all projections should ideally be listed in the 'by metric' preserved (if any) and 'by surface' projection type. So for instance the Lambert cylindrical equal-area projection is intended to be displayed under both 'cylindrical projections' and also under 'equal area' projections EdwardLane (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-04-08T15:53:00.000Z","author":"EdwardLane","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EdwardLane-2012-04-08T15:53:00.000Z-Duplicate_entries_are_deliberate","replies":[]}}-->
EdwardLane, thanks for the brilliant start. I have taken the liberty of restructuring considerably. Your foundation faithfully mirrors the state of the articles. Unfortunately, as far as categorization is concerned, the articles lack sources and merely comprise an ad hoc accretion of edits by people of varying interests and knowledge. They just don’t reflect the state of the literature or reality very well.
So, while I understand that my own edits to this template would be considered unsourced, so are the articles from which you developed the first state of this template. My purpose in restructuring is to encourage changes in the articles to better match reality and reduce the ad hoc (and incoherent) nature of their composition.
That said, we’re already beyond the limits of the literature. “Hybrid” and “compromise” are terms that appear in the literature, but not in the context of some taxonomic hierarchy. Hence it was WP:OR—and mistaken at that—for some editor to lump them into “By Surface”.
“By Surface” is already a suspect term: The various “pseudos” are not surfaces and they’re not even “conceptual” surfaces. They are mathematical abstractions that preserve some trait of a surface development while relaxing the remaining traits. I am therefore conflicted about their inclusion in “By Surface”. “Surface” itself is already generalized; it is not as if a cylindric projection is geometrically projected onto a cylinder in the usual case. So we have these terms that are supposed to aid in conceptualizing but they encourage false beliefs because people take them too literally.
I took the liberty of adding “By Construction”, though I do not necessarily like that terminology; it is a little too general. The various “pseudos” more properly belong there than in “By Surface”, but I won’t make that change without discussion.
Many thanks for this promising start. Strebe (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-04-08T22:41:00.000Z","author":"Strebe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Strebe-2012-04-08T22:41:00.000Z-Taxonomy","replies":["c-Strebe-2012-04-09T18:28:00.000Z-Strebe-2012-04-08T22:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
One incidental question are "pseudo azimuthal - hammer" and 'hammer retroazimuthal' meant to be the same projection/not (if so one should be renamed)?
Oh and where you created 'general perspective' it looked like it was including "central cylindric" and "perspective conic" - but I didn't think that was your intention so I added (rather clumsily I'm afraid) 'other perspective'.
Did I mention you're doing a grand job - and I like the 'by construction section'
EdwardLane (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-04-09T11:16:00.000Z","author":"EdwardLane","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EdwardLane-2012-04-09T11:16:00.000Z-Taxonomy","replies":[]}}-->
Presently the map projection articles and this template refer to “polyhedral projections”, but that is a solecism. They are “projections” onto polyhedra, but the method of projection onto a surface of the polyhedron is independent of the geometry of the polyhedron and how it is unfolded. The projection onto the surface could be identical for many “projections” which are known by different names. For example, many polyhedral schemes use the gnomonic projection for the actual business of projection, yet receive their status as independent “projections” on the basis of the polyhedron chosen and how it is laid out on the plane.
So, we have situations where an inventor has laid out a particular polyhedron geometry and called it a projection, with little thought given to the actual business of projection (Waterman). We have situations where the inventor has proposed a novel projection coupled with a specific polyhedron (Fisher). We have situations where novel projections have been devised suitable for adaptation to “any” polyhedron (Lee). Mess. Strebe (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-04-09T18:59:00.000Z","author":"Strebe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Strebe-2012-04-09T18:59:00.000Z-The_pesky_matter_of_\u201carrangement\u201d_vs_\u201cprojection\u201d","replies":["c-EdwardLane-2012-04-16T10:13:00.000Z-Strebe-2012-04-09T18:59:00.000Z"]}}-->
Just stumbled on this Chamberlin trimetric projection article and it looks to be missing from the template (and so presumably also missing from the map projection article) not quite sure where it ought to fit. EdwardLane (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-08-15T09:22:00.000Z","author":"EdwardLane","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EdwardLane-2012-08-15T09:22:00.000Z-Missing_from_Template","replies":["c-Strebe-2012-08-15T18:02:00.000Z-EdwardLane-2012-08-15T09:22:00.000Z"]}}-->
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.145.9.42