This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article does not distinguish between an arrangement and a projection. That ambiguity is unfortunate. You can construct, for example, an octahedral map but use any number of different projections in order to transform from sphere to polyhedral face. For example, Cahill described his Butterfly map with three different projection methods. In polyhedral projections, the usual methods, due to edge-matching needs, would be conformal and gnomonic. There are others as well, though, and yet this article ignores the situation. Strebe (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a common point of confusion in the literature which this article inherits. The paragraph beginning "To a degree" touches on it a little. There's also the question of aspect (are Pierce, Guyou, and Adams actually different projections, or just different aspects of the same projection?) and the arrangement of the target shapes in the plane (the worm-shaped arrangement in the Cahill-Keyes image vs the Waterman butterfly).
The Pędzich article that I relied on for much of this article doesn't really make the distinction either, although it's more of a historical look than a taxonomy. I do plan to keep digging through the literature as time allows. If you know of articles that would be helpful, I'd appreciate it. -Apocheir (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
