Content deleted Content added
Chaosdruid (talk | contribs) m roboassess |
question on anisotropy |
||
Line 45:
When referencing material from a rather extensive book, I included specific page number to make it possible for others to find the specific statements that are relevant for this article. This explanatory text was, however, removed by a previous editor. Does anyone know about a better way of inserting explicit page and section references, e.g. on the form (Author 2010; section 9.5), when referencing a particular section or page in a book? [[User:Tpl|Tpl]] ([[User talk:Tpl|talk]]) 08:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
* Sorry about that,too. Page and section references can often be better obtained from the book index and table-of-contents, or (for online reading) with search tools; so the value for readers who may want to check them should be weighted against the cost of cluttering the reference list with extra entries.<br/> An alternative to creating a separate <nowiki><ref>...</ref></nowiki> is the [[:Template:rp|"rp" template]]: the call <nowiki>{{rp|ch.23}}</nowiki> after the <nowiki></ref></nowiki> generates a superscript annotation, as in <sup>[1]</sup>{{rp|ch.23}}. Hope it helps, --[[User:Jorge Stolfi|Jorge Stolfi]] ([[User talk:Jorge Stolfi|talk]]) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
==Anisotropy is too abstract==
The direction of gradient varies in the neighborhood of the pixel at the curved edge. Is it better to talk about curvature instead of anisotropy? The formula for curvature can be easily found from the distribution of gradient. See for example Documentation tab at [http://outliner.codeplex.com/documentation Outliner project] --[[User:Wladik Derevianko|Wladik Derevianko]] ([[User talk:Wladik Derevianko|talk]]) 21:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
| |||