Talk:List of map projections

Comment

Thought I'd add wikiproject outlines as this 'list' article has almost become a new article Outline of Map Projection and I wasn't sure where one drew the line between list and outline. EdwardLane (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Image Use Note

It should be noted that a good number of these can share images. Some of these projections of subsets of other projections, such as Continuous American polyconic projection being a specific version of Polyconic projection. Both are using the same image right now. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 08:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

equal area map projection

Should all polyhedral map projections be included in the list of "equal area map projections"? In principle the "other projection" used to map from the globe to each facet of any polyhedron *could* be some equal-area mapping[1], and in practice the facets of the polyhedron are often small enough that it is difficult to tell whether the cartographer actually used an equal-area mapping or not. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Researchers would strongly object to listing all polyhedral interruption schemes as “equal-area”. Unless the number of facets is large, differences between equal-area and not are generally obvious to the trained eye. In any case, beyond what is obvious visibly, mathematical analysis of projections is important. Under analysis, deviations from equal-area are readily detected no matter how minute. Strebe (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Replace low-contrast images

I will be replacing images on the various map projection pages. Presently many are on a satellite composite image from NASA that, while realistic, poorly demonstrates the projections because of dark color and low contrast. I have created a stylization of the same data with much brighter water areas and a light graticule to contrast. See the thumbnail of the example from another article. Some images on some pages are acceptable but differ stylistically from most articles; I will replace these also.

The images will be high resolution and antialiased, with 15° graticules for world projections, red, translucent equator, red tropics, and blue polar circles.

Please discuss agreement or objections over here (not this page). I intend to start these replacements on 13 August. Thank you. Strebe (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

how about a template?

I just had a look at this and thought that all the different map projections could do with being nicely interconnected using soemthing like this Wikipedia:Navigation_templates.

It would need to go at the bottom of each map projection - but then you might be able to quickly just around all the area distance compromise etc maps - dunno if it's possible to fit them all in the one template ? EdwardLane (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea. Some thought would have to be put into arrangement. Strebe (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO you're missing an important projection

Rumold Mercator's map

I leave it to regulars here to decide. But I think this picture of the map from the page on Mercator has enormous importance here, even if only historical. It looks like a "conformal" stereographic projection. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The map you show is a double-hemisphere stereographic. Stereographic is there in the article. It’s just not portrayed as two hemispheres. Strebe (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Indeed stereographic is there, it enabled me to correctly identify the projection. But I think this particular map has strong historical interest, plus this particular stereographic projection is not shown per se. Still think it's worthwhile to add. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “this particular stereographic projection”. The article is about map projections, not about historical maps or any particular map. Strebe (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Skywalker is referring to "two disks that touch, each one a separate stereographic projection of one hemisphere onto a disk -- usually the Western Hemisphere and the Eastern Hemisphere -- so together the full map covers the entire globe". A quick WP:GOOGLECHECK Google image search for "hemisphere map" seems to show that particular 2-disk stereographic West/East arrangement is common. Perhaps common enough that this article would be improved with a line item mentioning that particular one of several 2-disk hemispherical projection arrangements (Wulff net, Schmidt net, Mollweide[2], etc.), whether or not that arrangement is notable enough for an article of its own. One could argue that we already have precedent -- the Goode homolosine also has separate projections that, together, cover the entire globe. I hope this doesn't lead to a slippery slope of trying to categorize the infinite other ways of piecing together a complete global map out of multiple projections. --DavidCary (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, DavidCary. It’s pretty common to conflate arrangement of the projection with the projection itself, but the two are quite distinct. The topic of interruptions is mentioned briefly in the map projection article, though it ought to be expanded on there. I don’t know what could be done with this article; various arrangements of projections definitely don’t reasonably belong in a list of projections except in the rare case where the inventor specified the arrangement as part of the “definition” of the projection. Cahill’s butterfly and Fuller’s dymaxion are two examples of that. The double hemispheric arrangement can be applied to myriad projections. Strebe (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a top note for the list of projections saying something like 'for distinct arrangements of the same projection types see the subsection in the map projection article' (explaining the problems on conflating projections with arrangements) - and possibly expand that section to show 2 or 3 examples of double hemisphere arrangements with different projections? EdwardLane (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly that would be the right way to handle it! Strebe (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If some person have a paper "world map" in hand, I think this article should help that person quickly figure out which map projection best fits that map, by finding which illustration most closely matches the map in hand.

Perhaps this article would be more useful if people scanning through this list, holding one of the many paper world maps with "two disks that touch", could find some entry in this list that looks like that. Then the notes to the right of that entry would point out that it's not really a single "map projection", but two separate projections in this particular arrangement. (Should that entry use the illustration of a "(conformal) stereographic double hemisphere" or a "(equal-area) Lambert azimuthal double hemisphere", or perhaps both?)

p.s.: Strebe, thank you for doing so much work illustrating this article.

I like the ideal of a map projection identifier, but how far down that path do we want to go, and how satisfied will an audience be with a partial solution? I would be particularly concerned about people jumping to the conclusion that they have identified a projection when they have done nothing of the kind. I can easily see people believing they’ve identified a double hemispheric stereographic when in fact it was a Nicolosi globular, for example. They might do that even if caveats were clearly noted because they just don’t know the salient features of a projection to look at. I’ve seen cartographers misidentify map projections over and over again, even in cases that seemed to me to be blatant. (See here for just one example.) If so for cartographers, I despair over any real utility of simple visual comparisons as identification for laypersons. Strebe (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Renaming ?

Into "List of whole world map projections". Yug (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Many of the listed projections are not “whole world” projections. The separately named large-scale projections that are the focus of the EPSG database, for example, are almost all just parameterizations of small-scale projections. Strebe (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Consolidate list

It seems to me it would be a good idea to consoldiate this list as one, with added columns for type and properties. At the moment it is rather confusing and overlaps with the main map projection article - it is not really a list. There are also quite a few omissions/inconsistencies. I have been working on version of this - see my sandbox - will if no objection bring it in when adequately finished. Marqaz (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I’m ambivalent about this proposal because often people do want to see projections listed in different ways. On the other hand, the present list is poorly maintained, and one of the reasons is that a projection might appear in both classifications yet the person adding it has only added it into one. It’s too easy for the present scheme to get out of sync with itself, and of course some sections haven’t even been turned into tables. It’s also inefficient, having to duplicate many projections in two different places. Over all, I think your proposal is better, but it would sure be much better if Wikipedia had some way to order tables dynamically by specified criteria. Strebe (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - agreed its not perfect, but have at least made the table sortable so one can sift for different characteristics ( a filter option would be better but is not supported). Will probably move over in a few days if no objection.Marqaz (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My objections evaporate with sortability. Thanks for taking this on. Strebe (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've put the new page up. I dare say there are some typos and erros.

• I've beefed up many of the commments, to give more background to many of the projections
• I've added some projections that had pages on Wikipedia but were not listed here (e.g. Gall Stereographic)
• I've also added a few fairly well regarded projections that are not on Wikipedia (e.g. Flat Polar quartic) - which we really need a sample projection for (Strebe - you have done such a good job with the vast majority on this page)
• I haven't yet added the Cassini projection partly becasue it is a simple variant, but also because the image needs rotating. Also the Chamberlin trimetric.
• I removed the Hoelzel projection - it has no article and is not mentioned by most of the websies.

hope other find this a useful upgrade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqaz (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Years

When i try to order to year by ascending/descending order th BC and AD gets all messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindrop11 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that might be why years 'before common era' gets used sometimes EdwardLane (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Western Projections ONLY?

I am bothered that this wiki topic only covers Western projections. Why are we ignoring other cartographers of the world; such as: Kunyu Wanguo Quantu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunyu_Wanguo_Quantu). I apologize for not logging in and not providing more details. Just something to consider and I'll let you others discuss before pursuing this [or not] further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.45.122 (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Kunyu Waguo Quantu used the Ortelius oval, a “Western” projection. Strebe (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages.

Please go ahead and add projections from "other cartographers of the world".

Strebe may be right -- Kunyu Wanguo Quantu and Theatrum Orbis Terrarum may both use the same projection.

But even if Strebe is right, I think this article would be improved if the original commenter (or perhaps someone else) added that particular projection to this list of map projections.

Carlos A. Furuti "Premodern Projections" says the oval map by Ortelius is "probably derived from Apian's first design" (also missing from this list).

--DavidCary (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hard to understand

this article is hard to understand. which map is more realistic? 193.239.254.247 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's subjective. I think the only "real" projection is an actual globe. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I do think a little more explanation for the lay-reader is in order. There's a bit of information at the end of the article that helps clarify the terms and their relative advantages and disadvantages, but it's inadequate and buried at the bottom. 66.57.50.6 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

this article is 'just' a list - what you're asking about is hopefully in this section of the map projection article EdwardLane (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Natural Earth projection

Where does Tom Patterson's Natural Earth projection fall in the list? Considering it was featured on The West Wing, I think it merits inclusion, or at least mention. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What episode was this? Strebe (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time to research it at the moment, but it was called "The Patterson Projection" in the show. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Strebe, for adding it to the list and rendering an image for it. --DavidCary (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Globes

Would a globe count as a projection? If so, which categories would they fall under? Symon of Carthage (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Strebe (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Or I suppose it might be a conformal equidistant equal area spherical projection - if you were really being pernickety, but unless you're considering the distinction between an oblate spheroid and a sphere as significant then I'd not think of it as a projection. But check out Figure_of_the_Earth if that's what you meant. EdwardLane (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

About Pseudocylindrical Projections indexing criteria ref.doc and how to implement.

The following link you should DON'T visit, leads to a 21-page-pdf article containing relevant information, showing on "Cartographic projection Procedures" (Rel.4)Second Interin Report by Gerald Evenden, 1st Jan 2003 at (Nat-Geo-Society's ? of WA?). This seems to be the final draft and version for this section and lists the new index for "PseudoCylindrical Projections" after and according with specs on Upgrade's implementation manual.

CONSIDERING: Most documentation on this matter (mostly dated on 1950's and grouping since 1900's aprox) the was no standard protocol; guideline or alike so each individual-author could vary the particular focus to base on for each work's case or descriptin - variable - criteria. (such "equal-area" or "conformal" and others). Therefore should be considered to implement that hierarchy on related pages while updating contents and links.

I'll only include here the short proper definition for Pseudo-Cylindrical Projections(the only one clear enough, concise and on plain language but also format-convert-generated typo-errors) I´ve founded, followed by a resumed list for show top + first sub-levels/sub-categories on "Pseudocylindrical" including total number of sub-entries/projections for/on each one.

Def. "Pseudo-cylindrical projections" are result of efforts to minimize the distortion of the polar regions of the cylindrical projections by bending the meridians toward the center of the map as a funtion of longitude while maintaining the cylindrical characteristic of parallel parallels.

• Pseudo-cyl-projections

Computations & Sources

1-Sinusoidal pseudocylindicals

1.1Generalized Sinusoidal: and other 7 entries)

1.2 Elliptical Pseudo-cyl: 5 entries

1.3 Hyperbolic PseudoCyl: 2 entries

1.4 Parabolic PseudoCyl: 4 entries

1.5 Rectilnear: 3 entries (Collignon and Eckert I and II) so no nested under Collignon as showed on our main page for this ones)

1.6 Miscellaneous PseudoCyl: 13 entries

2- "Near"-Pseudocyls: 6 entries.

3- Oblique projections... (listed only; no contents)

Personal comment/request:

• So this is the valid and effective tree for indexing this projections used carto/geographers. This seems left no room for any other criteria-based-ones such "equal-area" or "conformal" that are adjetives arbitrary used by experts on that area to point something by a single-simmple based criteria to "to-qualify" under that minor/operative "label", any other person on the field will knows too. That many differenbt "aspects or focus" was no other consecuence that misleading disorder and ambiguity.
• As there was no previous reference, most categorization and indexing of projections' on wikipedia was most likely based on "transclusion" of visual-similar-look from other ones or just copypasted what was on some random-old published reference by author.
• This could be only the top of the iceberg as it could be something replicated on many other pages (not only "Geo" related only ones), but I'm just documented this one (for now).
• I'm say: "volunteer here" if that massive changes has to be made on the entire "Map projections" sub-pages for "emotional compromisse" lol.
• Actually despite how big could be that updating on mentioned branch, it will be a piece of cake if compared with the History LA portal, that was made without any base-criteria at all.
• As this old wikidragon on this recently-re-actived-noob-account-skin already have in previously mentioned proyect on schedule, I'll request to our fellow checking-editors to send word to other contributors and to pick up this post-issue-case and level it up to "you-know-what" forum to be discussed and where final action will be determined. That seems to be in order as that update could means lot of work to be done, and I'm confident on them to consider the relevance of how Wikipedia "shows" its contents as well as "what" are them to be bold, fair and true on any possible meaning.
• Personally, I'll could appreciate if that editors could be gentle with this request add the following as comment on that new forum, on my behalf, if the masterminds behind this proposals are still considered for place comments as the next ones.:

(no joking at all)

• I suggest to track and locate the author of the referenced article ASAP, based on this considerations:

- First, to obtain any combination of the following: a) To release his job under CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence; grant authorization for be used on related wikipages "at will or need"; to "offer him to the chance to contribute with the Free Knowdledge Encyclopedia by invitation with any other article of him on this outdated-referenced page-name that really has need of it; or his agreement to be a on-line advisor for this pages's upgrading (if decided)to let us present that contents "as it should be".

b) If nothing of that works: Vanity approach: Could be tempted by the idea of have a contributor's page for him as a token of gratitude" and as any other user but with more userboxes (lol) c) IM CONSIDER, based on the referenced article's "definition/description" for map proyections and all what it shows, I consider that author should be recluted someway to contribute around. Basically, for actually suceed on put on a small phrase all the basic info that is not included nor clear enough or to be founded even on other authors on this theme, and for showing at same time what we are blinded-for, as we do nothing about a plain definition or definition at all but copy-pasting some extreme-technical text (rephrased) for "make the page" or fix it under our working criterias as reference, common sense, notability, etc. I've didn't enjoy the punch in my dragon's fang for make me notice that we are became more concerned about the criterias mentioned above and relaxed on other, (for me) far most important such TRUTH, FAIR, and IMPERSONAL contents added here... as all we have seen sometime a fake/lie, unfair a/o selfish contribution and very few of them remains as there was no consensus for make a decition. I've was distracted but already shaked and focused. Apologies to all for not-being-me" as I am for be "thinking" about un-real concepts that affected me generating the worst "sin" on my book: guilty for do-nothing" when you can. "I was... I've believed... " "bold-shift- excuses" that can dare to consider to explain but truth. And that, on this level and theme, means correct stucture, clear definitions and bold-edited contents "better than anyone/anything"... and that was what moved me to post this from the moment I've crossed data and noticed. and last, but not least: d)As wikidragons attract too much attentions making massive bold edits anywhere, I've asked to other editors to post this case on my behalf to not let any chance of distraction/diversion to be based on my boldness and lousy contribs. Calling all the formerly-called wiki-knights vermin (if that exists) to give support and to "man-this-suggest", as you also love near-losted causes and considering they also wants the best this our Wiki home, to BE the best, and that should include: "SPECIALLY and DESPITE OURSELVES".

"Bold funny quote of the month": " Anyone "free of flaws, so good to not see the truth on this and so brave to show openly and tired of this mean incarnation you are imprisioned": Throw the first stone." Personal treatment guarantee.

---

That is the end of the quote to be added. As I've said, I'm confident on my fellow editors will see the truth on this instead of think otherwise.

Fair and bold edited by TienShenLong @ 05:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(Is the old hidden cat check still operational to bring attention on that mword was placed?)

I’m sorry; I cannot understand what you are proposing. Strebe (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Gall Stereographic: 1855, not 1885.

The article gives 1885 for the date of Gall's Stereographic. But pretty much all sources say that Gall introduced his Stereographic, Orthographic and Isographic cylindrical projections in 1855.

--MichaelOssipoff (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)MichaelOssipoff

It looks like it was just a typo. It has now been fixed.– Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Identifying a projection

What projection is this?

Is the projection seen on right one that has been catalogued by this article? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a Nicolosi globular projection (actually apparently invented by Al-Bīrūnī = ابوریحان بیرونی), one for each hemisphere. There is no article for that projection on Wikipedia. Strebe (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

SVG?

It would be useful if the map projects would be in an .SVG format rather then .jpg format. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Some are already SVG, but I agree this would be nice to have. It may still require projected raster image of NASA's Blue Marble with a vector graticule on top.+mt 21:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A new projection?

Place the 'pole' anywhere on the Equator, define a new longitude and latitude scheme, with the new 'Equator' passing through the North and South poles. This makes Africa look tiny and the Arctic more reasonable!

Darcourse (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darcourse: you seem to be describing what are called transverse projections. Like any ‘normal’ projection, each has its own pattern of distortion depending on its particular geometry, also affected by the choice of poles. Perhaps the best-known is the transverse Mercator, a version of which is very widely used in large-scale topographic maps, for example. The transverse version of the plate carrée is called the Cassini. Both of these are shown in the table.—Odysseus1479 18:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding Tissot Indicatrices column?

What do people think about adding a column to this table with an image of Tissot Indicatrices for each projection? Format-wise it should be feasible, as the rightmost Notes column takes up a lot of horizontal space and (on my monitor) rarely uses all the vertical space in each row, so its width could be reduced. Tissot Indicatrices images are already available on WP for many of the projections, and this awesome site has such images for most if not all of the rest, under a CC-BY-SA license, so the images could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Jbening (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I reckon that would be a rather useful addition, since it would help show what sort of distortions were made by cartographers to develop their maps, and would free up more of the screen from empty space.— Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be far too small to be useful. If someone is interested, they should go to the particular projection. As far as filling space: People access Wikipedia on a huge diversity of screen sizes. Strebe (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation conventions?

I see the argument to be made that "rectangular polyconic" be lowercase, since neither of those words are proper nouns. However, it seems to me that being alone in a cell mandates that the first word be capitalised, as the first word of a sentence. At the very least, it looks very odd if "rectangular polyconic" is the only non-capitalised entry in the list. IMO, it looks like a typo. In any case, if "rectangular polyconic" is all lowercase, then by the same logic should the same not apply to "Equirectangular", "Web Mercator", "Central Cylindrical", "Flat-polar quartic", "Equidistant conic projection" (now that I'm looking at it, that one definitely needs the word "projection" removed), "Latitudinally equal-differential polyconic", "Azimuthal equidistant", "Vertical perspective", and "Two-point equidistant"? Justin Kunimune (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you’re right. Someone went through and capitalized everything awhile back, and I didn’t care to argue about it. Sorry for the disruption. Strebe (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So... are you saying it should or shouldn't be capitalised? Justin Kunimune (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

My own preference is to use the convention in the article on the map projection so that people won’t get confused about whether to capitalize the word when writing it in a normal sentence. That means I would lower-case all words that are not pronouns. However, Wikipedia articles always capitalize the first word, for example, and there is nothing unreasonable about capitalizing the first word of the cell. It’s a stylistic matter. Different publications have different styles for such things. Wikipedia doesn’t, as far as I can tell. Strebe (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, I'm going to capitalise it to make it consistent with the other rows.

Justin Kunimune (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Azimuthal Equidistant "used by USGS"?

What is the significance of the reference to the Azimuthal Equidistant projection being "Used by the USGS in the National Atlas of the United States of America."? It sounds like this needs a reference to understand the significance. From the only reference I could find (https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1532/report.pdf), the USGS uses many projections, and there's nothing particularly significant about their use of this particular one. Yet this particular reference is (strangely) used as a proof that the USGS believes in the flat earth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VpWYpAWxrM. Richard.a.russell (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dymaxion map?

Is there a reason Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion map is not on this list?

I'm not a cartographer, so I hesitate to add this myself, especially without asking first. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It is. It's between Quadrilateralized spherical cube and Myriahedral. Justin Kunimune (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have been searching for "Dimaxion". oops. Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This article on the media

The Journal of Biogeography News blog cited this page in their Figures: the Art of Science piece of news, published on 15 July 2020. The same piece of news has been recommended by Nature Briefing on 17 July, and sent to possibly thousands of scientists and researchers across the world. That's Wikipedia in the media for you. Mateussf (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Projection formulæ

@Oscujic: This edit should be reverted. 1. Formulæ are too much detail to fit the purpose of a list. 2. Most projections require nuances and explanation that can’t fit in this context. 3. The table becomes far too wide for good viewing on many common devices. 4. Many projections’ generating formulæ are far too complicated for this page and will never appear on it, making the structure inconsistent. Strebe (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I reluctantly concur. If all the formulae could be displayed an a fairly compact and consistent way, it would be great. However, I can see that this goal is not feasible.

On a vaguely related issue, is there something in Wikipedia that reviews software, especially free and open-source software and maybe add-ons for spreadsheets like MS Excel, LibreOffice Calc, and Google sheets?

There's a package for R (programming language) called GEOmap. It claims to be a "Set of routines for making Map Projections (forward and inverse), Topographic Maps, Perspective plots, Geological Maps, geological map symbols, geological databases, interactive plotting and selection of focus regions." I use R routinely, but I haven't felt a need for more than relatively simple maps and therefore have not had to worry about the issues discussed in this article. If I did, I likely would go first to GEOmap and hoped that would be adequate for my needs. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree to revert. This additional column does not add much value to the article, as these details are best contained in each articles' entry. +mt 23:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As the one who inserted the 'Definition of symbols', I agree with the decision to delete them when the formulae are deleted. Formulae should not be inserted without their symbols being defined.HuPi (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Authagraph projection

Is there a reason why this one is a link, instead of a thumbnail? - TimDWilliamson ^speak 00:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Timdwilliamson: The author asserts ownership of the only images available. Strebe (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Type of projection - In standard presentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_map_projections&oldid=1132794544#Type_of_projection

1. there are several properties, why would the surface-property, or whatever this section is about, be called "type of projection"?
2. "standard presentation" - neither linked nor defined.

Euro2023 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s called "type of projection" just for lack of a better term. "surface-property" isn’t very clear to me, but perhaps it could be "surface classification" or "construction method"? I don’t think there’s any widely used term for this so there’s not any perfect solution. I agree that "standard presentation" is unusual; I think "standard aspect" or "normal aspect" would be the better way to say that. Justin Kunimune (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

1. "Type" is used for the name of the fourth columne. In Template:Map projections there is By surface/metric/construction. I didn't construct the table nor the template, but it looks inconsistent at present. There is also Map projection#Projections by surface - that what I meant by "surface-property", there seems to be a property of the projections that has to do with "surface". Maybe the column could be named "Surface". And the section "Type of projection" be renamed to "Type of projection surface" or just "Projection surface" or - the most consistent way - matching the columne name it refers to, whatever that name is.
2. If "normal aspect" is meant and is correct, it would be more consistent with wording found elsewhere in Wikipedia to use that term here too.

Euro2023 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Any idea what this one would be?

It's from 1769, so it shouldn't be either the Van der Grinten or Lambert AEA projections. It also looks different (and better) than either one. — LlywelynII 02:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a forum-like question and observation. Strebe (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)