Talk:Waterman butterfly projection

Deletion proposal

This article does not describe a notable topic. There is no formal reference for the projection. It is personal research. I have proposed it for deletion. Strebe (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That statement (and attitude) is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.99.156 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply by Gene Keyes User:Esperanto41 2011-02-06

I took steps to restore this page, by contacting Courcelles, as follows:

"Waterman butterfly projection"

You deleted this page in a very sudden fashion, with no notification to its authors; and on three grounds, all of which are erroneous: "The article describes work that has never been published, cannot be verified, and seems to be a work in progress—more a concept than a fully developed method."

1) "never been published": The map was published in 1996, as stated in the first sentence of the article. It has been and still is distributed by the map publisher and retailer ODT. Waterman himself continues to sell updated versions to this day.

2) "cannot be verified": have you Googled the Waterman butterfly map? Are you aware that its mathematical foundations were worked on by Carlos Furuti, a prominent Brazilian publisher of online projections? Or that the famed cartographer Waldo Tobler said ""The analysis is particularly impressive and well done."?

3) "seems to be a work in progress—more a concept than a fully developed method": Wrong: I personally have bought several published versions of these maps, -- postcard size, two different versions of the large wall-map size, and even a magnetic version now affixed to my file cabinet -- from both ODT, and Waterman himself, and have written a detailed review and critique for my website.

I therefore respectfully request the prompt undeletion of this article.

Sincerely, Gene Keyes (Esperanto41)

Update: the page was undeleted on the same evening as my request. But I was astonished at the reckless deletion procedure: post a delete notice on the page for 7 days, then if nobody objects, poof! As if I happened to check this page over the Christmas holidays -- or every single week.

But: lesson learned:

Until Wikipedia reforms this sudden-death protocol, with no notice to whom it may concern (i.e., page contributors), I will now make sure to examine my Watch List each and every day.

1) Maps based on the projection have been printed and sold commercially. The article is supposed to be about the projection, not about maps based on the projection. In general specific maps on a projection do not meet WP:N requirements. The method of projection has never been published, which is a claim for deletion. I cannot find any reference to a rigorous projection method; there are only informal descriptions of the concept of the configuration in online snippets that appear to have arisen from personal communications with Mr. Waterman. This is plainly WP:OR.

2) There is no published paper on the Waterman projection. It does not matter that Carlos Furuti (or anyone else) has “worked on” the projection; in fact I know of others who have “worked on” it (which is another reason why it seems to be a work in progress), but that does not constitute anything of substance because it cannot be confirmed in any way useful to a reader. Nor does it matter what Waldo Tobler said about it, because that is not published, either. Wikipedia is not a venue for rumors. Meanwhile it is impossible for anyone to replicate the projection because its method of development has never been published.

3) Again, the article is about the Waterman projection. The projection and its development are unpublished works. It does not matter how much paraphernalia have been put out and collected by a small community of individuals; that circumstance does not comprise notable content. Strebe (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

steve waterman writes - As shown on the Waterman projections, are both the details for construction of the polyhedron used, and the exact methodologies to manifest the corresponding graticules as seen here http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjPoly/projPoly2.html

This projection is under official copyright since 1996...when those particulars for the graticule were laid out. While one may merely take the gnomonic graticule of my Waterman 5 polyhedron, I will enclose the directions here, to make the equal line delineation graticule ( as it appears on the maps ).

"projection method - All longitude lines are shown in three sections. Their total length is then equally divided, as are the equatorial sections, the edge of the polar squares and a line between the points of adjacent equatorial squares."

If you personally need further explanation to replicate this/my projection...please, just ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.66 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this response illustrates the problem. The projection methodology is unpublished, and if the snippets of information floating around aren’t enough for you, then feel free to contact the author. If the author gets hit by a meat truck tomorrow, well… oh well. The information appearing on the map itself does not suffice to pinpoint the Cartesian coordinate of a given spherical coordinate— indeed the information appearing on the map does not suffice for much of anything without doing a lot of research oneself and making assumptions in interpreting what the map says. In any case information appearing on the map is WP:OR. Lastly, method seems to be more about the arrangement of the map than about the projection of the map.

I also do not understand the claim that the “projection is under official copyright”. There is no such thing as copyrighting a “projection”. You can patent a projection. You can copyright a specific publication of a map. You cannot copyright a projection. Strebe (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

steve waterman writing-

Indeed the Waterman projection is exclusively my original [ completed ] work, manifested from my own original research and not a collaboration of any sort. I have a July 1996 copyright for this arrangement/projection ( in writing...using a patent/copyright lawyer ) I will agree to remove it on those grounds from Wikipedia, as being solely my work, manifested from an outgrowth uopn research done in my sphere packing studies/work/research/documentation.

"The information appearing on the map itself does not suffice to pinpoint the Cartesian coordinate of a given spherical coordinate— "

The latitude and longitude info is quite clear. I offered to walk you through the projection construction step by step...if you had trouble extrapolating the words regarding my equal line delineation method, mentioned above. Was the mathematics of the projection method not completely clear to you ?

"Indeed the information appearing on the map does not suffice for much of anything without doing a lot of research oneself and making assumptions in interpreting what the map says."

What info ?...the angular deformation map ?, or the distancing maps ?, or the Tissot Indicatrix ?, what is it that you cannot instantly decipher ?

Anyway, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to debate about any of the various aspects of my equal line delineation projection. So, yes, this projection system was totally completed in 1996 and was exclusively from my efforts. So, do go ahead and delete "Waterman butterfly projection" from Wikipedia, on those "original research" grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.66 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Strebe by Gene Keyes

Not one of my above arguments has been answered. This page was deleted on the boilerplate grounds that the map was not published, not verified and still in progress. None of this boilerplate language applies to the map in question.

Addenda by steve waterman-

published -

1 book - Symmetry: culture and science volume 13, numbers 1-2, 2002.page 131

Is this an image of the map or a detailed description of the projection? Strebe (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a black and white image...and a rather crappy one, at that.

2 e-magazine

http://www.pnyv.org/fileadmin/downloads/PNYV-Project%20Presentation%203.0.pdf

They adopted my projection to replace the one they were using...the Fuller Dymaxion map projection, as their signet...for some 5 years now.

The announcement of their adoption appears in the article you note, but they seem to have abandoned its use sometime since. Strebe (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This could be. I have not been in direct contact with them for several years.

verfied - I would wish to point out, that there was collaboration with others on some related projects. Izidor Hafner...made a rotating 3-d polyhedral "globe" of this projection ( a gnomonic version ) as well as hundreds of other Waterman polyhedra. Carlos Furuti...made various supporting maps for both the gnomonic and equal line delineation version of 1996. Additionally, Gene Keyes....posted an exhaustive critic of the Waterman projection. Waldo Tobler...I will need to find his posted, un-solicited quote, I do not have it handy right now.

Unpublished citations aren’t of any use. Comments by random people on the Web aren’t of any use; anyone can put up a Web site or write a blog. I trust Waldo Tobler’s opinion, but I don’t know what, precisely, he was opining on, and in any case, I’m not the judge. If it’s not reputably published, people can’t verify it ever happened, let alone the boundaries of the opinion. For all anyone knows he was commenting on the sphere-packing problem specifically but hated your graticule. Or he never said anything at all.

I looked for it today for an hour. It was his comment to another article that was in an e-magazine, I if recall...I will do a more extensive search tomorrow.

Mr. Furuti’s efforts at least confirm someone else has taken an interest in your project, which is a start, but there still is no mention here of any appearance of a projection description in any notable source. Strebe (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, while I have not published the projection method scheme itself, it is on every map and also posted below. None of my various claims, have ever been mathematically challenged...in over a decade of the map being posted to the net via my site. So, your objection here, while technically accurate, seems inappropriate..as the work HAS been independently reproduced and analyzed.

“…While I have not published the projection method scheme itself, it is on every map”: This is false. I have a copy of the 1996 map. It has a nice, informal diagram about sphere-packing and how it results in the arrangement. There is nothing on it about the projection method at all.

I should have said, every current version 2010 map...as the 1996 version had no detailed description....while the 2010 versions do. Each 2010 map also says..."Given: an fcc stacking of spheres of diameter one. Centers of all spheres are at a maximum distance of the square root of five from the cluster center." Am I allowed to show a small jpg of it, here ? each map also says, "Drawing a line between centers of the clusters generates the corresponding convex hull, a Waterman polyhedra, in this case a w5." I also would show the convex hull here as a jpg...as they appear on the map insets.

“and also posted below” does not help your case at all.

“None of my various claims, have ever been mathematically challenged.” Perhaps that is true. But perhaps that is because it has never been subjected to peer review. Wikipedia’s policies exist so that these sorts of debates don’t need to happen. If you are sure of the merits of the projection then why do you not submit a formal description for publication in a reputable journal? That would forever eliminate any question of notability and original research.

Perhaps I shall/must, in the future.

Strebe (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

and the projection is NOT in progress -

While an equal area version was near completion, it was never finalized. The newer 2010 projection is identical to the map version of 1996...with the appropriate changes made to country names and borders t reflecting those made in the political world during that period.

That is fine; I retract “in progress”… but I (and any reader) ought to be able to know that without a statement from the author. If the work were published in a notable venue, I would know what its status is and this misunderstanding, and entire conversation, would not have taken place. Strebe (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

[Gene Keyes, cont.]

1) It has been published: per definition, American Heritage Dictionary: "To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale." The "not published" objection is totally groundless. I have paid a good bit of money for several different finished editions of the professionally printed and published Waterman butterfly projection.

This isn’t about the map. It’s about the projection. No one disputes a few maps have been published. For notability of publications, see WP:NB. The maps do not meet those criteria. Please quit bringing in the red herring of the fact that someone has printed some maps and sold them. It’s the map’s method of construction that has never been published. Stating the some principle of arrangement on the map does not amount to a description in a verifiable, notable source. Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR. Your indignation is really not helpful here. Every other map projection in Wikipedia can be found fully described in journal articles or books on map projections. Why do you imagine this one deserves an exception?

2) To say it is not "verified" is to introduce an out-of-place debate into a simple article describing a particular map design and its mathematical derivation. The word "verified" is also out of context here: it might normally apply to an asserted fact that is not necessarily so, such as 'George Washington chopped down a cherry tree'. Wikipedia is not in the business of scientific "verification": that instead is the realm of original research. For instance, Wikipedia has an article about "String theory", which is an unverified theory, but no one would say the article should be deleted. If one wanted to add a caveat to the Waterman article that a certain cartographer disputes the projective qualities of the map, that would be more legitimate than simply burning the article on seven days' "notice". I was told by cartographer Richard Edes Harrison that Buckminster Fuller's mathematical reasoning for the 1943 Dymaxion map was "gibberish"; and I have issued my own detailed criticism of Bucky's map. But the Dymaxion is a significant piece of work, and one does not delete Wikipedia's Dymaxion map article on baseless complaints, or professional disagreement.

Please carefully read WP:OR. It addresses everything you say here, some of which you are correct about, but that bears no relevance to this situation, and some of which you are incorrect about.

3) To insult a map as "in progress" is ridiculous. Every map is in progress. Why does Rand McNally constantly update its atlases? Why will every current map have to be changed to include South Sudan? What will become of true north as the magnetic pole speeds up its shift? But meanwhile, Waterman's butterfly projection has been published and in print since 1996, with newer versions being issued. Meanwhile, the completed Waterman maps of 1996 and 2010 are on my wall, adjacent to my outdated 1975 Replogle globe, and outdated Dymaxion maps of 1954, 1967, and 1980 -- which were also evolving and in progress, by the way.

If you insist on imagining this is about insults then you cannot grasp what it is really about. In point of fact I LIKE the basic concept of Mr. Waterman’s projection (insofar as I can discern what it is in the absence of a formal description), but my like of the thing is not relevant. I WISH he would write a proper journal article on it. He has chosen, for whatever reasons of his own, not to do that. Until someone publishes at least one “notable” analysis of the projection or until maps produced from it reach the level of WP:NB, it is just a personal project. Possibly a very good one. But that’s all it is. There are thousands of map projections out there that have never been published and whose authors are firmly convinced are the finest thing ever made. Some of those projections have been turned into published maps. I have many such artifacts. None of them are “notable”, not necessarily because they are not good, but because they do not reach the standards of notability required for an encyclopædia. They will die with their authors.

If Mr. Waterman considers his 1996 incarnation to be “complete”, then “in progress” is unfounded, in which case I apologize. But if that is the case, then why does the publisher call it a “prototype” and seek an equal-area incarnation of it? In any case, “in-progress” is not a necessary condition for deletion.

I will ask ODT to change their text on their site.

It is unthinkable to me that a Wikipedia article about a map projection could be blackballed and deleted by a single complaint using the irrelevant boilerplate cited above. Argue against the map's merits: yes. Destroy the article: absurd. Esperanto41 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn’t about the map’s merits. That is not for us to establish. Strebe (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

steve waterman- So, no matter how wonderful the map projection might be technically, that is superfluous in this discussion.

Everybody thinks their own work is the most wonderful. That is why encyclopædias have metrics for inclusion that require notability, verifiability, and neutrality. Strebe (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So, having Waldo's proper reference will not matter either then will it ? As I have never had the projection published with the projection details in any cartographic publication.

It seems that Carlos Furuti's reputation and replication of this projection, do not count for squat either, nor the analysis work done by Gene Keyes.

So, while I consider that as being verified, and have all the supporting charts and numbers to back up any and all aspect claims, and no challenges in 15 years..Wiki does not, "until it is properly published".

So, as I said before...take it down from Wiki, for that reason, and not because it is "original research", nor "in progress".

Response to Steve Waterman by Gene Keyes Esperanto41 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with Waterman here: leave the page in place. This is a noteworthy map and projection! I know of no other published wall map of the octahedral type. Cahill's largest published butterfly map, nearly a century ago, was a relatively small 16 x 22" black-and-white version, a desk map. The latest Watermans are 43 x 54", in full color. While I have criticized certain of its design details, the innovation and workmanship of the Waterman butterfly map and projection speak for themselves.

steve waterman writes- feb 11 2010 I finally found the page that Waldo Tobler had made reference to my work in 2005. I forgot that his recent personal e-mail message was not part of his quote in that edition of Solstice...Institute of Mathematical Geography. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~copyrght/image/solstice/win05/mail.html I posted this clarification to my site. http://www.watermanpolyhedron.com/maps4sale.html. Additionally, I contacted ODT Maps and they have also made the appropriate text changes to their site.http://www.odtmaps.com/maps.44.0.0.1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.66 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Summary of arguments for deletion

• The map projection is original research: In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. The map projection does not meet the minimum of these metrics. No complete, formal description of the mathematics appears to exist in any source.
• Because the projection has never been published, it is impossible to confirm claims made in the article, such as its use of the principles of sphere-packing. A reader cannot confirm that such principles in fact informed the development of the projection, and even if the principles did inform its development, cannot confirm that the principles were properly adhered to in order to arrive at a correct solution. Everything goes back to trusting the projection’s originator.
• The article’s contents consist of primary sources:Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources… Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved… Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. The article appears to have been written entirely or almost entirely by people in direct contact with the map projection’s author and who have made their own contributions to the “ecosystem” of the projection.
• The editions of the map itself do not meet the bar of notability as extrapolated from (WP:NB), with particular attention to the footnotes:
  • A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
  1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
  2. The book has won a major literary award.
  3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
  4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

Strebe (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A reader cannot confirm that such principles in fact informed the development of the projection, and even if the principles did inform its development, cannot confirm that the principles were properly adhered to in order to arrive at a correct solution. Everything goes back to trusting the projection’s originator.

steve waterman - In essence, you are denying me the use of a Waterman 5 polyhedra to project upon, and I find this quite silly.

You are free to use whatever you want to project upon. This has nothing to do with your activities. It has to do with what belongs in Wikipedia. Strebe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is like saying that one cannot project upon a cube, or any other regular polyhedra. The w5 polyhedra itself, exists, regardless of the manner in which it was made. It is a truncated octahedron....with 6 squares of relative edges 1, and 8 hexagons of edges 1 and 2. It IS published on page 136 of Symmetry; culture and science volume 13, numbers 1-2 2002. ISBN 963 214 761 8 Edited by Gyorgy Darvas and Sandor Kabai. There are 6 depictions on that page...three sphere clusters and three polyhedra...shown along 3 different axial views. Text also shown on that page -

spheres at sweep distance 24

total spheres 70

density 48.212

verticies 24

faces 14

edges 26

cubic volume 28.7557

surface area 51.0332

Given my algorithm for making Waterman polyhedra in a short paragraph of initial introduction to him, Paul Bourke posted over ninety percent of the content for his four page write-up, in just a couple of days, along with HIS posted program to make them in Povray ( free software )http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/geometry/waterman/index.html

Complete with over 20,000 Waterman polyhedra ( yet no inventory ), Mark Newbold made HIS applet ( same waterman 5 ) http://dogfeathers.com/java/ccppoly.html. Additionally, the same Waterman 5 is seen here by Rob Webb in HIS Great Stella. http://www.software3d.com/UsersModels.php ( page bottom ) Great Stella has a dedicated routine that makes makes Watermans...( millions of different ones ), as does Adrian Rossiter's free software program Antiprism http://www.antiprism.com/programs/waterman.html. Magnus Wenninger has posted HIS hand-made Waterman stellations at http://www.saintjohnsabbey.org/wenninger/setten/index.html.

Mathematician Maurice Starck http://www.ac-noumea.nc/maths/polyhedr/Waterman_.htm also acknowledges the Waterman 5 and map.

So, in addition to the published page on the waterman 5 polyhedra and related sphere cluster, these algorithm-users serve as additional evidence of a documented/accepted/mathematically confirmed Waterman 5, by notable others! Be it world-class mathematicians or world-class cartographers...which you ignore/deny as pertinent.

This is not about the existence of the Waterman polyhedra. It is about the notability, verifiability, and original research of the Waterman projection. Strebe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The exact manner to manifest an equal line delineation is already posted in this discussion.

That is exactly where it does not belong. Strebe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So, to dismiss the map, one must dismiss the W5 polyhedra,

This is not about “dismissing the map”. It is about whether the Waterman butterfly projection page is an encyclopædic topic according to Wikipedia guidelines. Neither does it follow that “dismissing the map” means to dismiss the W5 polyhedron; that is non sequitur. Strebe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

which has been reproduced over and over and over..or dismiss the projection method...as not being able to be replicated...which it has been over and over. It does not seem to matter what world-class mathematicians nor world-class cartographers have to say either, to effectively impact upon Wiki. These are world-class people, none of which are from my home country. You have been a sole objector in 15 years since it being published as a poster in 1996. Yes, there are those that object to it being an unusual shape, but none to the math, nor to the projection methods [ gnomonic or equal line delineation ( as was done for Fuller's Dymaxion map )], nor to any of the posted aspects..like distancing, angular deformation, Tissot's Indicatrix etc...ever, prior to yours.

As I have stated repeatedly, this has nothing to do with the merits of the map or its projection. That’s not for us to decide. It is about the objections listed above in this section. That’s all this is about. This discussion is not progressing; hence I will stand with my arguments as presented unless another party should step in. Strebe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, you seem to be trying to dismiss my use of a Waterman 5 polyhedra to project upon to make a world map. So...are you now going to challenge Waterman polyhedra next at Wiki...( done by Rene K Meuller ) and just put that in Wiki banishment also ? Let me know if you elect to do so, please, by e-mail...so, that I do not have to check every day, at Wiki, to see if you have.

Against Deletion: Response by Gene Keyes to Strebe's latest arguments for deletion Esperanto41 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is unseemly for a Wikipedian to spend so much time and effort to obliterate a piece of cartographic craftsmanship, and resort to ever-changing arguments.

This is about deleting an article from an encyclopedia, not about “obliterating a piece of cartographic craftsmanship”. The arguments listed at the top of this page at the time I proposed deletion are, unaltered, “This article does not describe a notable topic. There is no formal reference for the projection. It is personal research.” Those are the same points noted in “Arguments for deletions”, quite the opposite of “ever-changing”. I am happy to address any questions or concerns other interested parties might raise concerning anything else User:Gene Keyes has written, but, like this example, the remainder of his comments on this page have already been addressed, so I will refrain from any further direct conversation. Strebe (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It was Courcelle who deleted the article citing three grounds, at least two of which were later conceded here by the original complainant Strebe to be without basis: that is was not published, and that it was still in progress.

Thankfully, Courcelle himself restored the article, but the complainant now reaches for ever more excuses to delete. He even tries to equate a map to a book. He also recycles his disproven charge that the map is unpublished. If there are perceived shortcomings in Waterman's mathematical minutiae and documentation, then one might ordinarily insert one of those commonplace notices in Wikipedia that such-and-such a statement requires verification -- not a semi-secret or overzealous use of the total-deletion procedure.

For instance, I for one could add a footnote-reference to an extensive illustrated review and criticism (of the map, not its math) that I wrote on my website.

The pro-deletion argument is almost tantamount to saying that because this map (or its math) does not exist, therefore it does not belong in Wikipedia. Reference was made to "thousands" of unpublished maps and projections; I suspect that is hyperbole. Are any of them on the Web? Meanwhile, Waterman's map is unique, it is real, it is impressive, it has been published.

And my anti-deletion arguments have still not been answered.

Against deletion, some saner arguments

User Strebe seems to be abusing Wikipedia policies to turn this entire deletion discussion into so much insanity that even the arguments against deletion becomes nonsense. So let me try to bring some sanity back to this discussion by making a few points:

• WP:OR is supposed to be a rule against using Wikipedia as the medium for publishing ones own original research. Any research has always been someone's original research, expanding WP:OR into a ban on articles about anything that hasn't been voted into Canon by some officious congregation is nonsense.

Well, that prompted me to read WP:OR again. Your interpretation puzzles me. The text of WP:OR has nothing to do with whether someone is publishing “his” own research; it’s a requirement for the topic to have reliable sources. You cannot write an article on a map projection that I created if my map projection has no reliable sources independent of me or is not notable. It’s hard to call your arguments saner if they don’t even match the rules you quote. Any research has always been someone's original research is a straw man.

My point is that the arguments made in the discussion above was taking the meaning of WP:OR to this extreme of rejecting almost all sources on most subjects. I am trying to create sanity by weeding out bad arguments, even if they are arguments for the right thing.

Stop blathering about sanity. It’s not useful or interesting or relevant. You have no monopoly or insight on sanity. If you want to help the article then go find some references—which, of course, don’t exist. That’s all this talk page is really about. You fabricated a straw man about “highly respected cartographers” being used as a criterion, which never happened, and you appealed to an incorrect definition of WP:OR. Your credibility is dwindling. If you have some honest objection about the arguments that were tendered, then why don’t you start over, give specific examples (using correct Wikipedia definitions), and stop pretending you’re some august, wise, impartial authority who just stops in now and then to grace us with your sanity?

• In the specific scientific area of map projections, publication of the first map in a given projection is generally inseparable from first publishing the projection itself. Because this article is about the projection, the publication of one or more maps in the projection by multiple parties are relevant notability references for the projection itself. (The discussion above explicitly mentions such independent publications, which just lack being added as notability-anti-deletion references in the article itself).

• That the subject of this article (the projection) was first done in the eponymous publications by the eponymous author does not make this an article about that publication and since that is not a notable book according to WP:NB anyway, notability of the subject (the projection) must be determined entirely on some other basis, namely the existence of independent references discussing the projection, e.g. by using it and so saying (Again the above discussion contains multiple such references, they just need to be fleshed out into the form needed as a bureaucratic reference).

You will note that these references only came out as a consequence of the discussions above, so it is disingenuous to fault me. You will also note that the references, once they did come out, turned out to be marginal. You will further note that I have not pressed for deletion since those discussions.

Again, I am trying to bring back sanity by clarifying that in the absence of book notability, book non-notability is not an argument for the non-notability of the subject of that book, nor for the invalidity of said book as a potential reference (that this particular book may be self-published and thus a bad notability reference is a matter for a different WP policy).

Nobody argued that the self-published map made the topic non-notable. That’s a straw man. My argument is that you cannot use the map as a prop for notability. It’s not notable. Go find something else to establish notability. But of course there isn’t anything to find, which is my entire thesis.

• The fame, celebrity or notability of the people who have authored articles that mention the subject are irrelevant so saying those people are "highly respected cartographers" is not an argument for subject notability. Saying they are not working for Mr. Waterman and have published their discussion of Mr. Waterman's projection in a publication independent of Mr. Waterman is all that matters, just provide the link, ISBN+page number or ISSN+page number in a citation.

There is no such independent publication. There is no such published discussion. There are no ISBN numbers to cite. And you appear to have made up “highly respected cartographers”, so that’s another straw man. There is a map published on demand by ODT, as provided by Waterman himself.

There were claims in the discussion above that such work exists, and arguments trying to shoot that down solely with arguments along these lines. I am encouraging those making such claims to flesh them out in the appropriate citation form, if they can.

Nothing has come out since your “encouragement”. There is nothing to come out, as I have ceaselessly pointed out. I’m not sure what claims you refer to. There is some program for producing images of Waterman polyhedra, but that is not the map. This talk page comprises, by far, the bulk of the text in existence concerning this projection.

• An independent reference to a subject, as used for notability, does not need to be the primary subject of the third party publication used as a reference. It is quite sufficient that the third party publication discusses the subject at some length, even if the third party publication has another overall subject matter (or none at all as is the case with the best references). For instance inclusion of the complete Waterman formula in a GIS application as one of several projections available as output would be reference, which may or may not be independent third party.

There is no such publication and there certainly is no GIS application or map projection software available to the public that provides the projection.

The GIS application was a hypothetical example of the kind of reference that the pro-Waterman side should bring forth, if they can.

Well they can’t. That’s what this whole page is about. It was about that before you came along. It wasn’t about arguing over the strictness of “standards”, as you seem to imagine. It was about the fact that there isn’t even enough to argue over.

• This article is part of a large series of articles covering all commonly known Map Projections, with one article each. The notability of that overall article series and the need for completeness of that series should count as a reason to keep individual articles that are not themselves sufficient notable if they were the only article on any map projection in the Wikipedia.

There is no such thing as “completeness” in this field. There are thousands of map projections; no one has ever made an exhaustive list of them. Wikipedia itself lacks mention of, let alone articles on, many dozens of map projections far more notable than Waterman’s. The Waterman is not commonly known. If it were then there would never have been any objection. Courtesy xkcd, Waterman’s projection is known much more widely now than it was at the time of the deletion discussions. It is still not commonly known by any means and no map on it not produced by Waterman himself has ever been made, as far as I can tell. But again, that’s all part of the “as far as I can tell” problem. There is nothing to reference.

There is such "completeness" in any field. It is true that in some fields (such as entomology), completeness would be excessive. I leave arguments of pruning due to space considerations until such time as there are truly too many non-notable articles on map projections, which hasn't happened yet.

No, sorry, Wikipedia’s guidelines do not make allowances of the sort, “Oh, this category of junk articles aren’t a problem yet, so let’s just leave them for now.” Why are you playing favorites?

• An article series on map projections, with the less notable projections getting small stub articles, while the most notable getting large articles is a stock feature in any serious encyclopedia for at least the past century. Deleting an article for a map projection based solely on its own merits is as absurd as deleting the article on the flag, history or economy of a small nation, or an article on a tall mountain.

A tall mountain and the flag, history, and economy of a small country are all things that exist independently, not as a creation of someone’s hobby. It’s dangerous to bandy about words like “absurd” if you intend a meaningful discussion.

Small countries (and big ones too) sometimes do exist as the result of someone's extravagant hobby. Examples include China, Saudi Arabia, Monaco and Brunei.

And you advocate sanity in arguments…?

• The possible lack of sufficiently detailed published information on the inner workings of the subject of this article (the projection), is not a notability or coherency issue with the article. It is simply a lack of available information, as one may find on many other notable subjects, for a variety of reasons. For instance, the detailed inner workings of many notable commercial products is not publicly known, but this does not make them non-notable subjects. As a matter of policy WP:OR prohibits the article from adding any details not published elsewhere, so if the independently published descriptions (i.e. not those by Waterman himself) do not explain something, Wikipedia cannot provide that detail it without technically violating WP:OR.

Waterman’s own descriptions don’t seem to be enough to figure out what he meant; see other discussions on this page. He seems to have worked with Carlos Furutti enough for Furutti to add and describe the projection Mr. Furutti’s site on map projections.

I am saying that is not an argument. The existence of the map proves the existence (but not the notability) of the projection. While a published usable description may encourage adoption and thus future notability, it is not a notability criteria in itself.

Point taken—but I did not imagine it to be a notability argument, which is why we’re talking across each other here. AFTER you get over the lack of notability THEN you’re stuck with confused representations of how it is constructed. The point being, I was willing to drop my notability objections if there were some way to verify what’s going on—but there isn’t. Strebe (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

77.215.46.17 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (Sorry, not logged in today)

Perhaps you are coming at this from a presentist perspective. The request for deletion was made a year and a half ago. Strebe (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to bring sanity to a discussion where both parties have devolved into the use of meaningless arguments. Thus I am commenting on the validity of the arguments brought forth, and suggesting the kind of similar arguments that would be more useful for the parties to use instead.77.215.46.17 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)(Continuing under my IP to avoid confusion)

Still not Notable?

It's unclear to me that the topic of this article is notable. It still has no clearly notable sources ten years after this original deletion proposal. Its inclusion in the list of map projections seems reasonable, but the current article here seems vastly out of proportion to its dubious notability. Tristanjlroberts (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m with you there. Strebe (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't mention XKCD on this article.

I know it's the punchline of a recent XKCD comic about maps but XKCD is not relevant to anybody reading about this projection. (I know that mentioning not doing it is somewhat a violation of WP:BEANS but I feel that in the next few days there will probably be more people visiting this page coming from XKCD than people who have legitimate interest in this subject, so hopefully this helps to deter them.) Thanks. Dataxpress (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The XKCD reference directly impacts the notability of the subject. In fact, amending the article to include some text like "This projection became much more widely known after being referenced in XKCD." MarkAtwood (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to state that "This project became much more widely known..." when the comic that referenced it was published two days ago. The impact of a webcomic takes a little longer to show than other events. Jll294 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Editors keep adding and deleting the xkcd reference. So far no one has quoted any Wikipedia guidelines either way. Edit wars are prohibited. This matter needs to get hashed out here on the talk page according to Wikipedia principles, rather than at individual whim. If the edits continue without consensus, then I will request that the page be locked to new edits. Strebe (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I will note that I had not heard of this projection until reading the XKCD comic and would not have known what I now know about it without this page. In addition, I find that, while the notation at the beginning of the article about it being hard to understand is technically true, the same thing can be said about any description of a project involving complex math. I vote to keep the page and develop it, rather than delete it. Blackfyr (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This section discusses whether to insert the xkcd link into the article, not whether to delete the article. Strebe (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with not mentioning XKCD. We have this problem with almost every single comic of XKCD - no matter what thing or thing gets mentioned in that strip, someone thinks that makes it "notable", and so we end up with thousands of articles littered with XKCD mentions (or we would if they were not almost always reverted, which suggests to me there is consensus against keeping the mentions). Are we going to add it to the Wood article? Also see Wikipedia:xkcd in popular culture - was this topic impacted by the mention in XKCD? No, all I see is a mere mention of it. Mdwh (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:xkcd in popular culture, I agree the xkcd link is insufficiently relevant, and after reading the Wood article I have to guess the xkcd author agrees. Strebe (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Incoherency Tag

After scanning the history of this aticle, I noted that the Incoherency tag was added 05:07, 15 November 2011‎ without discussion here, explanation on the dit OR a signature. The only origin is the IP address of 97.120.160.143. Since this article is in the process of being discussed and developed, this notice should not have been put up without some explanation. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackfyr (talk • contribs)

Honestly, I can’t follow the text, either. The article hasn’t seen much development in a long time. Strebe (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, there have been several edits made to this. Is it clear enough yet to remove the notice that was re-inserted?Blackfyr (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the incoherency tags immediately prior to the incoherent text so as to mark them specifically.

I can’t follow “This involves the interpretation of a spherical extraction from cubic closest-packed spheres into a corresponding convex hull.” It doesn’t mean anything without a lot more context.

Nor can I follow the captions. What has radius sqrt(2*24)? Why is it written sqrt(2*24) instead of sqrt(48)? Or 4 sqrt(3)?

I also don’t know what “the largest line” means in “from fold-line to largest line parallel to equator”. What is a “large line”? Strebe (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The graphics (including the captions which are not explained any more there than they are here) are taken straight from the close-packing of spheres article referenced in the paragraph above them. As I don't follow the math at that level, perhaps you should direct your attention there. However “This involves the interpretation of a spherical extraction from cubic closest-packed spheres into a corresponding convex hull. makes perfect sense when you realize that the "close-packing of spheres" article says, in effect, that this is a form of modeling where you fill up a space with spheres packed into it as closely as you can, then take away all the spheres that aren't completely enclosed by the shape you're modeling (like a globe). Then you figure out where all the straight lines are and use those as the edges of a polyhedron made up of polygons. But, as I said, this is all explained in another article and should not be duplicated here, just referenced.

No, sorry; it’s still incoherent. I can’t tell what’s going on because there aren’t any RELIABLE REFERENCES for this thing. The article shows a W24 polyhedron. Meanwhile Waterman himself goes on about W5 up above in the Deletion debate. Why is that? Why is it that I’m wasting my time on trying to figure this stuff out instead of wasting my time getting this article deleted, like it ought to be?

“This involves the interpretation of a spherical extraction from cubic closest-packed spheres into a corresponding convex hull,” is mumbo-jumbo. “involves the interpretation of” doesn’t mean anything. I infer that “spherical extraction” refers to the bounding solid in the definition of the polyhedron, but that’s just an inference. Just because the hyperlinked articles are also bad and lack references is no excuse for this article to be bad as well. Strebe (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's a description of the process using necessary terms-of-art from the field of mathematics. Yes, I suppose we could find someone to fully expand the terms into 5th-grade English, but I'm not sure it cold be done in a reasonably sized article. As for the hyperlinked articles, I found them to be much clearer than you seem to, despite not having taken a higher-mathematics class in over 20 years. Blackfyr (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"involves the interpretation of a" blah blah blah is not mathematical terminology. What mathematical dictionary are you referring to? They’re just an accretion of vague, flaccid words that contribute nothing to understanding anything. Strebe (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the largest line, that would be the same thing as saying the longest line, since the lines in this (and many polyhedra) are not the same length. Are we clear yet? Blackfyr (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

After writing my last response, I went over to the linked article (specifically to the section titled "Seven origins of cubic close(st) packing (CCP)") and found that there was a list of 7 formula based on the origin of it and one of them(the first one, in fact) took the form of "Origin 1: offset 0,0,0, radius sqrt(2n)". So, to explain the caption you were having a problem with. I was able to discover that the 24 in "2*24" is the value of nin this particular instance.Blackfyr (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why is it “largest line” instead of “longest line”? And if it is the “longest” line then how is the “longest line” not an edge of the polygon? And WHY CAN’T I FIND SOME COHERENT DESCRIPTION for any of this? Strebe (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why the writer chose 'largest' instead of 'longest'. If it offends you, change it.And it doesn't say it's not an edge of a polygon. As for being coherent, the more I read the articles linked to this, the more coherent it all becomes. I'm sorry you are not finding it to be so. And I'm sorry you seem to be having problems remaining calm about this. If you feel it necessary to try again to delete the article, you are free to do so. Blackfyr (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

“And it doesn't say it's not an edge of a polygon”. Well is it, or is it not? Isn’t that important? Why is it neither of us can tell? Or when Waterman himself says W5 but the so-called sources show W24? How can you claim the sources are coherent when things so fundamental are not clear? Strebe (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I give up trying to make it clear enough for you. I don't think it's possible to make it clear enough for you without condensing a course in advanced math down to 3 paragraphs. Why don't you put this up for deletion again and we'll all abide by the results? Blackfyr (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about “advanced math” knows this is simple math. Don’t pretend the problem is my understanding of the math. The problem is that nothing is explained coherently, whether by you or by the alleged sources—which gets back to the basic problem. The article is unsourced, is a personal research project, is not verifiable. Strebe (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)