Talk:Angular eccentricity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tone

The tone of the article, especially in the introduction, is problematic.

The phrase rarely acknowledged and underutilized, but quite practical is not in an appropriate formal tone and gives the impression that the concept which is the subject of this article is the fruit of original research, whose non-recognition the author laments. Of course, this is an established concept but that is the impression given.

Likewise the phrases eccentricity pressing into the circle and squashing it, or have fallen into general obscurity, have no place in an encyclopedia. Ceroklis 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trigonometric functions

A description of the versine, vercosine, coversine and coversine has no place in this article, since these functions are not exclusively used in this context. This description should be integrated into the article on trigonometric functions, or maybe a page describing those should be created and linked from there. Ceroklis 18:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of the article

There is some redundancy between different articles on ellipses. Why should this article repeat the definition of linear eccentricity or Flattening ? There is also quite a bit that is already in the ellipse article. Maybe it would be best to keep this article a short definition of angular eccentricity (a bit like the article on Flattening) and to move the discussion on the different ways to represent the shape of an ellipse to the ellipse article, where it truly belongs. However the ellipse article is already long and these concepts also apply to ellipsoids, not just ellipses. So perhaps a separate article on "concepts of shape for ellipses and ellipsoids" should host this discussion. In fact I am basically advocating a split of the definition of angular eccentricity and the section on "elliptic parameters". Ceroklis 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)