Template talk:Views

Construction

I built this template to replace template:Graphical projection because the old template didn't adequately show how each projection was related. The hierarchy in this new template does a better job of this. Also, other non-graphical views can be accommodated in this template allowing further exploration by the reader.--Jrsnbarn 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it had become so long, the formatting (especially placement of pictures) was compromised on some of the pages with the template, so I converted it to be one of those navigational boxes as used in other areas of Wikipedia. I also removed the icons, but maybe we should put them back - space should now be almost unlimited :) --Allefant 11:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the revisions you have made are helpful. The intent of moving this from a bottom-of-article navigational box into a sidebar hierarchical list was to better show how each projection was related. Your 'flatter' version muddies the relationships, and intermixes mathematical and geometrical projections. Please restore this to a sidebar, and remove the thumbnails if you feel they take up too much space.--Jrsnbarn 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about the "intermixes mathematical and geometrical projections"? I made several changes - the one change requiring edits in all articles using the template merely was a reformatting from using an infobox to using a navbar, so I hope you don't want me to undo that one :) --Allefant 14:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can be more specific: while Projection (linear algebra) may describe the mathematical basis for graphical projections, it is not a view. The Views template is a hierarchical list of views that helps the reader to quickly understand the relationship between them. Perhaps if there was an article about Parallel projection, rather than just a redirect, it could be included in this list.

I see. The problem is, oblique projection is not an orthographic projection, so the hierarchy as I had it showed the relationships better. See for example here [1]. The two books (added them to Graphical_projection as references) and the paper from 1978 (added it as reference to Cavalier_perspective) I have about this subject also use the same hierarchy, so I'm fairly certain this is the correct one. Unless there are references which say otherwise - then we could mention that the scientific terms are somewhat muddled, as is e.g. stated for "isometric projection" in its article. But in any case, I don't think we can put "oblique" under "orthographic". --Allefant 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it now. Maybe there indeed should be an extra article about "parallel projection" separate from the one it currently redirects to - but then best to modify that redirect and create the article. But to me it seems, the current one makes sense, just most of the articles could need some more info and better references (and you never will be able to completely separate math and projections, as their difference always is defined by math in the end, whether algorithmical or algebraic). --Allefant 11:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, sensing your reluctance to restore this template to the hierarchical list as per the original intention (see first entry in this discussion), I have taken care of this for you. To address your concerns around the length of the template, I have left the images out, removed links to sections within articles, and combined Aerial view with Bird's-eye view (both terms are helpful in this list). I have kept Top-down perspective in Other Views as per your edit. Indeed, there are some formatting problems in a few of the articles, so if you like you can redirect your efforts to resolving these instances.

Ok, thanks for doing this, but maybe we should have tried to get the opinion of other editors first. I'm concerned how e.g. in Isometric projection and Perspective (graphical) the formatting gets messed up, with little benefit of having the template on top instead at the bottom. (Well, I should have tried to contact editors in the first place as well I guess, but seeing how the made up "axiometric projection" was listed there and there was confusion about oblique/cavalier projection, I had the impression this was rather abandoned - so I'm glad you showed up now). I'm fine with it being an infobox, but personally I prefer the navbar, it's simply less obtrusive (and has the exact same information). Also, I think either way it makes a re-listing of the views tree under "See Also" redundant, e.g. the one you re-added here. --Allefant 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there may be some benefit in having a separate Projections navbar at the bottom of the article which could include the anchored links to each type of perspective projection, and perhaps could include all those map projections. However, I think such a navbar should be supplemental to this hierarchical Views list. As you continue to edit, keep in mind the intention for this template as described in my first entry above on 22 March 2007. Also, please refer to the history of Template:Graphical projection to see where this work started. Thanks.--Jrsnbarn 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the intention is just the same for me, I was just concerned about the formatting. As I said elsewhere, for map projections, there likely could be a separate template, as there's more map projections than we have graphical projections listed currently :) --Allefant 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planform

I clicked on the planform link...but it says a planform has to do with the wings of an airplane. What's up with that? It has nothing to do with the other links.

The link has been removed since it seems. --Allefant 10:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much space between list items

I think there's too much space between the list items. The spacing and bullets can be changed to match the size of the font if we use HTML elements instead of wiki markup. SharkD (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we should use a standard navigation box like one of the three at the bottom here. Such boxes seems to be much less obtrusive to me, you can hide them if you want, there can be more than one and space can be handled much better. And it should be fairly easy to make the change. --Allefant (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image

Since it was just removed then re-added, what is the purpose of this image? (Image:Axonometric projection.svg) --Allefant (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is clearly to illustrate the template. I think the real question here should be: Does the template needs to be illustrated?

I personally don't think so, because the term graphical projection is clear enough.

It think it should be removed because it is only a decoration, and is mainly consuming space in article. I don't see the added value. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the WP:ICONDECORATION someone linked applies, then it should be removed. Of course, as can be seen further up on this discussion page, my personal preference has long been to move the whole box down to the bottom of the article to be an unobtrusive navigation bar as in all other scientific articles, and not on the top as is done with computer game and movie articles and so on. Removing the image would probably create a middle-thing between those two... --Allefant (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template looks really fucking stupid

For example, on Fisheye lens the template is larger than the lead image. Make the template like {{Commons category|Fisheye lenses}} and locate it down there too. --టంగ్స్టన్ కార్బైడ్ (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]