Talk:Crater illusion
 | Crater illusion received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crater illusion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
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
In September 2015, NASA released an image from the space probe Dawn of the crater Occator on dwarf planet Ceres. Because of the position of the Sun at the time the image was taken, the walls of the crater may appear to be convex instead of concave. On the right is the same image rotated 180 degrees to change the position of the shadows and eliminate the illusion.
- 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)
