Talk:Crater illusion

Image layout
Rather than splitting the images as left- and right-aligned. I think it would be better to combine the pairs of rotated images into a single box. Template:Multiple image or an image manipulation program could be used to accomplish this. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, the images would be better off side-by-side rather than separated by the text. Statalyzer (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis
Should only images that sources have cited as examples of this illusion, be used in the article per WP:SYN? Or am I being too cautious? VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

illusion?
There is nothing inherently wrong with any orientation in images like these, and there is no "correct" one. The illusion is in the mind of the beholder, and when the perception flips from hole to mountain or vice versa, it is called gestalt. Personally, for all the examples on this page, I see the craters as craters, but as an editor of lunar articles I'm used to this phenomenon. To minimize the occurrence of the illusion in oblique images, the image can be rotated around so that the foreground is at the bottom, or equivalently so that the horizon is at the top. Jstuby (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This article acting like one was wrong and one was right was making me wonder if something was wrong with my eyes or brain. For Occator, I see the left one as a crater, and the right one as a mountain, but the article says it's the other way around.  For Goclenius, I see both as craters. Statalyzer (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep the examples
Why would you WILLINGLY turn an article like this into a stub??? It's not like the examples are clogging up the place, they're the only damn information here. And they're VERY helpful. So yeah IAPETUSOUTSOLD (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I very much saw them as clogging the place up, to be honest, but it'd be good to hear other views on it. What help do you see it giving the reader to have a paragraph like
 * naming the craters and the date of the photo, for every pair of images? To me that makes this sound like a rare illusion that NASA only encounters occasionally, but obviously it happens all the time. Is it correct that these are just four examples chosen by a Wikipedia editor, rather than significant historical ones? If they're intended to illustrate different aspects of the illusion, only the Tin Bider example is saying that.
 * If there are cases where NASA misinterpreted an image and later corrected themselves, that would be worth writing about here, but it doesn't seem to be what's being described at the moment.
 * I think a single strong example like File:Crater illusion.jpg is enough to get the idea across. Belbury (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is a stub; removing the images just makes that fact more apparent. Each example has less marginal utility than the one before it. I suggest a single example in the lead, with a limited set of other examples in a WP:GALLERY. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is a stub; removing the images just makes that fact more apparent. Each example has less marginal utility than the one before it. I suggest a single example in the lead, with a limited set of other examples in a WP:GALLERY. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)