From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply