Talk:Valeriepieris circle

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Quah's circle should not be a circle in the provided projection

@Belbury:,@Bennylin: This edit replaced an azimuthal equidistant with an orthographic projection. As Quah's circle is not centred on the projection, it should not appear as a circle on the projection, even ignoring the Earth ellipsoid.

Granted the previous azimuthal equidistant projection was a poor choice as it distorted the antipodal landmasses. Possible replacements are

Orthographic map projection: gives a "natural" view of Earth, but hides the far hemisphere.
Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection: Shows the entire Earth and lets the reader compare the area of the Quah circle with Earth's surface area, but distorts (though not as much as equidistant) antipodal landmasses

Additionally, a full-colour Blue-Marble-like rendering is more consistent stylewise with the original Winkel triple projection.

Would anyone have an opinion on this?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 15:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rerendered the image using the Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection, as on the left.

An added benefit is that the fraction of the area of circle to that of the globe is equal to its equivalent on Earth.

Cheers,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 08:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmglee: Can you make an image for comparison of the original circle with Quah's circle, with both overlapping in the same image? Personally, I'd prefer an orthographic projection for this purpose (probably centred on Mong Khet or somewhere in between both centres, in northern Vietnam or wherever that is), since we don't have one in the article yet. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, @Florian Blaschke: Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that, as they are in different projections, so circles in one are not circular in the other.

A workaround is to find a mapping from one to the other, approximate the circle with a many-sides polygon, transform each vertex and plot the polygon. I'll have to leave it to another editor to do that.

Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To allow the reader to compare the fraction of the area of circle to that of the globe is equal to its equivalent on Earth, I'd recommend the Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 10:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the point of the comparison image, to me, would be purely to compare the extent of the circles. I'm aware of the problem that the Valeriepieris circle is not truly a circle in an orthographic projection. Maybe another editor can do it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]