Talk:Doo–Sabin subdivision surface

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Why moved?

I don't understand the excitement over nonascii characters. How does this help the article? All it seems to do is make the "search" process harder to find with funny URLs! Tom Ruen (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Doo%E2%80%93Sabin_subdivision_surface

Agree, then new "-" in the article title really does mess up the URL. Maybe we should consider reverting the change? --Fredrik Orderud (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully User:Berland will agree (and not do any more!) Same ugly change at Catmull–Clark_subdivision_surface and Nevanlinna–Pick_interpolation. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MOSDASH and to common practice, compound names consisting of two surnames should have an en dash, not a hyphen. So unless one changes the manual of style, I would like to continue correcting article names with this minor typo. The fact that it messes up the URL is the sort of thing we really should not care about. It might look better in browsers in the future. --Berland (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck. The English majors have moved in to destroy the world. The ugly URL certainly has nothing to do with browsers. URLS are visible-ASCII and will always be! Tom Ruen (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate figure

The file Subdivision surface of quadrilateral mesh level 3.png in this article is inaccurate, in that it should a quadrilateral mesh as output of a Doo-Sabin subdivision. Doo-Sabin subdivision, unlike Catmull-Clark subdivision, does not result in a quad mesh unless there are no extraordinary points. The file DooSabin subdivision.png is correct.

What is the correct thing to do? Should the figure be removed, as it's kind of redundant, or replaced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfinniga (talk • contribs) 20:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this image as wrong:

I colored the example to show the process.

It's not clear to me what the process means if you start with triangle faces. We need another example for that. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there is nothing wrong with Image:Subdivision surface of quadrilateral mesh level 3.png. If you read the figure text, then you'll notice that the figure is not evaluated based on iterative subdivision refinement, but rather based on exact surface evaluation with Stam's method. By mapping each surface patch to a

u,v\in [0,1]

parameter space it is possible to tessilate patches using solely quadrilaterals, regardless of topology. I will therefore revert your changes, so that the article shows examples of both iterative and exact evaluation. --Fredrik Orderud (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Subdivision surface of quadrilateral mesh level 3.png is in obvious contradiction to the text of the article that says "A primary characteristic of the Doo–Sabin subdivision method is the creation of four faces around every vertex." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.69.213 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]