Template talk:General geometry

should we mention other geometries?
Under branches should we also mention neutral geometry, affine geometry Finite geometry , Synthetic geometry and maybe other geometries, or in some other way to link to them in this template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.230.37 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed main illustration
I replaced :


 * image = Oxyrhynchus papyrus with Euclid's Elements.jpg
 * captionstyle = font-size:90%; display:block;margin-bottom:0.5em;
 * caption = P. Oxy. I 29, one of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, includes a fragment of Euclid's Elements.

With:


 * image = Stereographic projection in 3D.png
 * caption = Projecting a sphere to a plane.

I just think it is better to show some geometry than greek text (however importand the text may be

Also added links to elliptic and Hyperbolic geometry.WillemienH (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

 * I think the image should be removed because it doesn't add any comprehensible information to the template. Brian Everlasting (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all images need to convey information and they prevent our articles from being solid blocks of text. I am not a fan of these navigation infoboxes and especially if they are visually unappealing. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for a change to [the display -- (under "Branches") -- of] the "sub-" fields of Non-Euclidean geometry
I would like to suggest a change. Rather than just be bold and revert (before starting to discuss it on this "Talk:" page) ... I would like to see whether anyone has any comments first. (I am not very experienced with editing templates like this ... and there might be others out there who could provide some "advice" or other comments. That might include some other editors, or maybe just some "critics" who know a [good or] 'bad' edit when they see one ... whether it has already been "done", or whether it has just been discussed on a "Talk:" page.)

The version I looked at ... and I am considering changing
This template might change, [it might get edited] at some time after this paragraph was written, but before you read this paragraph. In case that happens, you might want to know that the version that was current (the "latest" version) at the time when this paragraph was written, was the "11:58, 13 February 2019" version of this template -- also known as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:General_geometry&oldid=883173796 (i.e., its URL).

The change I am considering making
Where it says (currently, in the wikitext)

I suggest to change it to

instead ...the only change being: a double (instead of triple) asterisk to the left of

PROs and CONs
First, one "CON", which might be a reason "not" to make the change that I suggest:


 * Apparently, someone in the past thought that the current arrangement -- (with a triple asterisk to the left of " ", there) -- was appropriate. Maybe they thought that because of the fact (wait ... is it a fact? I think it is ...) that Spherical geometry is a special case of (and hence can be regarded as being, in some sense, a "sub-" sub-field of) Elliptic geometry. (right?)

Next some reasons ("PROs") in favor of making the change that I would like to (and that I hereby do) suggest:


 * less "nested" parentheses in the part of the template that is for "Non-Euclidean geometry"
 * the reader still retains the option, at any time, to simply click on one or more of the hyperlinks there, (e.g., the links to "Spherical geometry" and "Elliptic geometry") in order to learn more ... including, in order to "learn more" about whether or not Spherical geometry is a special case of (and 'hence', is a sub-field of) Elliptic geometry
 * the reader, who might well be trying to decide whether or not to click on one of the hyperlinks there -- and if so, which one to click on "first" -- might actually prefer (is there "no accounting for taste"?) to not be bothered (during that decision-making process) with having [the obligation] to think about whether or not Spherical geometry is a special case of (and is maybe even a sub-field of) Elliptic geometry. Some might prefer to (retain the option to) think about that ... at some other time (or never).

Not a big deal
I realize that there might be some customs or other 'rules' or "guidelines" for how to arrange stuff within a template like this... that I might not be familiar with. This template seems (to me) to be somewhat "navigation" oriented ... (and/or perhaps "overview" oriented).

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Elevating the status of spherical geometry in this listing would go against the historical meaning of non-euclidean geometry that includes only hyperbolic and elliptic geometries. This is not a list of all geometries that are not Euclidean. Its inclusion in the list is only due to its close relationship with elliptic geometry. I do not find your "Pro" argument above to be very convincing. I think this should be left as is. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)