curprev15:0715:07, 10 June 2024 Chong Yi Lamtalkcontribs 49,682 bytes−132 Undid revision 1228310341byStrebe (talk): My apologies, should have explained it better. The line I deleted was apparently a image file name without any image box in the middle of some text, presumably an attempt to add an image but forgetting to type out the necessary parts that display it as an image rather than the file name itself.undoTag: Undo
curprev15:5215:52, 27 May 2024 AndyAndersontalkcontribs 47,088 bytes+7 Undid revision 1225864821byJacobolus (talk) re “common terminology supportable by sources rather than made up alternatives” — “standard” is standard and I provided a [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-79824-5_15 | source]. When statements only apply to that variant the adjective is appropriate.undoTag: Undo
curprev21:2921:29, 26 May 2024 AndyAndersontalkcontribs 47,088 bytes+44 Undid revision 1225793784byStrebe (talk) The entire point of using TM is to map north-south regions, so that phrase must remain to explain its use in general. “national grid system” doesn’t link to anything to explain what that means, whereas the US state plane system is a good example of such. “UTM” may be familiar to some but is not descriptive. Complications can be left to the linked article.undoTag: Undo
curprev19:2519:25, 26 May 2024 Strebetalkcontribs 47,044 bytes−740 Eliminate overlinking and blog-like sources. Defer to article about oblique projection, where real world uses on the ellipsoid are discussed.undo
curprev16:2716:27, 26 May 2024 AndyAndersontalkcontribs 47,828 bytes+7 Undid revision 1225767681byJacobolus (talk) Understanding of readers is *paramount* in Wikipedia articles. The accompanying image uses the term "Standard", not "normal", so using the latter term is *confusing* and must be avoided except in brief reference. Jacobus asserts the latter is proper technical term, but there is no consistency, see e.g. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-79824-5_15undoTags: UndoReverted
curprev15:4915:49, 26 May 2024 Jacobolustalkcontribs 47,821 bytes−7 revert 3 changes. this "standard mercator projection" terminology is nonstandard and ambiguous. the correct cartography jargon phrase is "Mercator projection in normal aspect". If you like feel free to fix the imageundoTags: UndoReverted
curprev15:2515:25, 26 May 2024 AndyAndersontalkcontribs 47,828 bytes+21 →Properties: Update paragraph describing issues at the poles to specifically refer to standard Mercator, and point “other applications” reference to the Uses section that describes oblique and transverse Mercator.undoTag: Reverted
curprev15:0015:00, 26 May 2024 AndyAndersontalkcontribs 47,807 bytes−14 →Properties: “Standard” is used as an adjective in the adjacent image and therefore must also be referred to in the accompanying text. Drop reference to Mercator in a sentence that refers more generally to normal cylindrical projections (resulting from combining paragraphs).undoTag: Reverted
curprev18:5018:50, 25 May 2024 AndyAndersontalkcontribs 47,974 bytes−3 →Properties: A term *must* be used to distinguish the different types of cylindrical orientations from each other, as they are all introduced in this section. “Standard” is used in the accompanying graphic, but I see in the linked page on cylindrical projections that they are called “normal”, so there is a conflict in terminology here (especially since “normal” can also mean “perpendicular”). I’ll use “standard” here for consistency, although that can also be confused with “standard lines”.undo
curprev15:3115:31, 25 May 2024 AndyAndersontalkcontribs 46,754 bytes+174 →Oblique Mercator: Corrected description of image: the axis is clearly *south* of the Arc, or its top would not appear in the end of the projection to the north of Paris; the distortion is not exponential, it is *logarithmic* ~ –Log[φ + π/2]; no need to say “axis of projection” because the axis is in reference to "oblique Mercator projection" several words before. It is important to describe the distortion to help interpret the image.undo