection, I give the same answer.
]Verifiability is about verification being possible. Look it up. Yes, ordinarily the only readily-available verifiability is via citation of a notable (most definitely not necessarily reliable) publication. But Wikipediaās written guidelines recognizes & emphasize that circumstances arenāt always usual, and, when they arenāt, the guidelines arenāt hard-&-fast rules. I mentioned that before, but evidently it didnāt sink-in. Wikipediaās policy guidelines arenāt meant to be made-into, and used as, graven-in-stone, dogmatic, literalist, fundamentalist, quasi-religious doctrine. Wikipediaās written guidelines have been quite explicit about that, as you well know. At the risk of being criticized for repetition evidently itās necessary to repeat this: Wikipedia says that an editor who wants to do differently from what a guideline suggests, must give justification for that contravention. I have done so. ā¦or did you miss that? Anyone who didnāt know you better might get the impression that you just want to keep favorable information about Gall-Peters out of the article. Wikipedia, in various of its articles, points out that there are lots of editors who try to use an incorrect literalist misinterpretation and mis-stating of the guidelines, for the purpose of trying to exclude content which they donāt like, or with which they disagree. They say that that is quite common at Wikipedia. When I visited this article in recent weeks, I read old talk from years ago, and I replied, at this talk-page, to someone who had, long ago, requested a pros/cons section. I said itās astounding that this article about an unprecedentedly popular projection still has no pros/cons section. I said, āHave we been overzealously editing?ā, because it was obvious that something very wrong has been going on, for there to still be no pros/cons section. Want to know why there isnāt one? Look at the most recent talk-page posts. Evidently this article currently has a set of editors who donāt want a pros/cons section, who donāt want the article to say anything favorable about GP. Evidently the editors who felt otherwise (Iād been reading old talk-page from some years ago) have by now given up & left in disgust. That means that the only I way can enforce a balanced article with a genuine pros/cons section will be by appeal to Wikipedia administration. That will probably be a long procedure, and one that I donāt really want to initiate at this time.
Ok, Iāll come up with a good pseudonym, and start signing with it in the officially-recommended manner ā¦maybe āArnoā. BTW, I emphasizes that much of what Iāve lately posted has been in reply to people who objected to my statement that typically, and especially for wall-maps, a mapās X-dimension is its fit-critical dimension. Admittedly sometimes there could be circumstances, such as some bookpage-fits, that could make the Y-dimension fit-critical. Maybe, especially for some bookpage applications of single maps on some book-pages, it often isnāt known which dimension will be fit-critical, or maybe sometimes neither one is. For those instances, then, such things as point-min-scale and av-scale, instead of referencing the width or the equatorial-scale, would have to instead reference the height or the average scale along the central-meridian, or the average scale across the mapās largest Y-extent--or just the area (or its square-root) of the mapās circumscribing-rectangle. My discussion of av-scale, and my list of av-scale values for various equal-area projections, referenced the equatorial-scale, assuming that the mapās X-dimension is fit-critical. I didnāt do the calculations for the other circumstances, for reasons of brevity. But I told of a reason why the equatorial-scale seems special: The fact that the geometric-mean- scale on Sinusoidal and Lambert CEA is exactly equal to the scale along the equator. But, obviously, for those other circumstances, when the mapās Y-dimension or the area of the circumscribing-rectangle is a more appropriate reference-quantity, then one would use it instead. I emphasizes that this isnāt a ātreatiseā. Iām just replying to the objections expressed by Strebe & by Justin Kumemuni, about my assumption that a mapās X-dimension is its fit-critical dimension. -- Above comment by User:97.82.109.213
This post replies to Strebe & to Justin Kunimune: Strebe: In this post Iād like to, 1st, reply better and more clearly to some things that you said about scale; ā¦and 2nd, to ask you a question. The question is below in this post. You said:
Incorrect. I told why itās so. I donāt have time to repeat it, and to save space, I wonāt.
Our subjective opinions about whatās important have no place at Wikipedia. But obviously sometimes atlas thematic maps, and sometimes wall-maps, are important. Obviously GPās scale-advantgage only exists when width is the fit-critical dimension. Sometimes that condition doesnāt obstain. Therefore sometimes GP doesnāt have that advantage. Likewise, sometimes GPās enormous scale-advantage, even when it obtains, isnāt needed. Sometimes larger scale can be useful, sometimes unnecessary. In summary, sometimes GPās scale-advantage exists & is useful, and sometimes not. Hello? Itās well-understood by cartographers that different maps are useful in different applications. GP is no exception. Itās one thing to say that GP, like other maps, is only sometimes advantageous. Itās quite another thing to claim that it doesnāt sometimes have a significant advantage thatās sometimes important. ā¦ as do map-projections in general. ā¢ :āLarge map-area means more room for more detail, more labeling, &/or larger :labeling.ā
No, I explicitly referred to area for a given width.
Irrelevant. When you everywhere expand a CEA map north-south, you increase, at every point, the scale in every direction other than east-west. And yes, thatās equally true in the regions with skinny Tissot-ellipses. In fact, thatās where the scale-increase is needed the most. And I remind you that I explicitly exclude the poles from the points that Iām referring to, because, with most world-maps, at the poles thereās an infinite scale, to which a numerical-value canāt be assigned. ā¢ :āAnd it's obvious that EW expansion, at all latitudes, to the map's full equatorial :width, combined with large NS expansion, must and does increase scale at every :point in every direction.ā
Wrong. I explicitly exclude the poles from the points to which I refer. Equal-area maps have points with low point-min-scale. But a general expansion of the map in the direction of that min-scale will increase it. ā¦and also increase scale in every direction other than the direction perpendicular to the direction of the expansion. ā¢ Large scale allows nearby points to be more easily resolved and distinguished.
The geometic-mean, over all of a mapās points, and over all directions at each point, is proportional to the mapās area. A larger map has larger geometric-mean scale. ā¦and general overall expansion of an entire map in a particular dimension increases scale, at every point on the map, in every direction other than the direction perpendicular to the expansion. Thatās why, with GP, for all points between lat 60 south and lat 60 north, there is no point at which thereās a direction in which the scale is less than the scale along the equator.
ā¦and a general north-south expansion of the map will increase those compressed scales. Thatās a good reason for expanding a CEA map north-south. ā¦a practice that began at least as early as 1870. (Smythe CEA lowered the aspect-ratio to 2, and thereby increased scale, at every non-pole point on the map, in every direction (other than east-west), referenced to the scale along the equator. And, as I said referring to the fact that expanding a map increases scales on a map. ā¦and, in particular, the fact that a general expansion of a map in a particular dimension increases the scale at every (non-pole )point on the map, in every direction other than the direction perpendicular to the expansionā¦.Those facts are so blatantly-obvious that, by Wikipediaās rules they do not need citation of a notable or āreliableā source. As I said, Strebe, this article is very fortunate to have an in-house resident cartographer. ā¦so that editors can ask you about the validity of statements about maps, and, in particular, about the map that is the subject of the article. Surely youād agree that itās good that youāre here to answer such questions. And so Iām going to ask you two brief, simple & straightforward Yes/No questions. Like all Yes/No questions, each of these two questions has four possible answers: 1. Yes 2. No 3. I donāt know. 4. I know, but I refuse to say. Question #1: Is the following statement true? With Gall-Peters, between lat 60 south & lat 60 north, there is no point at which there is a direction in which the scale at that point is less than the scale along the equator. Question #2: If the answer to the above question is āYesā, can you name another equal area map projection that has been published, sold, and used by purchasers, and for which the above statement can be correctly said? Thatās two Yes/No questions, each of which has the four above-listed possible answers. I thank you in advance for helping to inform the editors at this article. --------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Kumimuneā Iād like to reply better and more clearly to a few things that you said: You said:
Our personal feelings and opinions have no place at a Wikipedia article. Either a map has some particular advantage under some circumstances, or it doesnāt. Either that advantage can be useful, or not. Period.
I make no such claim. GP has a enormous scale-advantages when width is the fit-critical dimension. Those advantages donāt exist if width isnāt the fit-critical dimension. Sometimes it isnāt. We neednāt quibble about how often it isnāt. And, even when width is the fit-critical dimension, and so GP has its enormous scale advantages, scale might nor might not be important, depending on the application. Is the map only intended for decoration of the wall? Is globe-realism the more important consideration? Maybe one isnāt going to do the precise or distantly-viewed examinations in which scale matters. In summary, sometimes GP doesnāt have its scale advantages, and sometimes they donāt matter, even if it does have them. Yes, cartographers have long been familiar with the fact that no map is the best choice for every application, every situation. Different projections are useful in different applications. As I said, we neednāt quibble about how often GP has its advantage, or how often that advantage is needed. It sometimes has that advantage, and itās sometimes useful.
Youāre saying that we donāt place maps with their sides adjacent to the extreme ends of a wall? Of course not, for a number of reasons. For one thing, a map that large would be expensive to purchase, and awkward to transport home after purchase, and costly for businesses to ship & store. For another thing, often there are other things (shelves, posters, portraits, etc.) that one wants to put on a wall. ā¦sometimes including windows. But, as I said, another thing we donāt do is place a map adjacent to the ceiling or near the floor, and so, since maps & other posted-things arenāt vertically-stacked, thereās no limit on their vertical-extent, and the fit-critical dimension is width. Anyway, as I said, I donāt claim that width is always fit-critical, or that GP always has its scale-advantage, or that that advantage is always needed. ā¦as is the case with other maps and their advantages.
Lots of posters are oriented vertically too. I donāt know that horizontally-oriented posters are more frequent. But you wonāt find wall-maps up by the ceiling or down by the floor. If they must be fitted with eachother, itās horizontally.
It isnāt just a matter of space-efficiency. Aspect-ratio, too, affects av-acale referenced to the scale along the equator (ā¦which I donāt claim is always important). Thatās why, with GP, from lat 60 south to lat 60 north, thereās no point at which thereās any direction in which the scale is less than the scale along the equator. ā¦and itās why av-scale (geometric-mean scale, referenced to the scale along the equator), though varying only slightly among most equal-area maps, and remaining very close to unity for nearly all equal-area maps, is enormously larger for GP. ā¦about 1.4 times its value for most other equal-area projections. And Iāve told why itās blatantly obvious to anyone that GPās greatly multiplied tallnesss will greatly increase scales on the map. ā¦scale at every point on the map, in every direction other than east-west. Thatās far, far too obvious to need ācitation of a notable or reliable sourceā. As I said, GPās scale advantages are enormous when they obtain (and they sometimes do). And theyāre sometimes useful. ā¦which is as much as can be said for other maps & their advantages. :I think that's too small to mention. See above.
See above. And remember that personal opinions have no place at Wikipedia.
Anyoneās personal subjective views have no place at Wikipedia. ā¦and that includes unsupported opinions about the views of notable authors.
First, of course it canāt be denied that GP has a significant disadvantage: It looks awful. ā¦unrealistic & ugly, an affront to aesthetics. We all know how Robinson described it. It looks as if Africa & South-America were made of wax, and someone forgot to turn on the air-conditioner. As an admirer of the Mercatorās accurate local portrayal and mapping of each place, I have to say that GP doesnāt portray a good picture of tropical places. ā¦.so FUBAR as to maybe sometimes be inconvenient to use. Yes inconvenient, but usable, as a practical-matter, for a working-map ā¦and, if unappealing & even maybe sometimes inconvenient, thatās a trade for the potentially bigger scale that will sometimes make the map usable at all, making usability at an otherwise unusable distance. Yes, its main advantage, scale, sometimes exists & sometimes doesnāt. ] The disagreement is as you described: The advantage sometimes exists, vs the advantage usually doesnāt exist. To me, the latter sounds like something that would best be said only if the advantage can be shown to be vanishingly unlikely. ā¦otherwise itās just a matter of wording-choice or individual subjective impression. Because one doesnāt want a map up by the ceiling or down by the floor, then there isnāt vertical room to vertically-stack wall-maps, and so, if theyāre fitted together, itās horizontallyā¦making width the usual fit-critical dimension for wall-maps. Schoolroom maps are usually wall-maps. Thatās surely what the Boston school-systemās decision was about. That wall-map is typically viewed at a distance, at least partly across the room, from studentsā desks. Sometimes short distances matter a lot, when itās a matter of where a point is with respect to a national-border or a thematic-mapās isopleth or zone-boundary. For such precise determinations, at an across-the-room distance, scale can matter a lot. Therefore I claim that GPās scale advantage usually exists and matters for classroom wall-maps. About GP, maybe school-kids who like scary-movies would like it, and might call it āThat Wax-Museum Mapā. Another thing: Itās likely that the deformation of Africa & South-America was what provided visual psychological confirmation to people that something different was being done, that Africa was indeed shown big. The deformation dramatized & proved the bigness! Maybe thatās why (it seems to me) Peters once said that the other maps called āequal-areaā arenāt really. Maybe he, and many others, thought that nothing is changed unless itās visible as that great 1-dimensional distance-multiplication. So maybe the deformation is why equal-area maps are in use by lots of socially-conscious organizations and by British & Massachusetts schools. I listed a number of other advantages that GP has in common with other cylindrical projections. Theyāre arguably obvious. Cylindrical projectionsā equal portrayal of all longitudes is a well-known advantage. Surely itās better if a school-map doesnāt disfavor some longitues. I suggest that, given the choices of for-sale maps available to it, the Boston school system made a good choice, arguably the best choice. Would I use GP? No, Iād use CEA-Stack instead. ā¦and Behrmann where CEA-Stackās great scale & high-lat shape advantages arenāt needed, or where CEA-Stack wouldnāt fit vertically. This is just a quick preliminary-note. To be continuedā¦
BTW, to give credit where due, GP could easily be mistaken for the work of Salvador Dali, which surely counts favorably. So I take back what I said about GP being āā¦ugly, an affront to aestheticsā. How come itās ugly when James Gall does it, but when Salvador Dali does it itās worth a million dollars? But I donāt retract āunrealisticā. Itās an undeniable gross misportrayal. ā¦justified for highschool geography classes, when precise distantly-viewed observation, estimate or examination of exact relative positions makes good scale paramount and, to that end, justifies bad shape-portrayal. ā¦but not for elementary-school classes intended to give students a good idea of what the Earth looks like. For that purpose, Behrmann & Mollweide would be much preferable. I agree that it doesnāt have to be just one projection. ā¦Mollweide for its globe-realism (interrupted on only one meridian, or on two meridians and shown as two realistic circular views of the Earth). ā¦and Behrmann for its equal portrayal of all longitudes. In elementary-schools, Apianus II & Plate-Carree could be introduced, to establish the realistic circular Earth-view, the horizontally-doubled circle to show all, both sides, of the Earth; and the natural rectangular grid of cylindrical mapsā¦and the grid-plan intention. ā¦and then it could be explained that, to show all places in correct area-proportion, those two projectionsā parallels can be adjusted, resulting in Mollweide & Behrmann, which would be on the wall. At a somewhat later grade, the geometric explanation for Behrmann could be graphically-explained, and even that of Mollweide could (maybe a bit later) be explained too. But it should be emphasized to the listener that it isnāt necessary to follow (& be able to repeat) that geometric derivation. Merely seeing it done, observing the rough gist of it, shows that there is such an explanation, & that the person would be able to understand if they studied it. Itās enough that each part of the explanation is plausible. I claim that mapsā construction & properties should be explainable in that way, to anyone & everyone. Thatās one of the things that I like about CEA. ā¦and itās why I claim that Equal-Earth is inadequate. Sinusoidal? Itās the simplest constructed & explained, but itās also a terrible portrayal of shapes over much of the Earth, not useful either for distantly-viewed precise relative- position observation, or for elementary-school portrayal of how the Earth looks. But, after introduction of Apianus II & Plate Caree, followed by an explanation of their inexact area-proportions, why not show the obvious natural way to achieve right-area-proportions. ā¦by drawing the parallels with their globe-true length, and their globe-true spacing?...and then point out that the same accurate area-proportion can also be be achieved by adjusting the parallels-spacing of Apianus II & Plate Caree. ā¦which gives better general shapes & better overall size & scale. Maybe some kids wouldnāt care, but, for those who did, their questions about what is done and why would be answered. But just to clarify something: I'd substitute CEA-Stack for GP, for all the applications that I said that GP is good for...and for Many others too*, because CEA-Stack shows much better shapes at all latitudes, compared to GP.
very good scale & shape are desirable. Yet another wall of text. Please remember that "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." WP:TALK#USE These long contributions aren't helping. -- Macrakis ( talk) 21:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Most of what I said was directly relevant to the things I suggest saying in the article, and the objections to those things. The criticisms of GP, of varying merit, are certainly relevant, because those are issues about what can be said in the article. And, in an article about GP, when editors are cl aiming that GP is meritless compared to the other equal-area maps, and where I'm defending the merit of GP at this talk-page, it's reasonable for me to admit that yes, GP is completely merit-dominated(by CEA-Stack) . If GP genuinely isn't really the best for any application (because it's completely merit-dominated by CEA-Stack), then it shouldn't be taboo to say so...at the talk-page, and yes, even in the article. In response to
It doesn't need to be shown to be vanishingly unlikely. Standard practice is to only include facts if they are present in the RSs ā that's WP:VERIFIABILITY (just so we're all on the same page: "verifiability" in the context of Wikipedia means that a fact can be found in a RS. Editors like Strebe are not themselves RSs, so having him confirm something does not make it WP:VERIFIABLE). Encyclopedic sources like Flattening the Earth and An Album of Map Projections don't mention things like aspect ratio or av-scale, so these facts aren't WP:VERIFIABLE even if they are verifiable in the colloquial sense. In addition, facts are usually only included if they are relevant to the subject's notability. The cartographers who use GP and the activists who write about it today only cite its cylindrical and equal-area properties, so the other pros listed above are not relevant to its notablity. As you have pointed out, such guidelines can be suspended in exceptional cases, but I don't see that there is sufficient reason to do so here, given how long the article will become if we include all pros that are sometimes relevant. In response to the specific point about the aspect ratio and width: You can see from this picture of a poster in a Boston classroom that there is ample space both on the sides and on the top and bottom. If they wanted to get a different equal-area projection with a larger aspect ratio, they could easily get one with the same scale and still have horizontal space to spare. They would have to move "oceans", "Peters Projection", "equator", and "hemisphere" to above or below the map, but "landforms" and "scale" are already there, so that shouldn't impact the display's readability. Based on how people use and talk about world map posters, it seems to me that the determining dimension of a poster is not its width but its total area, as that determines how much space it takes up visually and, as you noted, how expensive and awkward to transport it is. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 03:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Justinā As I said, often an advantage of a map only obtains under certain conditions and applications. Thatās as true of GP as it is of maps in general. No map is best for all applications. You canāt use a WP policy as a reason to say that there canāt or shouldnāt be an exception to that policyā¦unless you can show that that exception would be detrimental to the article and its informing of readers. Iāve told why an exception to the policy is needed, and would improve the article. ā¦the exception of allowing a pros/cons section even though GPās advantages & disadvantages donāt have notable citations. A complete pros/cons section is nonetheless needed. The articlesā readers would be informed much better, and the article would indeed be (much) improved. Additionally, WP explains that verifiability (by its usual meaning in English) is the reason why notable citations are ordinarily required. But this isnāt an ordinary circumstance, due to the presence, at this article, of a cartographer who is considered, by the other cartographers, to be reliable. Itās obviously a matter of legalistic-ness vs common-sense. If the numerical facts in my proposed section could easily be verified or refuted, by that agreed-reliable cartographer, then itās verifiable, in any meaningful sense of that word. So, by common sense, if the information would improve the articleās informing of readers, and is verifiable, then how would you claim that it would be detrimental to the article? Yes, a listing of the GP advantages & disadvantages I statedāhaving a genuine pros/cons section--would inevitably lengthen the articleā¦by one section. ā¦a necessary section. If youāre concerned about article-length, then delete the long, unnecessary & irrelevant material about scandal-history. As I said, itās common and typical for mapsā advantages to only obtain in some circumstances & applications. If, as is indeed sometimes the case, a world map on a wall doesnāt have to compete at all for wall-space, then, yes, space-efficiency would replace width as the limiting quantity. ā¦as you said, because the mapsheet-area affects expense. ā¦and because a map extending to floor & ceiling would have visibility problems near the floor, and be seen at an unhelpful angle near the ceiling, for close-seated students. ā¦and the left & or right ends of a whole-wall-covering map might be seen at an unhelpful angle for some close-seated students. Those are drawbacks for a whole-wall-covering map. When thereās no space-competition, obviously Behrmann would be, scalewise, as good as GPā¦and has better shape over more of the Earth. Likewise, to a somewhat lesser degree, for Eckert IV & Equal-Earth. ā¦and for Mollweide, to a slightly lesser extent. (ā¦but Equal-Earth still suffers from a big uniquely-difficult-explanation disadvantage.)D Disadvantage of GP: What is GPās problem? Itās obvious at a glance. As a greatly NS-Expanded CEA map, GP obviously gives good European shapesāIts standard-parallel is at lat 45. Equally obviously (even moreso, actually), as a greatly NS-Expanded CEA map, GP has drastically-unrealistic shape in the tropics. Those statements donāt require Original-Research, or citation of a Notable journal. :D So, without any Original-Reaserch, itās plain that a greatly NS-expanded CEA map is great for higher latitudes, and no good for low latitudes. No Original Research there. Given the above, then where would it be good to use a greatly NS-Expanded CEA map? Let me guess: ā¦at high lat, and not at low-lat? That, too, doesnāt require Original-Research, or a citation of a peer-reviewed journal :D But thatās just a description of CEA-Stackās high-lat map-sections. CEA-Stack automatically, inevitably, comes up when GPās problem is mentionedā¦as described above. ā¦and therefore isnāt off-topic in a GP pros/cons section -- unsigned comment by User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-08-26T14:01:37
It would be more productive if, instead of adding more text to the Talk page, you added one important and well-documented advantage to the page itself, with sources. You seem to consider its aspect ratio to be an advantage. Fine. Add something like this:
or even
Now, I suspect that you won't be able to find reliable sources like this, which means that the claim is based on your own reasoning, what we call here original research. But if you do, knock yourself out. I see no reason for a derogation from our usual rules, which are designed precisely for cases like this. -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Just briefly: I'd quote such references if i'd found any. As you suggested, there don't seem to be any. Incorrect. WP says that facts obvious to everyone are NOT "Original-Research", and therefore aren't prohibited from WP articles. By the way, I didn't list aspect-ratio as an advantage. I listed large point-min/max-scale and point-min-scale--and high values for them over a large percentage of the Earth--as advantages. We've already been over this: It doesn't take a journal-article to establish that a map is more usable from across the room if scale is larger. Must I quote an educational journal to establish that readability is better than non-readability? :D Nor is there any shortage of available citations (need I cite them?) that people object to the bad shape that results from low point-min/max-scale. Yes, low aspect-ratio favors a map's rating by global measures of point-min-scale--referenced to the scale along the equator (as it is, as I define it for cylindrical or pseudocylindrical maps). And yes, low aspect-ratio favors a map's rating by av-scale, which I defined with reference to the scale along the equator. I acknowledged that maps & other posted things don't always have width as their fit-critical dimension(Maps often don't have their advantages in all applications.), and that GP's advantages that depend on width being fit-critical don't always obtain. However, posted things, and maps especially, are always posted at a height not close to floor or ceiling...and therefore would compete with eachother for horizontal-space at that middle height. ...if there are enough of them on the wall to compete, as admittedly there aren't always. But I didn't list low aspect-ratio, for its own sake, as an advantage.
edited 03:54 You aren't advancing the discussion. I was suggesting a productive way forward -- start with one claim (aspect ratio was just an example) and write it up with proper reliable sources. See also WP:STICK and WP:IDHT. -- Macrakis ( talk) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Sorry, but the answers to your objections don't change when you repeat the objections. So yes I repeated the answers. But yes, it shouldn't have been necessary to do so. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-8-27T22:12 Oh, one other thing I should mention: I pointed out that the OR rule, by its own wording, doesnāt apply to things obvious to everyone, and I suggested an exception to the verification by RS rule, and told how I justify the exception. I told why it would improve the article. I asked for reasons why the exception, in this instance, would be detrimental to the article.\ The answers that I got consisted of repetition of the policy to which Iād suggested an exception. No, as Iāve already pointed out, the policy itself canāt be used as a reason why it canāt or shouldnāt have an exception. But if you donāt have a reason why the exception would be detrimental to the article, I donāt care. The fact that you didnāt give a reason when asked for one will be helpful when I later take the matter to Wikipedia administration. Given the current ideological-POV demographic-composition among the editors at this article, itā obvious that the GP article will never have balance or objectivity, or a pros/cons section, without the help of administrative enforcement. As Iāve said, that would probably be a lengthy process--a project that it isnāt possible for me to embark on just yet. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-8-29T22:12
This comment is relevant to the article, because itās something that should be in the article, in the Disadvantages section (ā¦if there were one, as there should be.) Yes, GP, at is equator, has a point-min/max-scale of only .5 But, you know, itās common for equal-area maps to have point-min/max-scale as low as .5 or lower at some place on the map. So, as a practical matter, yes GP might be inconvenient to use where the point-min/max-scale is so low. But likewise on other equal-area maps that have a point-min/max-scale that low somewhere. Yes, what people object to about GP is that its low point-min/max-scale occurs at in the tropics, and, in particular, even at the center of the map. That makes the resulting unrealism much more blatant and in-your-face. Thatās why some people donāt like GP. An answer to that: Realism isnāt everything. If you want it to really look like the Earth, then put on your wall a photo of the Earth from space. A map is intended to map the Earth, not impersonate it. And if you find GP unaesthetic, then remember Salvador Dali. Maybe GPās name should be changed to the Salvador Dali Projection. Relevant to GP's advantage: GP can only be recommended for a special situation: A wall that's crowded, with competition for horizontal-space, or soon will be; a need for accurate measurements or examination of relative-position, or distant-examination; a requirement to use only maps currently for sale (i.e. CEA-Stack not available). Without those conditions, of course Behrmann would be much better than GP, due to its good shape over 2/3 of the Earth's surface. In fact, for a horizontally-crowded wall, a twice-interrupted world-map, with 2 separate maps, each mapping half of the Earth's longitude, with the two maps mounted one over the other, would beat a one-piece GP map, by geometric-mean scale for a given width, no matter which equal-area projection is used. For example, a twice-interrupted, vertically-arranged, Behrmann or Sinusoidal world-map would beat a 1-piece GP map, by geometric-mean-scale for a given width. And of course it goes without saying that the twice-interruption would reduce Sinusoidal's peripheral distortion. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.109.213 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 20:29, September 4, 2021 (UTC)
I took some of the advice (e.g. signing posts; methods for quoting, etc.) Not all of the advice was consistent with actual Wikipedia policy...&/or previous practice at this talk-page. I'd been signing my posts, with a date & time. Yes, I forgot to do so on my most recent post before your comment.
New Comments on January 12th, 2022:Wikipediaās guidelines are only meant as suggestions, not as exceptionless rules. Wikipedia emphasizes that common-sense can call for an exception to a policy. ā¦and Wikipedia acknowledges that some Wikipedia editors misinterpret policies as excpetionless rules in order to prevent the inclusion of material that they personally dislike. ā¦as is the case here, when we have people trying to claim that Gall-Petersā advantages canāt be mentioned in the article (making it impossible to have a pros/cons section), because āreliable sourcesā donāt talk about Gall-Petersā advantages (ā¦and the resident cartographer here refuses to answer a simple straightforward Y/N question about one of the advantages). Well, Iāve asked a cartographer here, at this article talk-page, the following question: āIs it or is it not true that, on Gall-Peters, nowhere between lat 60 north & lat 60 south, is the scale at any point, in any direction, less than the scale along the equator & on the reference-globe or generating-globe?ā Yes or no. Itās a simple enough question, and not one that should be a problem for any genuine cartographer. And yet the resident cartographer at this article refused to answer the question. Not only does our resident cartographer here refuse to say that itās so. He refuses to say that it isnāt so. Is that because itās unknown or unknowableĀ ? Ā :-D No, itās a straightforward y/n question easily-determinable matter BTW, the region between lat 60 N & 60 S comprises about 86.6Ā % of the Earthās surface. So hereās another question or our resident cartographer: What other equal-area world-map has scale at least as great as the scale on the mapās equator & reference-globe, everywhere, in every direction, over 86.6% of the Earthās surface? (ā¦other than other CEA maps such as Balthasart, Square Tober CEA, & CEA-Stack.) Does anyone really believe that a refusal to answer those questions will successfully keep that GP advantage out of the article, when the matter is appealed to Wikipedia administration? BTW, CEA-Stack completely dominates GP. On CEA-Stack, with its Behrmann main-map, and with three added northern high-lat sections, CEA-Stack shows about 99% of the north-of-the equator part of the Earth with scale, in every direction at every point, at least equal to the scale along the equator. ā¦and shows about 95% of the north-half of the Earth with āgood shapeā, by which I mean point-min/max scale of at least Ā¾ (Thatās the point-min/max scale at Behrmannās equator). ā¦and that CEA-Stack version accomplishes all that, with an aspect ratio thatās a near-perfect fit to an 8.5X11 sheet of computer-paper. GP has good shape over only 21.3Ā % of the Earthās surface. (The high-lat sections wouldnāt be needed in the South, where even the first one would be needed by only a small amount of land at the tip of South-America. (ā¦unless one is very interested in Antarctica.) Of course, if desired, one high-lat section could be added in the South, for good scale & shape even in that tip of South-Americaā¦the Southernmost inhabited continental land.) BTW, even ordinary Behrmann CEA easily beats Equal-Earth, with good-shape, over 2/3 of the Earthās surface. ā¦& with point-min-scale at least equal to scale along equator, over 2/3 of the Earthās surface. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-1-12T12:55 āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 09:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
First just a quick comment: How very bizarre, to claim that point-min-scale doesn't matter. Look at high-lat peripheral places on Sinusoidal, or at the top of any line-pole equal-area map, and say thatĀ :-D. In a classroom, it's often necessary to observe a map from a distance, because not all of the seats in the room can be close to the map. The distance at which a short map-distance can be discerned or compared is proportional to the map's scale at the point & direction of interest. If scale didn't matter, there'd be no reason for atlases to typically use a very large format, compared to other books. There'd be no reason for wall-maps to be roughly 3'X4' instead of postcard-size. Why equator-length & scale are a meaningful reference: On many or most Cylindroid (Cylindrical or Pseudocylindrical) maps, the scale along the equator is equal to the scale on the surface of the reference-globe, the generating-globe. (Yes, the CEA maps other than Lambert are often spoken of as being on a cylinder that intersects the reference-globe. But the non-Lambert CEA maps can also fairly be regarded as just vertically-magnified Lambert maps, sharing Lambert's reference/generating globe.) Scale-factor on a map is, by its definition, referenced to the scale on the reference or generating globe. Additionally, as you'll find nearly any time when there's space-competition on a wall, it's the horizontal-space that's in short supply. That makes the equator-length & scale the most useful length & scale reference. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-1-12T0042 āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 00:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC) I compared the aspect-ratio of a certain version of CEA-Stack to that of an 8.5X11 inch sheet of computer-paper, not because I advocate printing maps only on 8.5X11 sheets, but rather as a way of telling the shape of the map, its aspect-ratio. That (11/8.5) aspect-ratio is a convenient and not very atypical shape for a wall-map or book-page. I wanted to emphasize that the powerful properties-improvements achieved by CEA-Stavk don[t require an unreasonably or particularly unusually tall map. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 01:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC) we could argue indefinitely about whether these criteria are meaningful, but I'm starting to realize it's not productive. why don't we try to compromise by adding a paragraph about GP's pros that are based on RS? I would propose something like the following, added to the bottom of the "Cartographic Reception" section.
Justin Kunimune ( talk) 13:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
[quote] we could argue indefinitely about whether these criteria are meaningful, but I'm starting to realize it's not productive. [/quote] You got that right. The matter of whatās āmeaningfulā is a subjective matter of opinion & personal-feeling. There are no RSs on subjective matters of opinion or personal-feeling. Cartographers, and the publications that publish them, are reliable when stating objective, verifiable mathematical facts. Cartographers, & the publications that publish then, are reliable when stating their personal subjective opinions, personal feelings, & POV. Cartographers, & the publications that publish them, are not reliable regarding subjective matters such as their opinion regarding what others should consider important (ā¦but they can reliably tell us mathematical facts that might influence peopleās perception of importance.) When you call certain publications āReliable-Sourceā, regarding subjective judgments of importance, thatās nonsense, and it just elevates some groupās POV to governing-status. So, how can Wikipedia say anything about such matter? Easy. Without calling it a debate (because it wouldnāt be an ongoing conversation in the article), in any instance with two sizable groups ( such as people who like GP, & people who donāt like GP), then just let each of those 2 groups state why they consider GPās advantages or disadvantages to be. ā¦& how they support their claims about importance. Iām not claiming that point-min-scale, referenced to map-width, is always important. But itās important when map-width is the fit-critical dimension. ā¦as it undeniably sometimes is. ā¦and as it usually is in wall-mounting, when fit & crowding is a problem. If Strebe wants to claim that point-min-scale is irrelevant, then I invite him to share with us why he believes that. Iāve told why I claim that point-min-scale matters. If & when Strebe feels ready to, he should be permitted to say why he thinks that point-min-scale is irrelevant, or in what way my argument that itās relevant is incorrect. Sorry, but thatās the best that you can do on a fundamentally subjective matter. You can tell about the mathematics, but the importance-judgment comes down to subjective opinionā¦for which reasons can and should be given. Now hear this: Donāt use GP when map-height is the fit-critical dimension! Behrmann, or maybe even Lambert, would be better then. When thereāll likely be crowding, but it isnāt clear which dimension will be more fit-critical than the other, or itās known that neither will be more fit-critical than the other, then of course space-efficiency is what matters, regarding the matter of av-scale, point-min-scales, or room for map-detail & labeling. When that doesnāt even matter, because the map will be on a large bare wall with no space-competition, and you can make the map as big as you want, to make any placeās point-min-scale as large as you want, regardless of the projectionā¦then, obviously, shapes, point-min/max-scale, becomes what matters. Behrmann does excellently, with point-min/max scale >= 3/4 , over about 2/3 of the Earthās surface. GPās inaccurate tropical shapes are unrealistic & inconvenient, and, to some, aesthetically-disturbing. ā¦but not use-prohibitive. Looking at the equator? Then I remind you that shapes there are really only half as NS-tall as theyāre shown. ...as regards the ratio between NS dimension & EW dimension. Looking at the top or bottom of Africa? Then I remind you that the shapes there are only about 2/3 as NS-tall as they appear. ...as regards the ratio between NS dimension & EW dimension. Insufficient point-min-scale for precise measurements or viewing at a distance can be use-prohibitive. GP excels at good point-min-scale, having good point-min-scale over the inhabited latitudes. ā¦out to lat +/- 60. Thatās 86.6% of the Earthās surface, out to the approximate latitude of Oslo, Stockholm & Helsinki. I define āgood point-min-scaleā as point-min-scale >= the scale along the mapās equator. Iāve told why thatās often, though not always, important. Very often, an advantage only sometimes obtains, depending on conditions. Itās nonetheless an advantage. Oh yes, & thereās the matter of the reliability of mathematical facts that are stated. Well, anyone can challenge the accuracy of a fact. And no, that isnāt prohibitively time-consuming. Itās common practice everywhere but here. It isnāt complicated: Someone states a fact. Maybe (or maybe not) someone else challenges itā¦either by asking for verification, or telling why it isnāt true. Of course merely proving that thereās a consensus among reliably-credentialed people, that it isnāt so is sufficient to refute an alleged objective mathematical fact. e.g. Strebe could tell us why he believes that GP doesnāt have point-min-scale >= the scale along the equator, between lat -60 & lat +60. ā¦or point to an expert-consensus that GPās lat-range of good scale is less than that. Thatās how the accuracy of an objective mathematical fact can be verified or refuted. 96.39.179.76 at 2022-1-15 at 0149 UT āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"Reliable source" does not mean "cartographer". RSs include respected peer-reviewed papers, news articles from established outlets, and published books. And RSs are reliable when stating what is important enough to mention. Using RSs this way does elevate some groups' POV to governing status, but that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Someone's POV needs to decide what is relevant and what isn't. It could conceivably come from a sizeable group of people selected to represent two sides of an argument, as you propose. But the creators and maintainers of Wikipedia have decided follow RSs. If Wikipedia was a scientific journal or a news agency, then of course that would be insufficient. We would have to verify all facts, weigh opinions by how well-supported they are, and adjust the narrative to represent all sides fairly. However, while journals and news agencies do exist, Wikipedia is not one of them. Wikipedia is a way for people to access published information in one place for free. If you think it would be better to gather a sizable group of people, ask them what they think is good about the Gall Peters Projection and why, and list the pros and cons that they identify, then I encourage you to do so and publish the result as a paper or news article or book. If you want more people to know that they should use GP when the width is the fit-critical dimension, then start a blog about map projections and post it there. But until they are published in an RS, these things do not belong on a Wikipedia article. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Justin-- we've been over this. There are facts that are far too blatantly, ridiculously obvious to require a citation. 96.39.179.76 at 2022-1-15T2305 āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 23:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Meters-- In case you haven't noticed, I've been signing nearly all of my posts. I tried the tildes. They don't work for me. I don't know or care why. I had a registration here, & have been told that I must still have one. I've tried to sign with it, via the tildes. But, since that doesn't work, I've been signing via my ISP. You want brevity? Then delete, from the article, all of the entirely-irrelevant material about about cartographer's emotional reaction to Arno, & about Arno's claims, etc. Arno Peters wasn't the introducer of GP, and all that material about him & what he said, & cartographers' reaction to him bears no relation whatsoever to James Gall's CEA version. All that Arno material could & should be moved the the Wikipedia article about Arno Peters. The GP article should be only about GP as a map-projection. 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 23:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
[quote] So, after five months and almost 135 k of talk page discussion you've dropped your idea of adding a section on properties, advantages and disadvantages? [/quote] No. I said no such thing. But obviously any progress in that matter will depend on taking the matter to Wikipedia administration, and it might be a while before I have time to give the amount of time it deserves, to that--likely lengthy-- project. [quote] OK, well then I suggest that you start a new talk page section to discuss what you now suggest we remove from the article. [/quote] Yes, that calls for a separate section. Getting the projection-irrelevant material our of the article...and moving it to the Arno Peters Wikipedia article.
My claims are verifiable, by asking any cartographer (..or, rather any cartographer who is willing to answerĀ :-) Anyway, Wikipedia is explicit about not requiring verification for things that are obvious. Additionally, relevance is often a subjective individual matter, and there's no such thing as an RS on a subjective matter. Strebe says that point-min-scale is irrelevant. Why? He isn't saying!Ā :-) "Relevant" needn't mean "Important & necessary in every instance." For relevance, it's sufficient that there are non-rare instance in which the fact is useful. It's just blatantly, ridiculously, undeniably obvious that there are instances in which point-min-scale matters. What about the fact that there could be instance in which map-width isn't the fit-critical dimension. Again, the extent or size of the region of good point-min-scale,referenced to map-width, is only important when width is the critical dimension. But that's sometimes the case, which is enough for the extent of size of the region of good point-min-scale to be relevant. And, BTW, if you've ever fit maps to a wall where there's competition for space, you'll have found that it's usually horizontal-space for which there's competition. Book-pages? The aspect ratio of most book-pages is less than the aspect-ratio of most equal-area world-maps. And the aspect-ratio of the combination of two facing-pages, too, is usually less than the aspect-ratio of most equal-area world-maps. ...meaning that, again, map-width is usually the fit-critical dimension. So when there's any question about fit, map-width is more likely than map-height, to be the fit-critical dimension. On Wikipedia, "verifiable" means that it exists in a RS somewhere even if that RS hasn't been cited. In this case, what's being questioned is not whether the claims are factually correct, but whether they are relevant, so obviousness does not exclude them from the need for verifiability. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 12:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Do you really think that you have an RS regarding what people should regard as relevant to them? 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC) (That's my tilde signature.) I should add that, in addition to the size & extent of the region of good-scale (which I define as scale at least equal to the scale along the equator), also important is av-scale. ...because, if, at some future time, you might need to distinguish between, or judge distance between, two nearby points, either minutely, or from a distance, you can't know now at what point on the Earth or in what direction, the scale of interest will be. By all of the abovementioned point-min-scale standards, Gall-Peters beats every (interrupted on only one meridian) equal-area world map that has ever been in print for sale. Angular-error &/or low point-min/max scale can be unrealistic, a nuisance,an inconvenience, & an aesthetic-fault. ...but too low a point-min-scale can make a map unusable at some particular distance, for some pair of points sufficiently close on the map. 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No time to reply to everything right now, but I'll just point out the following: Gall-Peters is by far the most popular equal-area world-map. Nothing else comes even remotely close. You're engaged in a desperate stonewalling effort, against the overwhelmingly most preferred equal-area world-map. So GP's advantages are irrelevant because some editor doesn't publish about them? So your WP article consists only of nasty inimical POV, & your resident cartographer refuses to say whether or not GP has point-min-scale >= the scale along the equator from lat 60 south to lat 60 north, up to Oslo, Stockholm & Helsinki...86.6% of the Earth's surface, because...he says that's irrelevant...but won't say why. ...presumably consistent with your notion of verification? Ā :-D Scale, space, area. That's what encompasses, contains & supports everything that a map displays. ...and GP has more of that, for a given width, than any one-piece equal-area map that's ever been in print for sale. ....but it's irrelevant because no article (by a cartographer, or some newspaper editor) says it's relevant??Ā :-D Sorry, but that those above-stated facts don't require a notable citation.Ā :-D 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 21:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC) āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ArchiveĀ 2 |
The 'controversy' section of this article, as discussed above, has some POV issues. It does not read like a neutral assessment of the debate, but rather a criticism of the Gall-Peters projection from someone opposed to it. I've edited it in an attempt to remove the non-neutral language; explanations of my removals are below:
The rest is basically acceptable, and I'll leave it for now. If you disagree with any of these edits, please discuss them below rather than just reverting. Terraxos ( talk) 05:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
References
Extended content
|
---|
Proposed Added Section, to go above the Controversy section, because objective properties, advantages & disadvantages are what matter. Some Properties, Advantages & Disadvantages of Gall-Peters: Advantages: Due to its rectangular shape, & its great NS height for a given width, Gall-Peters (GP) is a very large map for its width. (Width is typically the limiting-dimension for a wall-map.) Large map-area means more room for more detail, more labeling, &/or larger labeling. And it's obvious that EW expansion, at all latitudes, to the map's full equatorial width, combined with large NS expansion, must and does increase scale at every point in every direction. Large scale allows nearby points to be more easily resolved and distinguished. .Size & scale are particularly important for working maps, as opposed to decorative maps. In particular, classroom maps often or usually must be examined at a distance (from seat to wall) Thematic maps in atlases must often be small in width, due to the need to show so many such maps in an atlas. That width limitation makes it particularly important to maximize area & scale for a given map-width. Some Specifics: . Region where scale is nowhere less than equatorial scale: Between the latitudes 60 south & 60 north, from Antarctica to Oslo, Stokholm & Helsinki's approximate latitudes, on a GP map, there is no place where the scale in any direction is less than the scale along the equator. That's 87% of the Earth's surface That can't be said for other equal-area maps that are in use. GP's area for a given width is about 1.62 times that of Mollweide, Hammer, & Goode Homolosine. GP's area for a given width is 1.42 that Eckert IV. ...and likely similar for the similarly-shaped Eckert III, & Equal-Earth. ...with the greater average-scale that goes with that greater area. GP shares the other usefulness-advantages of cylindrical projections in general: With a position-&-properties ruler, it's easy to determine, on a cylindrical map, the following quantities: Latitude, Longitude, scale & magnification (for a conformal map), and EW-scale, NS-scale &their ratio (for an equal-area map such as GP). Cylindrical maps treat all longitudes equally. Simplicity: Cylindrical-Equal-Area (CEA), of which GP is an example, is the 2nd simplest equal-area map (The simplest is Sinusoidal, which isn't popular, due to its shape-distortion and low min-scale). Using a simple diagram showing the horizontal projection of a sphere's surface onto a cylinder around the sphere in contact with its equator, the construction of CEA is easily demonstrated, and the reason for its equal-area property is easily demonstrated and explained. Not so with other equal-area maps. The equal-area property of Mollweide & Eckert IV can be demonstrated without calculus, but nonetheless requires a relatively elaborate geometric & algebraic explanation. Equal-Earth's construction, and why it's equal-area, are far too elaborate to explain to people. Disadvantage: Poor shapes at low-latitude. ...resulting in not-so-attractive or realistic appearance, and maybe some usage-inconvence in tropical-regions of the map, due to NS scales being up to twice EW scales. GP isn't designed to win beauty-contests. It goes without saying that (as with anything else) the advantages are available if one accepts the disadvantage. All CEA maps have flattening in extreme north latitudes. With GP, at lat 60, the ratio of point-max scale to point-min-scale scale is 2. That amount, or more, of shape-distortion at lat 60 isn't unusual for equal-area maps . Comparison of GP's shape-merit with that of other CEA maps: The Behrmann CEA map has a standard parallel of lat 30 instead of lat 45. The equatorward half of the the Earth is compressed EW,and the poleward half is compressed NS. On Behrmann, at the equator, the NS scale is only 4/3 times the EW scale. On Behrmann, about 2/3 of the Earth is portrayed with that point-min/max scale of at least Ā¾...i.e. with shape no worse than at the Behrmann's equator. That 2/3 of the Earth's surface extends, approximately, in the north, up to Barcelona, Spain; and to Garrison, New York, Omaha Nebraska, & Mount Shasta in California. GP only achieves that Ā¾ point-min/max scale over 21% of the Earth's surface, from (in the Northern Hemisphere) the latitude of southernmost Tennessee, up to the latitude of Cambridge & Northampton in England, a bit north of London. GP's strength is area & scale, not shape. Of course Behrmann pays for that good tropical shape by increased high-lat shape-distortion. On Behrmann, at lat 60, the point-min/max scale is only 1/3, instead of GP's value of Ā½. Behrmann's region with point-min scale greater than equatorial-scale is only the same 2/3 of the Earth in which it has point-min/max-scale greater than Ā¾. ...compared to GP's 87% of the Earth having point-min-scale greater than GP's equatorial scale. As is well-known, CEA maps can't have good shapes at both high & low latitudes. Projections like GP, Balthasart or Tobler CEA, which have relatively good shape at non-polar high-lat, don't look as good at low-lat. So, then, why not just use them only at high-lat, where they bring improvement? e.g. It's at lat 41.41 that Behrmann starts having point-min/max scale less than Ā¾. So, stacked directly over a Behrmann map of the Earth, have a CEA map that has NS/EW scale = 4/3 at lat 41.41 ...and, with that map, map the region from lat 41.41 up to the north pole. Do the same in the Southern-Hemisphere. The result is a stack of 3 CEA maps, with point-min/max scale of at least Ā¾ over about 5/6 of the Earth's surface, from the tip of South-America up to Glasgow & Copenhagen. ...and with point-min-scale at least equal to equatorial-scale over about 90% of the Earth's surface, which extends from Antarctica up to about the middle of Iceland. That high-lat CEA map with NS/EW scale = 4/3 at lat 41.41 is nearly the same as Balthasart. Its standard parallel is at lat 49.49 It goes without saying that different maps are best for different purposes. Scale & area improvements like GP or the above-described "CEA-Stack" are for working-maps, such as classroom-maps & thematic-maps, for which precise or distantly-observed detail is likely to be needed. But of course if a map is mainly decorative, or if a realistic picture of the Earth is what is desired, and accurate measurement or examination everywhere isn't important, then a more globe-realistic map like Mollweide would be desirable. 97.82.109.213 22:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with copying & borrowing from sources. But something is very wrong when it's claimed to be disallowed to discuss Gall-Peters' advantages (only its disadvantage can be discussed) if a peer-reviewed source can't be cited. Anyway, the important basic points in the proposed section consist of things much too obvious to require citation of a peer-reviewed source. Wikipedia states that its rules aren't set in stone, and that there can be exceptions. Surely there's such an exception when the "rule" would allow discussion of disadvantages, but disallow discussion of advantages. Properties-facts easily demonstrable by the known & usual principles of Cylindrical-Equal-Area maps aren't "Original-Research". Anyway, I do have a Notable-Source. But first I re-emphasize that my proposed section contains two kinds of statements about fact: 1. Facts that are much to obvious to need citation of a "reliable source". ...such as what I said about the obvious relation between map-expansion & scale-increase. If you expand the map, or any part of it in one direction, making no change in the direction perpendicular to it, then obviously that will increase scales in some places, in all directions other than the one perpendicular to the explansion And if you expand all of the map in both dimensions, that will increase scale at every point in all directions. That's way too obvious to require a Notable Source. ...as is the fact that place-name labeling is easier to read if the lettering is bigger, and lettering can be bigger if map-area is bigger. ...and that determination of the geographical position of zone-boundaries in thematic-maps is easier if the map is bigger and the scale larger. ...and the fact that classroom ,maps are often or usually observed from at least partway across the classroom, from someone's desk to the wall. 2. Facts, about numerical map-properties over particular latitude-bands, require some calculation. If I determine and report such facts, you call it "Original Research". For one thing, that's really a misuse of that term, because it implies that I've discovered and studied a new area of study, and found out things that no one has previously known. No, the numerical specifics that I reported are about matters familiar to cartographers. ...nothing new or previously unknown. And, anyway, as I said, I have a Reliable-Source. ...unless you want to say that Daniel Strebe is unreliable. Strebe has demonstrated his willingness and motivation to refute Arno Peters' false-claims. He's evidently motivated to refute false claims that are in favor of Gall-Peters. Therefore, if any of my numerical claims are false, Strebe will refute them. ...and, if he doesn't, that amounts to a statement from a Reliable-Source, that my numerical claims are correct. Daniel Strebe is my reliable source. We're indeed fortunate at this article, to have a reliable source at this article-page. -- 02:34, 4 August 2021 97.82.109.213
Strebeā [quote] We don't construct arguments [/quote] When responding to a request for a pros/cons section, one gives reasons pro & con. You can call that āconstructing argumentsā, but a pros/cons section is inevitably going to sound like āargumentsā. Hereās a quote from Wikipedia: āSome sections do not have to be neutral. Examples include criticism sections and pro and con sections.ā Neither the āadvantagesā nor the ādisadvantagesā part of the proposed section can be āneutralā, and both inevitably will sound like āargumentsā. However, I stated both the advantages & disadvantages of GPā¦all the ones that Iām aware of. Thatās neutrality. I didnāt ignore GPās low-lat shape-problem, and the various kinds of resulting disadvantages. [quote] These Talk pages are not soap-boxes [/quote] Iāve been told that major changes to an article (such as a new section) should first be proposed at the talk-page, and thatās what I did. [quote] Wikipedia articles are not permitted to make claims, even "obvious" claims, without citing reliable sources. Strebe (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [/quote] Incorrect. Youāre attempting an inappropriately legalistic use of WP policies, attempting to use them as rules that you can interpret to disallow mention of GP advantages. ā¦to preserve the 1-sidedness of your articleās discussion. ā¦about which a number of people here have commented. Wikipedia says that an editor who wants to contravene the letter of a policy (they arenāt ārulesā) must give reasons to justify that. Iāve been doing so. 1`. My numerical statements are easily verifiable, given that we have an in-house resident cartographer at this article. 2. Legalistic adherence to the source-citation suggestion would mean that GPās advantages would be disallowed in the article. ā¦not good, for a pros & cons section. (See, below, the 1st sentence in Justin Kunimuneās reply.) Obviousness is an instance of what is meant by WPās advice to use common-sense instead of legalist application of policies as hard-&-fast ārulesā. I wonāt quibble about whether or not youāre a āsourceā, even though, by the dictionary definition, youāre indeed a source or potential source of reliable information about maps. My point was that, given that we have an in-house resident cartographer at this article, that must affect the notion of āverifiabilityā here. As I said, youāve demonstrated the inclination & motivation to refute false statements that favor Gall-Peters, and an inclination to take the time to debate, for many pages, the meaning of āIronyā, and the grammatical difference between āPeterā, āPetersā, āPeterāsā & āPetersāā Therefore, if the numerical facts in my section were false, youād say so. You havenāt. Due to your presence at the article, any objective facts that I state about maps, including the numerical facts in my proposed section, are indeed verifiable. Justin Kuimuneā [quote] Well, obvious claims can often be left uncited (as per WP:BLUE). personally, I'm less concerned with the list's factuality, and more with its length and subjectivity. [/quote] What??? A pros-&Cons section was requested, and Iāve listed, completely, the advantages & disadvantages that Iām aware of. ā¦and you object that itās too long? How about the long, long section on history & controversy? :D [quote] for a list of this scale, deciding what to include and what not to include will always be subjective, and will thus always run the risk of pushing a point of view. [/quote] I did my best to mention GPās usefulness advantages, and the various kinds of disadvantages detrimental to beauty, realism & usefulness resulting from GPās great low-lat shape-distortion. I emphasized GPās low (21%) percentage of the Earth shown as shape-accurate as Behrmannās equator (i.e. with point-min/max-scale of at least Ā¾). I was clear that one wouldnāt choose GP for its shapes, beauty or realism. And, yes, I spoke about GPās often-important usefulness-advantages of large area & scale for a working-map. [quote] that's what I mean when I call it original research, not that you have "found out things that no one has previously known", but that you have come up with original ideas that no one has previously published. [/quote] Are you really going to claim that readability & practical usefulness of a big, vs a small, map, or big, vs small, map-scale, isnāt mentionable at WP unless there are publications about it? Could it be that some things are too obvious to devote journal-publications to? ā¦but a pros-&-cons section for GP was requested, and I complied. I suggest that the relation of readability & usefulness to map-size & map-scale arenāt an āoriginal ideaā that Iāve ācome up withā. ā¦but rather just something too obvious to publish about in journals. [quote] I'm curious what you mean when you say that the rules "would allow discussion of disadvantages, but disallow discussion of advantages". It seems to me that the page already goes over a few of both, specifically as they are relevant to the surrounding controversy. are there specific disadvantages that you think are unfairly emphasized in the article as it is? Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [/quote] An excessively legalistic interpretation of a few WP policies (they arenāt ārulesā) would disallow mention of unpublished, but grossly, blatantly, obvious GP advantages. And no, those advantages are NOT covered in the article, though GPās shape-problem is well covered there. Thatās a bias and an imbalance, and a reason why the article needs an objective advantages/disadvantages section, such as the one that I propose. AnonMoos-- If the format is too abbreviated, and the wording needs more filling-out, then I'll be glad to fill it out more. So let me know where. Of course, for clarity, it's necessary to find a balance between detail & redundancy, vs brevity. I've tried to be as brief as possible, while still saying enough. But, definitely, let me know where I've erred too far in the direction of brevity. I emphasize that I wasn't comparing GP to Mercator. I was comparing it to other maps that are advocated over GP. ...mostly equal-area maps (...though I mentioned Robinson & Eckert III too). And I told of ways in which GP is better than other maps. ...but I also mentioned its disadvantage, because the proposed section is about both advantages & disadvantages. I wrote at some length about how the large low-lat scale-ratio is a disadvantage for realism, beauty, and even maybe for practical-use. So GP is better than other maps in some way, and they're better than GP in other ways. And isn't that always how it is? That's why I clarified for what uses GP is better, and for what other circumstances other, more realistic &/or beautiful maps would be desirable. -- 04:37, 4 August 2021 97.82.109.213
Strebe-- [quote] [quote] When responding to a request for a pros/cons section, one gives reasons pro & con. You can call that āconstructing argumentsā, but a pros/cons section is inevitably going to sound like āargumentsā. [/quote] That argument, and the rest of them, do not fly in the face of Wikipedia policies. [/quote] If youāre saying that they do fly in the face of Wikipedia policies, I remind you that policies arenāt rules. Wikipedia says that editors wanting to contravene a policy must tell justificationā¦as I have done in my most recent posts here. Iāve told why this is an exceptional situation, for two reasons that I stated in a numbered-list, and Iāve told why exceptions to policy are justified. Wikipedia says that itās common for editors to misrepresent Wikipedia policies as hard-&fast ārulesā, with no exceptions permitted, and to try to unjustifiably use them to prevent content that they disagree with or donāt like. [quote] No, we do not construct arguments to include as material for the article text. ā¦We do not create pro/con lists invented by ourselves. [/quote] I merely stated facts that are obvious to anyone, which is permitted by Wikipedia. [quote] An observation anyone could make is one thing, and is permitted [/quote] Good because thatās what I stated in my basic general non-numerical points. [quote] , but drawing conclusions about that observation is quite another thing, and it is not permitted. [/quote] I didnāt draw conclusions from the obvious observations. I merely stated them. If you want to claim that I drew conclusions in my basic non-numerical points, then a specification of instances would be required. [quote] Wikipediaās guidelines about ācommon senseā do not include the kinds of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that you are talking about. [/quote] I trust that you understand that a serious challenge would have to be a lot more specific than that. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue As I said, my general basic points state facts that are obvious to anyone, and donāt depend on constructing synthesis or drawing conclusions from them. And I repeat that my numerical statements in the proposed section are all verifiableā¦You, Strebe, could verify or refute them. ā¦or are you less āNotableā than some newspaper reporter & editor who donāt know squat about their topic? You arenāt going to? Fine. Wikipediaās verifiability policy doesnāt call for actual verification. Mere verifiability is sufficient.
[quote] The unsigned editor writes: I merely stated facts that are obvious to anyone, which is permitted by Wikipedia. Theyāre not obvious. Practically all of your claims are false, debatable, or else the significance is debatable. In other words, not obvious. [/quote] My main point was that a larger map is easier to use, to examine places, to judge or measure distances, to determine the geographical-position of a zone-boundary on a thematic map, to read the labeling, etc. False? Debatable original research? Debatable significance. Youāre joking, right? Thatās obvious common-knowledge. Itās why atlases with large page-area are printed & purchased, in spite of their relatively-higher price. A pocketbook-size atlas would be considerably less useful than one with the more typical large page-area. Itās why publishers print, and people buy, roughly 5āX3ā wall-maps instead of postcard-size wall-maps. Howās all that for original-research? Shall I name it after myself? :D [quote] If the points you are making were important enough to matter, you would find these points being made in citable literature. Theyāre not. [/quote] As Iāve already explained here, some things are too obvious to need or justify journal-articles. ā¦and therefore are not ācitableā. Is there a journal-article to cite that itās unwise to lie down in the bottom of a space thatās being filled with concrete, or that you get more exercise by lifting 15 pounds than 2 ouncesā¦so it canāt be said in a Wikipedia article? :D And you say or imply readability and usefulness are unimportant. :D Thatās a bizarre claim to make. [quote] That means they do not meet Wikipediaās threshold for inclusion. [/quote] It means that youāre playing fast-&-loose and creatively with Wikipediaās policies. [quote] To illustrate with your first five points: ā¢ Due to its rectangular shape, & its great NS height for a given width, Gall-Peters (GP) is a very large map for its width. (Width is typically the limiting-dimension for a wall-map.) With ālargeā undefined here, I donāt know what that intends to mean. [/quote] Merriam-Webster: āLarge: 4a Exceeding most other things of like kind, especially in size or quantity.ā āSize: Physical extent, magnitude, or bulk..ā The kind of āextentā referred to for maps is their area. Instead of making you look up āareaā, Iāll just say that the area of a rectangle is determined by multiplying its length by its width (qv). ā¦and that, for non-rectangular plane-regions, the areas of infinitesimal rectangles (or sometimes triangles) within a region are often summed to determine the area of a non-rectangular plane region. Area is expressed in linear units squared. e.g. square inches or square centimeters. [quote] You state, without evidence, that width is typically the limiting factor for a wall map. I disagree. [/quote] Well, look at a map on a wall. Above or below where itās mounted, one wouldnāt place a map. We donāt place maps up adjacent to the ceiling, or down adjacent to or near the floor. Therefore maps and other wall-posted things donāt compete for vertical-space, and so their vertical dimension isnāt their fit-critical dimension (their dimension that determines whether theyāll fit in a particular space. And, additionally, for nearly all maps in equatorial-aspect mounted with equator horizontal, the width is considerably greater than the height. [quote] ā¦and I also disagree that wall maps are necessarily what is important. [quote] Theyāre often important, as in classrooms. But atlases often have small thematic maps vertically stacked on a page. They adjoin eachother on edges that are (at least roughly) parallel to their equator, parallel to their X dimension. They donāt adjoin eachother along edges parallel to their Y-dimension. So their width is limited by the width of the page, and each mapās area depends on its space-efficiency (fraction of the mapās circumscribing-rectangle that the map fills) and the variable consisting of the mapās height (Y-dimension). If the book doesnāt need so many such maps as to tax the books page-capacity and make it too thick, then the area of the maps depends on their area for a given width. Often itās convenient to calculate that quantity by dividing their space-efficiency by their aspect-ratio. If the number of those small thematics maps needed is so great that they threaten to make the atlas require too many pages, then space-efficiency itself could become the critical map-quantity that limits the feasible combined-area of the maps. ā¦but, otherwise, the critical map-quantity is area for a given width. [quote] Large map-area means more room for more detail, more labeling, &/or larger labeling. Not so. [/quote] What a funny thing to say. Can you justify that strange claim? [quote] As an equal-area map, GallāPeters has exactly as much area as any other equal-area map. [/quote] Yes, it maps the same planet, and therefore a planet with the same area. World-maps differ in area. A world-map could be printed the size of a postage-stamp, or could cover a wall of a large room. In equatorial-aspect, with the X-dimension as the width, and for a given width, a Gall-Peters (GP) map has more area than any other world-map that has been used to any significant degree. ā¦much more area. ā¦because of its maximal space-efficiency (unity), and its very low aspect-ratio. Or if youāre just looking at how much area a map has as a percentage of the area of its circumscribing-rectangle, then of course thatās what I call āspace-efficiencyā, and the cylindrical equal-area projections collectively beat nearly all of the other equal-area maps. (ā¦other than the few rectangular non-cylindrical projections, whose construction is far too complicated to offer to the public). [quote] The massive left-right stretching in the mid- and higher latitudes is negated by increasing top-bottom compression toward the poles; likewise, the vertical stretching in the low latitudes is negated by the east-west compression. [/quote] Yes, an equal-area map doesnāt magnify some regions more than others. And, on an equal-area map, a point with greater X scale has proportionately less Y-scale. Itās intuitively obvious that thereās a cancellation of effects there, and a sense in which overall scale is unchanged. In fact, the geometric mean, over all the points on the map, and all directions at each point, is proportional to the square-root of the area of the map. (more detail below about that.) But it isnāt necessary to say that in the proposed section, because the cancellation between the expanded & shrunk scales at a point on an equal-area map is intuitively obvious. (The points considered donāt include the pole, because, for most equal-area maps, thereās an infinite scale there, and an infinite scale canāt be represented by a number.) Gall-Peters (GP) , with its maximal space-efficiency, and its low aspect-ratio, achieves a much greater area for a given width than other comparably-widely-used equal-area world-maps. [quote] ā¢ And it's obvious that EW expansion, at all latitudes, to the map's full equatorial width, combined with large NS expansion, must and does increase scale at every point in every direction. This is not only not obvious; I cannot even tell what you mean. Every map projection distorts scale. To claim āin every directionā is to claim something apparently false, since north-south compression on GallāPeters increases infinitely at the poles such that the scale in the north-south direction at the pole is zero rather than 1. [/quote] All or most equal-area world-maps other than pointed-pole maps such as Collignon, Sinusoidal, Craster-Parabolic, and Quartic-Authalic, have infinite-scale and zero-scale at the poles. .e.g. Mollwide, Eckert IV, and Equal-Earth do. So, when I spoke of increasing the scales in every direction at all points, yes thatās untrue at the poles. For most equal-area maps, there remain zero scale and infinite scale at the poles. So yes, add āexcept at the polesā to what I said. 1. Double the linear dimensions of any map, while keeping its original proportions, and you quadruple its area. i.e. Its area is proportional to the square-root of its dimension, when the shape & proportions are unchanged. Likewise,itās obvious that any linear distance on the map, anywhere, in any direction, on the map, will also increase in proportion to that uniform increase in the mapās dimensionsā¦and in proportion to the square root of the mapās area. Thatās for a map that changes only its linear measurements, uniformly, with no change in shape or proportions. 2. What about different equal-area cylindrical or pseudocylindrical maps with the same area? Say we start with some non-cylindrical pseudocylindrical world-map. Say, just for example, itās a Sinusoidal map. ā¦but it could be any non-cylindrical pseudocylindrical. Starting at the equator, divide the NE quadrant of the map into very many very thin east-west rectangular lat-bands parallel to the equator. Starting with the lat-band directly above the equator, expand it to the full width of the equator. Because we want to keep equal-area, that rectangular band must be shrunk in the Y-dimension by the same factor itās expanded by. Then do the same with the next ultra-thin lat-band above (north of) the previous one. ā¦and so on, for all the stacked ultra-thin lat-bands of the entire NE quadrant of the map. The result is a Cylindrical Equal-Area map having the same area as the initial pseudocylindrical map. What about the geometric mean of the scales. Because equal-area must be maintained, when a rectangle representing a particular part of the Earth on the map is expanded in one dimension, it must be shrunk in the mutually-perpendicular direction. It can be shown that, at any point, when the scale there is increased in one direction, and decreased by the same factor in the mutually-perpendicular direction, then, for any direction whose scale is increased, thereās another direction in which the scale is decreased by the same factor. ā¦meaning that the geometric-mean of the scales in all the directions at that point is unchanged. ā¦and that the geometric-mean of all the scales at all of the points in that rectangle is unhanged. ā¦and that the geometric mean of all the rectangular ultra-thin lat-bands that I mentioned on that map is unchanged. ā¦and that the area of the entire NE map-quadrant is unchanged. Each of the ultra-thin lat-bands was kept to constant area, and so the area of the whole map-quadrant hasnāt changed. So, constant area for an equal-area map means constant geometric-mean, over all the points on the map, and over all the directions at each point, of the scale. So GPās much greater area for a given width means a much greater average (geometric-mean) scale for a given width. ā¦just as bigger scale is intuitively obvious for a bigger map. And yes itās intuitively obvious that making a map will make its average scale bigger. ā¢ [quote] ā¢ Large scale allows nearby points to be more easily resolved and distinguished. ā¢ [/quote] It [Gall-Peters] doesnāt have ālarge scaleā by any meaning I know of. >p> GP has large mean scale. ā¦referring to the geometric-mean, over all points on the map (except the poles), and over every direction at each point. That geometric mean is proportional to the square-root of an equal-area mapās area. For a given map-width, do you know of any other widely-used equal-area map with as high a geometric mean scale (averaged over all points on the map, and over all directions at each point)? GP also has point-min-scale at least equal to its scale along the equator, all the way from lat 60 south, up to lat 60 north. Can you name another widely-used equal-area map for which that can be said? [quote] Severe north-south compression in the high latitudes ensures that points oriented vertically are less easily resolved (thanā¦ what?). Itās intuitively obvious that a bigger map has bigger average-scale. And it can be demonstrated that the geometric-mean, over all points on the map (except the two poles), and over all directions at each point, is proportional to the square root of the mapās area (ā¦as expressed in square-inches or square-centimeters). [quote] ā¢ Size & scale are particularly important for working maps, as opposed to decorative maps. It depends on what kind of work. [/quote]
How about the kind of work that requires the map to be readable and its labeling to be legible?
I made it quite clear that I was referring to map-use that involves precise measurement or examination, or distant-viewing (as from a desk to a wall-map in a classroom). [quote] , so this statement is also debatable and definitely wrong in some circumstances. [/quote] See above. I never said that one never uses a map other than at a great distance, and in a way that doesnāt require close measurement or examination. In fact, I said that for a primarily decorative map, or when one prefers realism to other considerations, a more globe-realistic map such as Mollweide would be desirable. [quote] There is nothing special about these five points; most of the others are similarly debatable. [/quote] All of your objections were answerable. [quote] 1The fact that these points are debatable and not citedā¦ [/quote] They arenāt debatable, and are too obvious to require citation. ā¦just as youāll never find a citatable journal-article about the fact that āsquareā and ānot-squareā arenāt the same. So you wouldnāt let a Wikipedia article state that either? [quote] More to the point, if a pro/con list were something important enough to be included in the article, then such lists could be found in the literature. [/quote] Youāve got to be kidding. The pros & cons of anything intended for any important use, including a map-projection, are important. If you think it should be in āthe literatureā, then write it there. I donāt claim to know or care why someone does or doesnāt write something, or why someone dislikes something so much that he doesnāt think it merits a pros-&-cons discussion. Itās none of my business, and itās irrelevant to the merits of GP. But shall I speculate? Iām not criticizing the people who write āthe literatureā, but just maybe they donāt like Gall-Peters, due to its unaesthetic and unrealistic low-lat shapes. Sure, I donāt like its low-lat shapes either. But some might feel that thatās a reason why GP doesnāt deserve a pros-&-cons listing, because, **in their own subjective-judgment**, itās entirely unacceptable, &/or is merits-dominated by all other equal-area world-maps, due to its bad low-lat shapes. Maybe GPās unpopularity among the other cartographers would deter a cartographer from mentioning that it has an advantage. One must think of oneās reputation. ā¦merits-dominated by all other equal-area world-maps because GP (in some peopleās perception) has no advantages to justify its use, given its bad low-late shapes & unrealism. And (just speculating) maybe GPās unpopularity among the other cartographers would deter a cartographer from mentioning that it has an advantage. One must think of oneās reputation. And certainly the shenanigans of Arno Peters, his false-statements, his claim of priority for Gall-Orthographic, and for equal-area maps in generalā¦maybe those decidedly un-academic-like acts has strongly prejudiced academia, to the extent that any academic would be embarrassed to speak of GP having an advantage, for fear of seeming to support the academically-unpopular Arno Peters. Look, your article about Gall-Orthographic REEKS of POV. Not only do you refuse to allow mention of Gall-Orthographicās advantages, citing some inapplicable and invalid legalistic-claim that misinterprets Wikipedia policyā¦but you also fill the article about Gall-Orthographic with irrelevant prejudicial material about the antics of some who didnāt introduce it :D Talk about bias, and POV! Most articles about a map-projection are only about the projection. You fill your article with (as I said) voluminous irrelevant and prejudicial material about Arno Petersāwho wasnāt even the introducer of the map. Alright, Iāll claim that I invented the Mollweide Projection. Now you have to fill the Wikipedia article with information about my false claim that I invented Mollweide, and whatever false claims I choose to make about it. ā¦Oh, whatās that? You say that the only reason you wonāt do that is because I donāt have Arno Petersā publicity connections, savvy, & ready-opportunity? The Gall-Peters article needs thorough overhaul. Add pros & cons, and move all the Peters history, & controversy to the Arno-Peters page. Heās famous enough to rate a Wikipedia page about him, but not enough to dominate the article about Gall-Orthographic, which he didnāt introduce. All that derogatory scandal-history with which youāve stuffed the article about Gall-Orthographic is intended to discredit James Gallās Orthographic projection by tying Arno Peters to it. Your article intentionally confuses academic reaction to Petersā false claims, with the merits of the map itself. Well guess what: GP does have advantages, and Iāve named some of them. And theyāre blatantly, grossly obvious. Iāve described them in general, and Iāve specified them quantitatively.
Justin-- Thanks for the reply. I guess itās a matter of individual preference. For me, subjectively, for some applications, a little practical-advantage outweighs a lot of unrealism & ugliness. But of course to each their own. Iām delighted by GPās amount of use. And, anyway, again itās just a matter of personal opinion, but I feel that Wikipedia is way too cautious about crackpots. I feel that content should be judged on its own merits, and that the matter of whom itās from is relatively irrelevant. Iād like to mention an extreme case as an example. As you know, there have been numerous authors who advocate very questionable archaeological theories. One of them, among the other things he said, suggested that the Vernal-Equinox was in Leo in 10,000 BC or 10,500 BC (I donāt remember which). An astronomer (a notable person) said that it wasnāt in Leo in that year. He justified his claim by saying that Planetarium software said so. But the R.A. & declination co-ordinates that he gave for the Vernal-Equinoxās position in that year was exactly, right to the arc-second (or whatever precision it was given in), the position that it would have had if precession had had its *current* rate all the way back to 10,000 BC. But it didnāt. By a graph of precessional rates over that duration, from a very esteemed & notable expert source (maybe Laskar), and based on the proper-motion of the stars in Leo, I determined that, in the year in question, the Vernal-Equinox was indeed in Leo. It was inside the triangle that forms Leoās rump, at the rear (east) end of Leo. The astronomy professor had, erroneously or intentionally, given an incorrect position based on planetarium software that was using an obviously wrong precessional-rate. That astronomy prof, a notable-source, was talking pseudoscience bull-____. But Wikipedia insisted on taking his word for it, and not allowing any mention of the obvious questionableness of a Vernal-Equinox position that precisely matches the position given by assuming that todayās precessional-rate has always obtained. It was impermissible to mention that. I pointed out, to whoever was answering communications, that they neednāt take my word for it. All thatās necessary would be to look at the position given for the Vernal-Equinox by planetarium-software that assumed constant precessional-rate at the current-value. But no. Evidence doesnāt count. Whatever a ānotableā person says is sacrosanct and not to be questioned, even by looking at obvious readily-available evidence. I donāt believe the archaeology-charlatanās theories, but I didnāt like it that easily demonstrable pseudoscience from a āNotableā person trumps readily-available evidence that anyone can check, regarding the astronomy profās claim about where the Vernal-Equinox position in 10,000 or 10,500 BC. ...that a notable astronomer could say pure obvious pseudoscience, and no one was allowed to mention the, available-to-all, evidence that makes his statement more than a little questionable. Sure, he wanted to debunk a charlatan, but it shouldnāt be done with the use of falsity & pseudoscience. I mention that episode because it shows that a notable source isnāt really always a reliable source.
Justinā Well, I fear that Wikipedia isnāt going to allow the experiment that would resolve that wager. About wall-mapsā fit-critical dimension: Let me re-emphasize this: Look at a wall-map, at the space above & below it. Would you want to put a map there? No one wants a wall-map, or any other wall-posted thing, to be up adjacent to the ceiling, or down near the floor. Therefore that space isnāt used, and is available for the mapās vertical-dimension. Thereās room to have the mapās vertical dimension as large as you want. Gall-Peters? Sure. Square Tobler CEA? Sure. I admit that there could be some book-page situations where a mapās X-dimension might not be its fit-critical dimension. But, as I mentioned in a previous post, for those little thematic maps, several to a page, that some atlases have, it can be convincingly argued that their fit-critical dimension is their X-dimension, unless there need to be so many pages of them that they threaten to make the atlas too thick. ā¦in which case pure space-efficiency might become more relevant. Another thing: For both Sinusoidal and Lambert CEA, the average (geometric-mean) scale over the whole map (except at the points at the poles), in every direction, is exactly equal to the scale along the equator. ā¦suggesting that thereās something significant & special about the equatorial-scale, the scale along the equator. I refer to the geometric-mean of scale over the map, in every direction, referenced to, expressed in terms of, the scale along the equator, as āav-scaleā. So Sinusoidal & Lambert CEA have av-scale of unity. Most equal-area projections have av-scale greater than unity. An exception is Collignon, which has av-scale of only .89 Here are the av-scale values for some equal-area projections: Sinusoidal: 1 Lambert CEA: 1 Behrmann: 1.155 Mollweide: 1.111 Eckert IV: 1.184 Gall-Peters: 1.414 -- Above comment by User:97.82.109.213 @ 97.82.109.213:, I think you need to review some basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
A more minor, but still important WP standard: I certainly agree with you that the article needs to talk about both the advantages and the disadvantages of Gall-Peters, and I look forward to your contributions in that direction... but you need to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to move that forward. Thanks, -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Makrakisā ā¢ [quote] ā¢ No original research -- Wikipedia doesn't publish its editors' own analyses, but only reports on what reliable sources say about a topic. I ā¢ [/quote] Weāve been over that. In my proposed section, I didnāt include āOriginal-Researchā. I merely stated facts that are obvious to anyone, and to which the āOriginal-Researchā & āVerifiabilityā exclusions donāt apply. ā¦and quantitative statements that are easily verifiable, because they could be easily verified or refuted by Strebe, an in-house resident cartographer at this article. And, as I've mentioned, Wikipedia policy doesn't emphasize verification itself, but rather mere verifiability--the availability of accuracy determination, should it be desired. Youāre applying Wikipedia policy in a manner different from what Wikipedia's written guidelines and policy-explanations say. ā¢ [quote] ā¢ t shouldn't be hard to find some reputable source that covers the issues you mention above. ā¢ [/quote] As Strebe pointed out, most cartographers arenāt interested, probably because there seems to be a rule that the only relevant standards for comparison of equal-area projections consist of various ways of expressing difference the mapsā point-max-angular-error (its global-average, zonal values, global-max, etc.). ...and because, as Justin Kunimune suggested, most cartographersā subjective feeling is that the usefulness-differences are too small to matter. Iāll just add here that, from what Iāve read, Walter Behrmann said that Behrmann CEA has less average point-max-angular-error than any other equal-area world map-projection. ā¢ ā¢ [quote] ā¢ Collaboration with other editors is the way to get things done. ā¢ [/quote] I didnāt say or imply otherwise. Of course I value suggestions and additions, and thereās no reason to suggest otherwise. [quote] Talk pages are for productive discussion about the article, not for treatises on the subject-matter of the article. [/quote] My post today was discussion about the merit and justification of things that I said in my proposed section. ā¦i.e. things relevant to the article itself. It was a reply on the matter of whether map-width &/or equatorial-scale is a good reference-quantity. ā¦and support for things that I said in my proposed section. ā¢ ā¢ [quote] ā¢ Concision is valued--don't write long, repetitive posts on Talk. ā¢ [/quote] TV has conditioned many people to want soundbites, but some topics arenāt well addressed in that way. But, if something can be said briefly, then of course that's how I want to say it. ā¢ ā¢ [quote] ā¢ I would add: format your contributions so that they're more structured and thus easier to read. ā¢ [/quote] I didnāt ignore structure, and I tried for clarity. But I always welcome comments & suggestions that would improve clarity and brevity. A problem with brevity is that it can reduce clarity. A balance must be sought between brevity & sufficiency of explanation & expression. As I said, I welcome suggestions & comments.
Strebe-- ā³it must be verifiable before you can add it." Of course. My numerical-statements in my proposed section could be verified (or refuted) by you. ...could be verified. That's what matters. You could choose to say whether they're correct or incorrect. ...or not, as you choose. But the relevant fact is that you could. ...and if you said that they're correct, then there wouldn't be any concern that readers would be misled by false statements in the article. ...and if you don't say, it remains that the statements are verifiable, meaning that they could be verified if desired. -- Above comment by User:97.82.109.213
Will do! I assume that the colon must be added to the beginning of each line. It would be a convenient way to copy when replying in Word, without having to do the copying-procedure at the Wikipedia editing-space.
Iām not sure whether youāre referring to my proposed section, or to my replies at this talk-page. If youāre referring to the proposed section: Though maybe, sometimes, one repetition is alright and can be helpful if itās unobtrusive, and called-for for a reason such as a seeming-contradiction, I agree that itās undesirable to repeat something so as to put readers off. I said that I was interested in suggestions, and so thereās no need for your hostile tone, and implied claim of uncooperativeness that accompanies your suggestion. If youāre referring to the talk-page: I wonāt deny that, when answering the same objection, I give the same answer.
]Verifiability is about verification being possible. Look it up. Yes, ordinarily the only readily-available verifiability is via citation of a notable (most definitely not necessarily reliable) publication. But Wikipediaās written guidelines recognizes & emphasize that circumstances arenāt always usual, and, when they arenāt, the guidelines arenāt hard-&-fast rules. I mentioned that before, but evidently it didnāt sink-in. Wikipediaās policy guidelines arenāt meant to be made-into, and used as, graven-in-stone, dogmatic, literalist, fundamentalist, quasi-religious doctrine. Wikipediaās written guidelines have been quite explicit about that, as you well know. At the risk of being criticized for repetition evidently itās necessary to repeat this: Wikipedia says that an editor who wants to do differently from what a guideline suggests, must give justification for that contravention. I have done so. ā¦or did you miss that? Anyone who didnāt know you better might get the impression that you just want to keep favorable information about Gall-Peters out of the article. Wikipedia, in various of its articles, points out that there are lots of editors who try to use an incorrect literalist misinterpretation and mis-stating of the guidelines, for the purpose of trying to exclude content which they donāt like, or with which they disagree. They say that that is quite common at Wikipedia. When I visited this article in recent weeks, I read old talk from years ago, and I replied, at this talk-page, to someone who had, long ago, requested a pros/cons section. I said itās astounding that this article about an unprecedentedly popular projection still has no pros/cons section. I said, āHave we been overzealously editing?ā, because it was obvious that something very wrong has been going on, for there to still be no pros/cons section. Want to know why there isnāt one? Look at the most recent talk-page posts. Evidently this article currently has a set of editors who donāt want a pros/cons section, who donāt want the article to say anything favorable about GP. Evidently the editors who felt otherwise (Iād been reading old talk-page from some years ago) have by now given up & left in disgust. That means that the only I way can enforce a balanced article with a genuine pros/cons section will be by appeal to Wikipedia administration. That will probably be a long procedure, and one that I donāt really want to initiate at this time.
Ok, Iāll come up with a good pseudonym, and start signing with it in the officially-recommended manner ā¦maybe āArnoā. BTW, I emphasizes that much of what Iāve lately posted has been in reply to people who objected to my statement that typically, and especially for wall-maps, a mapās X-dimension is its fit-critical dimension. Admittedly sometimes there could be circumstances, such as some bookpage-fits, that could make the Y-dimension fit-critical. Maybe, especially for some bookpage applications of single maps on some book-pages, it often isnāt known which dimension will be fit-critical, or maybe sometimes neither one is. For those instances, then, such things as point-min-scale and av-scale, instead of referencing the width or the equatorial-scale, would have to instead reference the height or the average scale along the central-meridian, or the average scale across the mapās largest Y-extent--or just the area (or its square-root) of the mapās circumscribing-rectangle. My discussion of av-scale, and my list of av-scale values for various equal-area projections, referenced the equatorial-scale, assuming that the mapās X-dimension is fit-critical. I didnāt do the calculations for the other circumstances, for reasons of brevity. But I told of a reason why the equatorial-scale seems special: The fact that the geometric-mean- scale on Sinusoidal and Lambert CEA is exactly equal to the scale along the equator. But, obviously, for those other circumstances, when the mapās Y-dimension or the area of the circumscribing-rectangle is a more appropriate reference-quantity, then one would use it instead. I emphasizes that this isnāt a ātreatiseā. Iām just replying to the objections expressed by Strebe & by Justin Kumemuni, about my assumption that a mapās X-dimension is its fit-critical dimension. -- Above comment by User:97.82.109.213
This post replies to Strebe & to Justin Kunimune: Strebe: In this post Iād like to, 1st, reply better and more clearly to some things that you said about scale; ā¦and 2nd, to ask you a question. The question is below in this post. You said:
Incorrect. I told why itās so. I donāt have time to repeat it, and to save space, I wonāt.
Our subjective opinions about whatās important have no place at Wikipedia. But obviously sometimes atlas thematic maps, and sometimes wall-maps, are important. Obviously GPās scale-advantgage only exists when width is the fit-critical dimension. Sometimes that condition doesnāt obstain. Therefore sometimes GP doesnāt have that advantage. Likewise, sometimes GPās enormous scale-advantage, even when it obtains, isnāt needed. Sometimes larger scale can be useful, sometimes unnecessary. In summary, sometimes GPās scale-advantage exists & is useful, and sometimes not. Hello? Itās well-understood by cartographers that different maps are useful in different applications. GP is no exception. Itās one thing to say that GP, like other maps, is only sometimes advantageous. Itās quite another thing to claim that it doesnāt sometimes have a significant advantage thatās sometimes important. ā¦ as do map-projections in general. ā¢ :āLarge map-area means more room for more detail, more labeling, &/or larger :labeling.ā
No, I explicitly referred to area for a given width.
Irrelevant. When you everywhere expand a CEA map north-south, you increase, at every point, the scale in every direction other than east-west. And yes, thatās equally true in the regions with skinny Tissot-ellipses. In fact, thatās where the scale-increase is needed the most. And I remind you that I explicitly exclude the poles from the points that Iām referring to, because, with most world-maps, at the poles thereās an infinite scale, to which a numerical-value canāt be assigned. ā¢ :āAnd it's obvious that EW expansion, at all latitudes, to the map's full equatorial :width, combined with large NS expansion, must and does increase scale at every :point in every direction.ā
Wrong. I explicitly exclude the poles from the points to which I refer. Equal-area maps have points with low point-min-scale. But a general expansion of the map in the direction of that min-scale will increase it. ā¦and also increase scale in every direction other than the direction perpendicular to the direction of the expansion. ā¢ Large scale allows nearby points to be more easily resolved and distinguished.
The geometic-mean, over all of a mapās points, and over all directions at each point, is proportional to the mapās area. A larger map has larger geometric-mean scale. ā¦and general overall expansion of an entire map in a particular dimension increases scale, at every point on the map, in every direction other than the direction perpendicular to the expansion. Thatās why, with GP, for all points between lat 60 south and lat 60 north, there is no point at which thereās a direction in which the scale is less than the scale along the equator.
ā¦and a general north-south expansion of the map will increase those compressed scales. Thatās a good reason for expanding a CEA map north-south. ā¦a practice that began at least as early as 1870. (Smythe CEA lowered the aspect-ratio to 2, and thereby increased scale, at every non-pole point on the map, in every direction (other than east-west), referenced to the scale along the equator. And, as I said referring to the fact that expanding a map increases scales on a map. ā¦and, in particular, the fact that a general expansion of a map in a particular dimension increases the scale at every (non-pole )point on the map, in every direction other than the direction perpendicular to the expansionā¦.Those facts are so blatantly-obvious that, by Wikipediaās rules they do not need citation of a notable or āreliableā source. As I said, Strebe, this article is very fortunate to have an in-house resident cartographer. ā¦so that editors can ask you about the validity of statements about maps, and, in particular, about the map that is the subject of the article. Surely youād agree that itās good that youāre here to answer such questions. And so Iām going to ask you two brief, simple & straightforward Yes/No questions. Like all Yes/No questions, each of these two questions has four possible answers: 1. Yes 2. No 3. I donāt know. 4. I know, but I refuse to say. Question #1: Is the following statement true? With Gall-Peters, between lat 60 south & lat 60 north, there is no point at which there is a direction in which the scale at that point is less than the scale along the equator. Question #2: If the answer to the above question is āYesā, can you name another equal area map projection that has been published, sold, and used by purchasers, and for which the above statement can be correctly said? Thatās two Yes/No questions, each of which has the four above-listed possible answers. I thank you in advance for helping to inform the editors at this article. --------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Kumimuneā Iād like to reply better and more clearly to a few things that you said: You said:
Our personal feelings and opinions have no place at a Wikipedia article. Either a map has some particular advantage under some circumstances, or it doesnāt. Either that advantage can be useful, or not. Period.
I make no such claim. GP has a enormous scale-advantages when width is the fit-critical dimension. Those advantages donāt exist if width isnāt the fit-critical dimension. Sometimes it isnāt. We neednāt quibble about how often it isnāt. And, even when width is the fit-critical dimension, and so GP has its enormous scale advantages, scale might nor might not be important, depending on the application. Is the map only intended for decoration of the wall? Is globe-realism the more important consideration? Maybe one isnāt going to do the precise or distantly-viewed examinations in which scale matters. In summary, sometimes GP doesnāt have its scale advantages, and sometimes they donāt matter, even if it does have them. Yes, cartographers have long been familiar with the fact that no map is the best choice for every application, every situation. Different projections are useful in different applications. As I said, we neednāt quibble about how often GP has its advantage, or how often that advantage is needed. It sometimes has that advantage, and itās sometimes useful.
Youāre saying that we donāt place maps with their sides adjacent to the extreme ends of a wall? Of course not, for a number of reasons. For one thing, a map that large would be expensive to purchase, and awkward to transport home after purchase, and costly for businesses to ship & store. For another thing, often there are other things (shelves, posters, portraits, etc.) that one wants to put on a wall. ā¦sometimes including windows. But, as I said, another thing we donāt do is place a map adjacent to the ceiling or near the floor, and so, since maps & other posted-things arenāt vertically-stacked, thereās no limit on their vertical-extent, and the fit-critical dimension is width. Anyway, as I said, I donāt claim that width is always fit-critical, or that GP always has its scale-advantage, or that that advantage is always needed. ā¦as is the case with other maps and their advantages.
Lots of posters are oriented vertically too. I donāt know that horizontally-oriented posters are more frequent. But you wonāt find wall-maps up by the ceiling or down by the floor. If they must be fitted with eachother, itās horizontally.
It isnāt just a matter of space-efficiency. Aspect-ratio, too, affects av-acale referenced to the scale along the equator (ā¦which I donāt claim is always important). Thatās why, with GP, from lat 60 south to lat 60 north, thereās no point at which thereās any direction in which the scale is less than the scale along the equator. ā¦and itās why av-scale (geometric-mean scale, referenced to the scale along the equator), though varying only slightly among most equal-area maps, and remaining very close to unity for nearly all equal-area maps, is enormously larger for GP. ā¦about 1.4 times its value for most other equal-area projections. And Iāve told why itās blatantly obvious to anyone that GPās greatly multiplied tallnesss will greatly increase scales on the map. ā¦scale at every point on the map, in every direction other than east-west. Thatās far, far too obvious to need ācitation of a notable or reliable sourceā. As I said, GPās scale advantages are enormous when they obtain (and they sometimes do). And theyāre sometimes useful. ā¦which is as much as can be said for other maps & their advantages. :I think that's too small to mention. See above.
See above. And remember that personal opinions have no place at Wikipedia.
Anyoneās personal subjective views have no place at Wikipedia. ā¦and that includes unsupported opinions about the views of notable authors.
First, of course it canāt be denied that GP has a significant disadvantage: It looks awful. ā¦unrealistic & ugly, an affront to aesthetics. We all know how Robinson described it. It looks as if Africa & South-America were made of wax, and someone forgot to turn on the air-conditioner. As an admirer of the Mercatorās accurate local portrayal and mapping of each place, I have to say that GP doesnāt portray a good picture of tropical places. ā¦.so FUBAR as to maybe sometimes be inconvenient to use. Yes inconvenient, but usable, as a practical-matter, for a working-map ā¦and, if unappealing & even maybe sometimes inconvenient, thatās a trade for the potentially bigger scale that will sometimes make the map usable at all, making usability at an otherwise unusable distance. Yes, its main advantage, scale, sometimes exists & sometimes doesnāt. ] The disagreement is as you described: The advantage sometimes exists, vs the advantage usually doesnāt exist. To me, the latter sounds like something that would best be said only if the advantage can be shown to be vanishingly unlikely. ā¦otherwise itās just a matter of wording-choice or individual subjective impression. Because one doesnāt want a map up by the ceiling or down by the floor, then there isnāt vertical room to vertically-stack wall-maps, and so, if theyāre fitted together, itās horizontallyā¦making width the usual fit-critical dimension for wall-maps. Schoolroom maps are usually wall-maps. Thatās surely what the Boston school-systemās decision was about. That wall-map is typically viewed at a distance, at least partly across the room, from studentsā desks. Sometimes short distances matter a lot, when itās a matter of where a point is with respect to a national-border or a thematic-mapās isopleth or zone-boundary. For such precise determinations, at an across-the-room distance, scale can matter a lot. Therefore I claim that GPās scale advantage usually exists and matters for classroom wall-maps. About GP, maybe school-kids who like scary-movies would like it, and might call it āThat Wax-Museum Mapā. Another thing: Itās likely that the deformation of Africa & South-America was what provided visual psychological confirmation to people that something different was being done, that Africa was indeed shown big. The deformation dramatized & proved the bigness! Maybe thatās why (it seems to me) Peters once said that the other maps called āequal-areaā arenāt really. Maybe he, and many others, thought that nothing is changed unless itās visible as that great 1-dimensional distance-multiplication. So maybe the deformation is why equal-area maps are in use by lots of socially-conscious organizations and by British & Massachusetts schools. I listed a number of other advantages that GP has in common with other cylindrical projections. Theyāre arguably obvious. Cylindrical projectionsā equal portrayal of all longitudes is a well-known advantage. Surely itās better if a school-map doesnāt disfavor some longitues. I suggest that, given the choices of for-sale maps available to it, the Boston school system made a good choice, arguably the best choice. Would I use GP? No, Iād use CEA-Stack instead. ā¦and Behrmann where CEA-Stackās great scale & high-lat shape advantages arenāt needed, or where CEA-Stack wouldnāt fit vertically. This is just a quick preliminary-note. To be continuedā¦
BTW, to give credit where due, GP could easily be mistaken for the work of Salvador Dali, which surely counts favorably. So I take back what I said about GP being āā¦ugly, an affront to aestheticsā. How come itās ugly when James Gall does it, but when Salvador Dali does it itās worth a million dollars? But I donāt retract āunrealisticā. Itās an undeniable gross misportrayal. ā¦justified for highschool geography classes, when precise distantly-viewed observation, estimate or examination of exact relative positions makes good scale paramount and, to that end, justifies bad shape-portrayal. ā¦but not for elementary-school classes intended to give students a good idea of what the Earth looks like. For that purpose, Behrmann & Mollweide would be much preferable. I agree that it doesnāt have to be just one projection. ā¦Mollweide for its globe-realism (interrupted on only one meridian, or on two meridians and shown as two realistic circular views of the Earth). ā¦and Behrmann for its equal portrayal of all longitudes. In elementary-schools, Apianus II & Plate-Carree could be introduced, to establish the realistic circular Earth-view, the horizontally-doubled circle to show all, both sides, of the Earth; and the natural rectangular grid of cylindrical mapsā¦and the grid-plan intention. ā¦and then it could be explained that, to show all places in correct area-proportion, those two projectionsā parallels can be adjusted, resulting in Mollweide & Behrmann, which would be on the wall. At a somewhat later grade, the geometric explanation for Behrmann could be graphically-explained, and even that of Mollweide could (maybe a bit later) be explained too. But it should be emphasized to the listener that it isnāt necessary to follow (& be able to repeat) that geometric derivation. Merely seeing it done, observing the rough gist of it, shows that there is such an explanation, & that the person would be able to understand if they studied it. Itās enough that each part of the explanation is plausible. I claim that mapsā construction & properties should be explainable in that way, to anyone & everyone. Thatās one of the things that I like about CEA. ā¦and itās why I claim that Equal-Earth is inadequate. Sinusoidal? Itās the simplest constructed & explained, but itās also a terrible portrayal of shapes over much of the Earth, not useful either for distantly-viewed precise relative- position observation, or for elementary-school portrayal of how the Earth looks. But, after introduction of Apianus II & Plate Caree, followed by an explanation of their inexact area-proportions, why not show the obvious natural way to achieve right-area-proportions. ā¦by drawing the parallels with their globe-true length, and their globe-true spacing?...and then point out that the same accurate area-proportion can also be be achieved by adjusting the parallels-spacing of Apianus II & Plate Caree. ā¦which gives better general shapes & better overall size & scale. Maybe some kids wouldnāt care, but, for those who did, their questions about what is done and why would be answered. But just to clarify something: I'd substitute CEA-Stack for GP, for all the applications that I said that GP is good for...and for Many others too*, because CEA-Stack shows much better shapes at all latitudes, compared to GP.
very good scale & shape are desirable. Yet another wall of text. Please remember that "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." WP:TALK#USE These long contributions aren't helping. -- Macrakis ( talk) 21:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC) Most of what I said was directly relevant to the things I suggest saying in the article, and the objections to those things. The criticisms of GP, of varying merit, are certainly relevant, because those are issues about what can be said in the article. And, in an article about GP, when editors are cl aiming that GP is meritless compared to the other equal-area maps, and where I'm defending the merit of GP at this talk-page, it's reasonable for me to admit that yes, GP is completely merit-dominated(by CEA-Stack) . If GP genuinely isn't really the best for any application (because it's completely merit-dominated by CEA-Stack), then it shouldn't be taboo to say so...at the talk-page, and yes, even in the article. In response to
It doesn't need to be shown to be vanishingly unlikely. Standard practice is to only include facts if they are present in the RSs ā that's WP:VERIFIABILITY (just so we're all on the same page: "verifiability" in the context of Wikipedia means that a fact can be found in a RS. Editors like Strebe are not themselves RSs, so having him confirm something does not make it WP:VERIFIABLE). Encyclopedic sources like Flattening the Earth and An Album of Map Projections don't mention things like aspect ratio or av-scale, so these facts aren't WP:VERIFIABLE even if they are verifiable in the colloquial sense. In addition, facts are usually only included if they are relevant to the subject's notability. The cartographers who use GP and the activists who write about it today only cite its cylindrical and equal-area properties, so the other pros listed above are not relevant to its notablity. As you have pointed out, such guidelines can be suspended in exceptional cases, but I don't see that there is sufficient reason to do so here, given how long the article will become if we include all pros that are sometimes relevant. In response to the specific point about the aspect ratio and width: You can see from this picture of a poster in a Boston classroom that there is ample space both on the sides and on the top and bottom. If they wanted to get a different equal-area projection with a larger aspect ratio, they could easily get one with the same scale and still have horizontal space to spare. They would have to move "oceans", "Peters Projection", "equator", and "hemisphere" to above or below the map, but "landforms" and "scale" are already there, so that shouldn't impact the display's readability. Based on how people use and talk about world map posters, it seems to me that the determining dimension of a poster is not its width but its total area, as that determines how much space it takes up visually and, as you noted, how expensive and awkward to transport it is. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 03:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Justinā As I said, often an advantage of a map only obtains under certain conditions and applications. Thatās as true of GP as it is of maps in general. No map is best for all applications. You canāt use a WP policy as a reason to say that there canāt or shouldnāt be an exception to that policyā¦unless you can show that that exception would be detrimental to the article and its informing of readers. Iāve told why an exception to the policy is needed, and would improve the article. ā¦the exception of allowing a pros/cons section even though GPās advantages & disadvantages donāt have notable citations. A complete pros/cons section is nonetheless needed. The articlesā readers would be informed much better, and the article would indeed be (much) improved. Additionally, WP explains that verifiability (by its usual meaning in English) is the reason why notable citations are ordinarily required. But this isnāt an ordinary circumstance, due to the presence, at this article, of a cartographer who is considered, by the other cartographers, to be reliable. Itās obviously a matter of legalistic-ness vs common-sense. If the numerical facts in my proposed section could easily be verified or refuted, by that agreed-reliable cartographer, then itās verifiable, in any meaningful sense of that word. So, by common sense, if the information would improve the articleās informing of readers, and is verifiable, then how would you claim that it would be detrimental to the article? Yes, a listing of the GP advantages & disadvantages I statedāhaving a genuine pros/cons section--would inevitably lengthen the articleā¦by one section. ā¦a necessary section. If youāre concerned about article-length, then delete the long, unnecessary & irrelevant material about scandal-history. As I said, itās common and typical for mapsā advantages to only obtain in some circumstances & applications. If, as is indeed sometimes the case, a world map on a wall doesnāt have to compete at all for wall-space, then, yes, space-efficiency would replace width as the limiting quantity. ā¦as you said, because the mapsheet-area affects expense. ā¦and because a map extending to floor & ceiling would have visibility problems near the floor, and be seen at an unhelpful angle near the ceiling, for close-seated students. ā¦and the left & or right ends of a whole-wall-covering map might be seen at an unhelpful angle for some close-seated students. Those are drawbacks for a whole-wall-covering map. When thereās no space-competition, obviously Behrmann would be, scalewise, as good as GPā¦and has better shape over more of the Earth. Likewise, to a somewhat lesser degree, for Eckert IV & Equal-Earth. ā¦and for Mollweide, to a slightly lesser extent. (ā¦but Equal-Earth still suffers from a big uniquely-difficult-explanation disadvantage.)D Disadvantage of GP: What is GPās problem? Itās obvious at a glance. As a greatly NS-Expanded CEA map, GP obviously gives good European shapesāIts standard-parallel is at lat 45. Equally obviously (even moreso, actually), as a greatly NS-Expanded CEA map, GP has drastically-unrealistic shape in the tropics. Those statements donāt require Original-Research, or citation of a Notable journal. :D So, without any Original-Reaserch, itās plain that a greatly NS-expanded CEA map is great for higher latitudes, and no good for low latitudes. No Original Research there. Given the above, then where would it be good to use a greatly NS-Expanded CEA map? Let me guess: ā¦at high lat, and not at low-lat? That, too, doesnāt require Original-Research, or a citation of a peer-reviewed journal :D But thatās just a description of CEA-Stackās high-lat map-sections. CEA-Stack automatically, inevitably, comes up when GPās problem is mentionedā¦as described above. ā¦and therefore isnāt off-topic in a GP pros/cons section -- unsigned comment by User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-08-26T14:01:37
It would be more productive if, instead of adding more text to the Talk page, you added one important and well-documented advantage to the page itself, with sources. You seem to consider its aspect ratio to be an advantage. Fine. Add something like this:
or even
Now, I suspect that you won't be able to find reliable sources like this, which means that the claim is based on your own reasoning, what we call here original research. But if you do, knock yourself out. I see no reason for a derogation from our usual rules, which are designed precisely for cases like this. -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Just briefly: I'd quote such references if i'd found any. As you suggested, there don't seem to be any. Incorrect. WP says that facts obvious to everyone are NOT "Original-Research", and therefore aren't prohibited from WP articles. By the way, I didn't list aspect-ratio as an advantage. I listed large point-min/max-scale and point-min-scale--and high values for them over a large percentage of the Earth--as advantages. We've already been over this: It doesn't take a journal-article to establish that a map is more usable from across the room if scale is larger. Must I quote an educational journal to establish that readability is better than non-readability? :D Nor is there any shortage of available citations (need I cite them?) that people object to the bad shape that results from low point-min/max-scale. Yes, low aspect-ratio favors a map's rating by global measures of point-min-scale--referenced to the scale along the equator (as it is, as I define it for cylindrical or pseudocylindrical maps). And yes, low aspect-ratio favors a map's rating by av-scale, which I defined with reference to the scale along the equator. I acknowledged that maps & other posted things don't always have width as their fit-critical dimension(Maps often don't have their advantages in all applications.), and that GP's advantages that depend on width being fit-critical don't always obtain. However, posted things, and maps especially, are always posted at a height not close to floor or ceiling...and therefore would compete with eachother for horizontal-space at that middle height. ...if there are enough of them on the wall to compete, as admittedly there aren't always. But I didn't list low aspect-ratio, for its own sake, as an advantage.
edited 03:54 You aren't advancing the discussion. I was suggesting a productive way forward -- start with one claim (aspect ratio was just an example) and write it up with proper reliable sources. See also WP:STICK and WP:IDHT. -- Macrakis ( talk) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Sorry, but the answers to your objections don't change when you repeat the objections. So yes I repeated the answers. But yes, it shouldn't have been necessary to do so. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-8-27T22:12 Oh, one other thing I should mention: I pointed out that the OR rule, by its own wording, doesnāt apply to things obvious to everyone, and I suggested an exception to the verification by RS rule, and told how I justify the exception. I told why it would improve the article. I asked for reasons why the exception, in this instance, would be detrimental to the article.\ The answers that I got consisted of repetition of the policy to which Iād suggested an exception. No, as Iāve already pointed out, the policy itself canāt be used as a reason why it canāt or shouldnāt have an exception. But if you donāt have a reason why the exception would be detrimental to the article, I donāt care. The fact that you didnāt give a reason when asked for one will be helpful when I later take the matter to Wikipedia administration. Given the current ideological-POV demographic-composition among the editors at this article, itā obvious that the GP article will never have balance or objectivity, or a pros/cons section, without the help of administrative enforcement. As Iāve said, that would probably be a lengthy process--a project that it isnāt possible for me to embark on just yet. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-8-29T22:12
This comment is relevant to the article, because itās something that should be in the article, in the Disadvantages section (ā¦if there were one, as there should be.) Yes, GP, at is equator, has a point-min/max-scale of only .5 But, you know, itās common for equal-area maps to have point-min/max-scale as low as .5 or lower at some place on the map. So, as a practical matter, yes GP might be inconvenient to use where the point-min/max-scale is so low. But likewise on other equal-area maps that have a point-min/max-scale that low somewhere. Yes, what people object to about GP is that its low point-min/max-scale occurs at in the tropics, and, in particular, even at the center of the map. That makes the resulting unrealism much more blatant and in-your-face. Thatās why some people donāt like GP. An answer to that: Realism isnāt everything. If you want it to really look like the Earth, then put on your wall a photo of the Earth from space. A map is intended to map the Earth, not impersonate it. And if you find GP unaesthetic, then remember Salvador Dali. Maybe GPās name should be changed to the Salvador Dali Projection. Relevant to GP's advantage: GP can only be recommended for a special situation: A wall that's crowded, with competition for horizontal-space, or soon will be; a need for accurate measurements or examination of relative-position, or distant-examination; a requirement to use only maps currently for sale (i.e. CEA-Stack not available). Without those conditions, of course Behrmann would be much better than GP, due to its good shape over 2/3 of the Earth's surface. In fact, for a horizontally-crowded wall, a twice-interrupted world-map, with 2 separate maps, each mapping half of the Earth's longitude, with the two maps mounted one over the other, would beat a one-piece GP map, by geometric-mean scale for a given width, no matter which equal-area projection is used. For example, a twice-interrupted, vertically-arranged, Behrmann or Sinusoidal world-map would beat a 1-piece GP map, by geometric-mean-scale for a given width. And of course it goes without saying that the twice-interruption would reduce Sinusoidal's peripheral distortion. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.109.213 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 20:29, September 4, 2021 (UTC)
I took some of the advice (e.g. signing posts; methods for quoting, etc.) Not all of the advice was consistent with actual Wikipedia policy...&/or previous practice at this talk-page. I'd been signing my posts, with a date & time. Yes, I forgot to do so on my most recent post before your comment.
New Comments on January 12th, 2022:Wikipediaās guidelines are only meant as suggestions, not as exceptionless rules. Wikipedia emphasizes that common-sense can call for an exception to a policy. ā¦and Wikipedia acknowledges that some Wikipedia editors misinterpret policies as excpetionless rules in order to prevent the inclusion of material that they personally dislike. ā¦as is the case here, when we have people trying to claim that Gall-Petersā advantages canāt be mentioned in the article (making it impossible to have a pros/cons section), because āreliable sourcesā donāt talk about Gall-Petersā advantages (ā¦and the resident cartographer here refuses to answer a simple straightforward Y/N question about one of the advantages). Well, Iāve asked a cartographer here, at this article talk-page, the following question: āIs it or is it not true that, on Gall-Peters, nowhere between lat 60 north & lat 60 south, is the scale at any point, in any direction, less than the scale along the equator & on the reference-globe or generating-globe?ā Yes or no. Itās a simple enough question, and not one that should be a problem for any genuine cartographer. And yet the resident cartographer at this article refused to answer the question. Not only does our resident cartographer here refuse to say that itās so. He refuses to say that it isnāt so. Is that because itās unknown or unknowableĀ ? Ā :-D No, itās a straightforward y/n question easily-determinable matter BTW, the region between lat 60 N & 60 S comprises about 86.6Ā % of the Earthās surface. So hereās another question or our resident cartographer: What other equal-area world-map has scale at least as great as the scale on the mapās equator & reference-globe, everywhere, in every direction, over 86.6% of the Earthās surface? (ā¦other than other CEA maps such as Balthasart, Square Tober CEA, & CEA-Stack.) Does anyone really believe that a refusal to answer those questions will successfully keep that GP advantage out of the article, when the matter is appealed to Wikipedia administration? BTW, CEA-Stack completely dominates GP. On CEA-Stack, with its Behrmann main-map, and with three added northern high-lat sections, CEA-Stack shows about 99% of the north-of-the equator part of the Earth with scale, in every direction at every point, at least equal to the scale along the equator. ā¦and shows about 95% of the north-half of the Earth with āgood shapeā, by which I mean point-min/max scale of at least Ā¾ (Thatās the point-min/max scale at Behrmannās equator). ā¦and that CEA-Stack version accomplishes all that, with an aspect ratio thatās a near-perfect fit to an 8.5X11 sheet of computer-paper. GP has good shape over only 21.3Ā % of the Earthās surface. (The high-lat sections wouldnāt be needed in the South, where even the first one would be needed by only a small amount of land at the tip of South-America. (ā¦unless one is very interested in Antarctica.) Of course, if desired, one high-lat section could be added in the South, for good scale & shape even in that tip of South-Americaā¦the Southernmost inhabited continental land.) BTW, even ordinary Behrmann CEA easily beats Equal-Earth, with good-shape, over 2/3 of the Earthās surface. ā¦& with point-min-scale at least equal to scale along equator, over 2/3 of the Earthās surface. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-1-12T12:55 āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 09:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
First just a quick comment: How very bizarre, to claim that point-min-scale doesn't matter. Look at high-lat peripheral places on Sinusoidal, or at the top of any line-pole equal-area map, and say thatĀ :-D. In a classroom, it's often necessary to observe a map from a distance, because not all of the seats in the room can be close to the map. The distance at which a short map-distance can be discerned or compared is proportional to the map's scale at the point & direction of interest. If scale didn't matter, there'd be no reason for atlases to typically use a very large format, compared to other books. There'd be no reason for wall-maps to be roughly 3'X4' instead of postcard-size. Why equator-length & scale are a meaningful reference: On many or most Cylindroid (Cylindrical or Pseudocylindrical) maps, the scale along the equator is equal to the scale on the surface of the reference-globe, the generating-globe. (Yes, the CEA maps other than Lambert are often spoken of as being on a cylinder that intersects the reference-globe. But the non-Lambert CEA maps can also fairly be regarded as just vertically-magnified Lambert maps, sharing Lambert's reference/generating globe.) Scale-factor on a map is, by its definition, referenced to the scale on the reference or generating globe. Additionally, as you'll find nearly any time when there's space-competition on a wall, it's the horizontal-space that's in short supply. That makes the equator-length & scale the most useful length & scale reference. User:97.82.109.213 at 2021-1-12T0042 āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 00:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC) I compared the aspect-ratio of a certain version of CEA-Stack to that of an 8.5X11 inch sheet of computer-paper, not because I advocate printing maps only on 8.5X11 sheets, but rather as a way of telling the shape of the map, its aspect-ratio. That (11/8.5) aspect-ratio is a convenient and not very atypical shape for a wall-map or book-page. I wanted to emphasize that the powerful properties-improvements achieved by CEA-Stavk don[t require an unreasonably or particularly unusually tall map. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 01:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC) we could argue indefinitely about whether these criteria are meaningful, but I'm starting to realize it's not productive. why don't we try to compromise by adding a paragraph about GP's pros that are based on RS? I would propose something like the following, added to the bottom of the "Cartographic Reception" section.
Justin Kunimune ( talk) 13:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
[quote] we could argue indefinitely about whether these criteria are meaningful, but I'm starting to realize it's not productive. [/quote] You got that right. The matter of whatās āmeaningfulā is a subjective matter of opinion & personal-feeling. There are no RSs on subjective matters of opinion or personal-feeling. Cartographers, and the publications that publish them, are reliable when stating objective, verifiable mathematical facts. Cartographers, & the publications that publish then, are reliable when stating their personal subjective opinions, personal feelings, & POV. Cartographers, & the publications that publish them, are not reliable regarding subjective matters such as their opinion regarding what others should consider important (ā¦but they can reliably tell us mathematical facts that might influence peopleās perception of importance.) When you call certain publications āReliable-Sourceā, regarding subjective judgments of importance, thatās nonsense, and it just elevates some groupās POV to governing-status. So, how can Wikipedia say anything about such matter? Easy. Without calling it a debate (because it wouldnāt be an ongoing conversation in the article), in any instance with two sizable groups ( such as people who like GP, & people who donāt like GP), then just let each of those 2 groups state why they consider GPās advantages or disadvantages to be. ā¦& how they support their claims about importance. Iām not claiming that point-min-scale, referenced to map-width, is always important. But itās important when map-width is the fit-critical dimension. ā¦as it undeniably sometimes is. ā¦and as it usually is in wall-mounting, when fit & crowding is a problem. If Strebe wants to claim that point-min-scale is irrelevant, then I invite him to share with us why he believes that. Iāve told why I claim that point-min-scale matters. If & when Strebe feels ready to, he should be permitted to say why he thinks that point-min-scale is irrelevant, or in what way my argument that itās relevant is incorrect. Sorry, but thatās the best that you can do on a fundamentally subjective matter. You can tell about the mathematics, but the importance-judgment comes down to subjective opinionā¦for which reasons can and should be given. Now hear this: Donāt use GP when map-height is the fit-critical dimension! Behrmann, or maybe even Lambert, would be better then. When thereāll likely be crowding, but it isnāt clear which dimension will be more fit-critical than the other, or itās known that neither will be more fit-critical than the other, then of course space-efficiency is what matters, regarding the matter of av-scale, point-min-scales, or room for map-detail & labeling. When that doesnāt even matter, because the map will be on a large bare wall with no space-competition, and you can make the map as big as you want, to make any placeās point-min-scale as large as you want, regardless of the projectionā¦then, obviously, shapes, point-min/max-scale, becomes what matters. Behrmann does excellently, with point-min/max scale >= 3/4 , over about 2/3 of the Earthās surface. GPās inaccurate tropical shapes are unrealistic & inconvenient, and, to some, aesthetically-disturbing. ā¦but not use-prohibitive. Looking at the equator? Then I remind you that shapes there are really only half as NS-tall as theyāre shown. ...as regards the ratio between NS dimension & EW dimension. Looking at the top or bottom of Africa? Then I remind you that the shapes there are only about 2/3 as NS-tall as they appear. ...as regards the ratio between NS dimension & EW dimension. Insufficient point-min-scale for precise measurements or viewing at a distance can be use-prohibitive. GP excels at good point-min-scale, having good point-min-scale over the inhabited latitudes. ā¦out to lat +/- 60. Thatās 86.6% of the Earthās surface, out to the approximate latitude of Oslo, Stockholm & Helsinki. I define āgood point-min-scaleā as point-min-scale >= the scale along the mapās equator. Iāve told why thatās often, though not always, important. Very often, an advantage only sometimes obtains, depending on conditions. Itās nonetheless an advantage. Oh yes, & thereās the matter of the reliability of mathematical facts that are stated. Well, anyone can challenge the accuracy of a fact. And no, that isnāt prohibitively time-consuming. Itās common practice everywhere but here. It isnāt complicated: Someone states a fact. Maybe (or maybe not) someone else challenges itā¦either by asking for verification, or telling why it isnāt true. Of course merely proving that thereās a consensus among reliably-credentialed people, that it isnāt so is sufficient to refute an alleged objective mathematical fact. e.g. Strebe could tell us why he believes that GP doesnāt have point-min-scale >= the scale along the equator, between lat -60 & lat +60. ā¦or point to an expert-consensus that GPās lat-range of good scale is less than that. Thatās how the accuracy of an objective mathematical fact can be verified or refuted. 96.39.179.76 at 2022-1-15 at 0149 UT āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"Reliable source" does not mean "cartographer". RSs include respected peer-reviewed papers, news articles from established outlets, and published books. And RSs are reliable when stating what is important enough to mention. Using RSs this way does elevate some groups' POV to governing status, but that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Someone's POV needs to decide what is relevant and what isn't. It could conceivably come from a sizeable group of people selected to represent two sides of an argument, as you propose. But the creators and maintainers of Wikipedia have decided follow RSs. If Wikipedia was a scientific journal or a news agency, then of course that would be insufficient. We would have to verify all facts, weigh opinions by how well-supported they are, and adjust the narrative to represent all sides fairly. However, while journals and news agencies do exist, Wikipedia is not one of them. Wikipedia is a way for people to access published information in one place for free. If you think it would be better to gather a sizable group of people, ask them what they think is good about the Gall Peters Projection and why, and list the pros and cons that they identify, then I encourage you to do so and publish the result as a paper or news article or book. If you want more people to know that they should use GP when the width is the fit-critical dimension, then start a blog about map projections and post it there. But until they are published in an RS, these things do not belong on a Wikipedia article. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Justin-- we've been over this. There are facts that are far too blatantly, ridiculously obvious to require a citation. 96.39.179.76 at 2022-1-15T2305 āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 23:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Meters-- In case you haven't noticed, I've been signing nearly all of my posts. I tried the tildes. They don't work for me. I don't know or care why. I had a registration here, & have been told that I must still have one. I've tried to sign with it, via the tildes. But, since that doesn't work, I've been signing via my ISP. You want brevity? Then delete, from the article, all of the entirely-irrelevant material about about cartographer's emotional reaction to Arno, & about Arno's claims, etc. Arno Peters wasn't the introducer of GP, and all that material about him & what he said, & cartographers' reaction to him bears no relation whatsoever to James Gall's CEA version. All that Arno material could & should be moved the the Wikipedia article about Arno Peters. The GP article should be only about GP as a map-projection. 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 23:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
[quote] So, after five months and almost 135 k of talk page discussion you've dropped your idea of adding a section on properties, advantages and disadvantages? [/quote] No. I said no such thing. But obviously any progress in that matter will depend on taking the matter to Wikipedia administration, and it might be a while before I have time to give the amount of time it deserves, to that--likely lengthy-- project. [quote] OK, well then I suggest that you start a new talk page section to discuss what you now suggest we remove from the article. [/quote] Yes, that calls for a separate section. Getting the projection-irrelevant material our of the article...and moving it to the Arno Peters Wikipedia article.
My claims are verifiable, by asking any cartographer (..or, rather any cartographer who is willing to answerĀ :-) Anyway, Wikipedia is explicit about not requiring verification for things that are obvious. Additionally, relevance is often a subjective individual matter, and there's no such thing as an RS on a subjective matter. Strebe says that point-min-scale is irrelevant. Why? He isn't saying!Ā :-) "Relevant" needn't mean "Important & necessary in every instance." For relevance, it's sufficient that there are non-rare instance in which the fact is useful. It's just blatantly, ridiculously, undeniably obvious that there are instances in which point-min-scale matters. What about the fact that there could be instance in which map-width isn't the fit-critical dimension. Again, the extent or size of the region of good point-min-scale,referenced to map-width, is only important when width is the critical dimension. But that's sometimes the case, which is enough for the extent of size of the region of good point-min-scale to be relevant. And, BTW, if you've ever fit maps to a wall where there's competition for space, you'll have found that it's usually horizontal-space for which there's competition. Book-pages? The aspect ratio of most book-pages is less than the aspect-ratio of most equal-area world-maps. And the aspect-ratio of the combination of two facing-pages, too, is usually less than the aspect-ratio of most equal-area world-maps. ...meaning that, again, map-width is usually the fit-critical dimension. So when there's any question about fit, map-width is more likely than map-height, to be the fit-critical dimension. On Wikipedia, "verifiable" means that it exists in a RS somewhere even if that RS hasn't been cited. In this case, what's being questioned is not whether the claims are factually correct, but whether they are relevant, so obviousness does not exclude them from the need for verifiability. Justin Kunimune ( talk) 12:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Do you really think that you have an RS regarding what people should regard as relevant to them? 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC) (That's my tilde signature.) I should add that, in addition to the size & extent of the region of good-scale (which I define as scale at least equal to the scale along the equator), also important is av-scale. ...because, if, at some future time, you might need to distinguish between, or judge distance between, two nearby points, either minutely, or from a distance, you can't know now at what point on the Earth or in what direction, the scale of interest will be. By all of the abovementioned point-min-scale standards, Gall-Peters beats every (interrupted on only one meridian) equal-area world map that has ever been in print for sale. Angular-error &/or low point-min/max scale can be unrealistic, a nuisance,an inconvenience, & an aesthetic-fault. ...but too low a point-min-scale can make a map unusable at some particular distance, for some pair of points sufficiently close on the map. 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No time to reply to everything right now, but I'll just point out the following: Gall-Peters is by far the most popular equal-area world-map. Nothing else comes even remotely close. You're engaged in a desperate stonewalling effort, against the overwhelmingly most preferred equal-area world-map. So GP's advantages are irrelevant because some editor doesn't publish about them? So your WP article consists only of nasty inimical POV, & your resident cartographer refuses to say whether or not GP has point-min-scale >= the scale along the equator from lat 60 south to lat 60 north, up to Oslo, Stockholm & Helsinki...86.6% of the Earth's surface, because...he says that's irrelevant...but won't say why. ...presumably consistent with your notion of verification? Ā :-D Scale, space, area. That's what encompasses, contains & supports everything that a map displays. ...and GP has more of that, for a given width, than any one-piece equal-area map that's ever been in print for sale. ....but it's irrelevant because no article (by a cartographer, or some newspaper editor) says it's relevant??Ā :-D Sorry, but that those above-stated facts don't require a notable citation.Ā :-D 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 21:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC) āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.179.76 ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |