Talk:Antipodes

message: Not even near missess? I bet I calculated they were... And even saw them as such in these maps...
B.Why only cities are named? Wouldn't it be valid for land antipodes with a clearly distinctive name to apply too? Ok, that means listing too many land antipodes... Lets stay with those given and use parenthesis to point these non-megapolitic but more exact antipodes... It could, for example, be said that Madrid's true antipode lies 'bout 160 km n/s.w/e from Wellington (New Zealand) in an area called (and here the name of that smaller city, outer suburb or wild zone would be named) and, conversely that Wellington's true antipode lies 'bout 160 km s/n.e/w from Madrid (New Zealand) in an area called (and here, ya see how this would work) and so on...
C.It would be optimal if the list extended to every country that had at least one land antipode, to every country's geopolitical subdivisions if possible when more than one apply.Undead Herle King 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A.Shangai and Buenos Aires are not antipodes?

message: I'm pretty sure the external website being linked to doesn't work correctly. I started in Missouri and ended up in Antarctica, when I should have ended up somewhere in the Indian Ocean according to this website  (linked to from Antipodal point. When I tried to revert my action to get back, I ended up in the Arctic (I think). Anyone else confirm or deny this problem? If I zoom out before clicking "Dig it" (since Google Earth understandably doesn't have street-level topo maps of either the Indian Ocean or Antarctica), it appears to briefly flash to an Ocean, then dumps me into the tundra. Even weirder, if I try to reverse my hole, I end up somewhere north of Siberia. Maybe it's a Firefox quirk...?? For right now, I'm linking it to the static map in the other article instead.  -- nae'blis (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External site 

message: I removed this from the article, where it was stuck in as a comment:
:Coelius Secundus Curio  'De Amplitudine Regni Coelestis'
Should this be a reference? — Johan the Ghost seance 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: My rationale for merging is that the two articles seem to be about the same subject (the "Antipodes" of London is the same thing as the "Antipodal point" of London), and entirely complementary.  Antipodes contains etymology and historical significance; Antipodal point contains (apart from some duplicated stuff) the technical side.  What do folks think?  I'd be happy to do the work, and a little cleanup at the same time.  — Johan the Ghost seance 23:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that one article is mainly about geography and the other mainly about mathematics.  Possibly some information should be moved from this article to the other, but I think it's important to have a separate article on mathematics.  Something like the Borsuk-Ulam theorem would be out of place in an article on geography. Michael Hardy 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  The way I see it, Antipodal point contains the "geographical" info. about "antipodes" (ie. that you add 180 deg and flip N/S), plus the more abstract maths stuff.  The main Antipodes article definitely (in my view) needs the geographical stuff — an article about a geographic subject that just explains its etymology is a bit naff — but the "pure maths" stuff (basically the Generalization to more dimensions section) could go to, say, "Antipodes (mathematics)".  Antipodal point would then be a redirect to Antipodes, which would refer people to "Antipodes (mathematics)" for the more abstract version.   (Or maybe it should be "Antipodal point (mathematics)".)  The maths article would then be tagged with the appropriate maths categories.  What do you think of that? — Johan the Ghost seance 11:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Antipodes (mathematics)" is a terrible name for an article.  I've never heard a mathematician use the word "antipodes" as a mathematical term except as a plural of the (back-formed) word "antipode".  Wikipedia article titles should not be plural without an identifiable reason to avoid the singular in a particular case. Michael Hardy 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info.  I guess we need "For the sculpture, see..." at the top of the page.  An alternative would be to make "Antipodes" into a disambig. page, but since I think the geographical meaning is the "main" one, I think it makes sense to do it the other way.  — Johan the Ghost seance 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think keeping the primary meaning (geographic) at Antipodes and making Antipodes (disambiguation) for linking to the others is the usual style when one use is overwhelming more common. How soon do you expect to be making your other article, Elonka? -- nae'blis (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion — yes, Antipodes (disambiguation) seems like a smart move.  As for your question, you should probably use her talk page, as she may not be watching here.  Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Making the article has been on my list for awhile, but I keep getting sidetracked with other articles or disputes (right now I'm gearing up for an RfC about a user who keeps making personal attacks).  My best guess though is "some time within the next week".  If you want me to hold off though, I can.  Just let me know whatever is least confusing.  :)   Elonka 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made antipode into a disambiguation page; formerly it redirect to antipodal point.  Then I changed antipodal so that it redirects to antipode (the disambiguation page) instead of redirecting to antipodal point.  Next I'll see what I can do with the links to antipode. Michael Hardy 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I replaced this translation of Plato by W.R.M. Lamb (according to the article, but there was no cited reference) with a translation which actually uses the word antipodes.
:[62d] For suppose there were a solid body evenly-balanced at the center of the universe, [63a] it would never be carried away to the extremities because of their uniformity in all respects; nay, even were a man to travel round it in a circle he would often call the same part of it both "above" and "below", according as he stood now at one pole, now at the opposite. (πολλάκις ἂν στὰς ἀντίπους) For seeing that the Whole is, as we said just now, spherical, the assertion that it has one region "above" and one "below" does not become a man of sense.
— Johan the Ghost seance 22:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced text 

message: The previous version of this article contained the following text in the lead:
:In the United Kingdom, "the Antipodes" and "Antipodeans" are often used to refer to Australia and New Zealand, and their inhabitants.
This information is expanded on in the Regional usage section.
I think that this text (or something like it) should be allowed to stand because:
# (important) The purpose of the lead section is to quickly satisfy the needs of someone who comes to an article wanting to know what it is about.  The "Australia/NZ" usage is not information about antipodes.  It is a meaning of antipodes.  As a meaning of the term, it should be mentioned in the lead.
# (less important) The lead section should be a summary of the whole article, so it's perfectly legitimate to have repetition, as long as the lead is a summary of information which is filled out in the body of the article.
Comments?
And yes, I think the lead could mention something about the origin/etymology of the term. — Johan the Ghost seance 14:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections raised, so I restored it. — Johan the Ghost seance 14:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Tomertalk 03:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info in lead 

message: I also noted that the article says "For example, the antipodes of New Zealand's north island lie in Spain." which does not match what I see in the map. Could this be a problem of the Mercator projection used by the map? or is it a mistake in the article ? If it is a problem of the map, it should be at least mentioned in its caption.
Sergio Ballestrero 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the North Island is antipodal to points in Spain, so this was only slightly misleading. I fixed this a while ago by making the text more precise. -- Avenue (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture/text conflict 

message: It bugs me that the "List of antipodes" doesn't say they are in fact near misses. --Jidanni 10:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of antipodes: mention not exact 

message: the article states "Most of the earth's land surfaces have ocean at its antipodes, this being a consequence of most land being in the northern hemisphere." isn't this in fact a consequence of most of the earth's surface being covered in water? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ybbor (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. All of Australia and New Zealand's antipodes are in the North Atlantic and Africa's are in the Pacific. Grant | Talk 08:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgive me for being patronising, but let's do a bit of logic. If most land is the northern hemisphere, then most sea is in the southern hemisphere. Not only that, but most land BY FAR is in the northern hemisphere - an additional contingently (or "just-so-happens-to-be") true premise. So most sea BY FAR is in the southern hemisphere. Despite most land being in the northern hemisphere, a lot of the northern hemisphere is still sea (not sure how much, but I'd guess ≥40%) - another contingently true premise. The antipodes of any point in the northern hemisphere is in the southern hemisphere - an analytically/mathematically true premise. So things are already looking bad for land with land antipodes, because northern land is thwarted by all that southern sea. (So, yes it is partly because there is so much sea overall, but a predominance of land on one side of the earth doesn't help either.) What's worse, though, is that most (by far) of what land there IS in the southern hemisphere just happens to be opposite the comparatively small amount of sea in the northern hemisphere. So I make that three (contingent) reasons all up. No single one of the three clearly predominates. Simplifier 07:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Oceans forming most antipodes 

message: Marco Polo is the first European to visit the Southern Hemisphere?  I find that hard to believe on it's face - and it's not even mentioned in his biography article.   If it's unsourced, should it be removed? 71.183.12.121 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not true. The ancient romans are known to have circumnavigated Africa. At the height of their power they also ran yearly shuttles between the Red Sea ports and India for exotic trade. That's how Jesus' faith got to Malabar very soon (see the "Thomas-Christians" article for more info). 91.83.15.197 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marco Polo?

message: I heard Hungary has the "remotest" antipode, a perfectly blank spot in the souther pacific, with even the tiniest bit of land more then 2000 kilometers away and the nearest major land spot is almost 2500 kilometers away. 91.83.15.197 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the antipode of the oceanic pole of inaccessibility lies in western Kazakhstan. -- Avenue (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most desolate antipode? 

message: We have this statement in the text "Around 71% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans; thus the majority of locations on land do not have land-based antipodes." This implies that the second fact is a direct consequence of the first. Is this actually the case, or is it just by chance? Granted, the statement is likely to be correct, but it would be possible to have a situation whereby a planet had 99% ocean with just two land masses of 0.5% each and which just happened to be antipodal. 82.26.76.131 (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the second fact is not a direct consequence of the first. Adding the fact that the northern hemisphere contains most of the land, or even better that the land hemisphere contains seven eighths of the land, will take care of the problem. -- Avenue (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land vs. Water Antipodes 

message: It would be better if the lower map were not so feint and difficult to see, but more like the upper map. 78.151.110.54 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower map too pale 

message: IP editor 18.202... added the following comment to the caption for the lead image:
:Note: This projection may be inaccurate. Please compare with the following tool which uses Google Maps: http://www.antipodemap.com/
I've moved it here for discussion. From a few spot checks (Falkland Islands, Banks Peninsula, Kerguelen Islands), the maps seem to agree well. Am I missing something?
--Avenue (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead map inaccurate? 

message: Which %age of the Earth's land mass is antipodal to other land? It's obviously low, but it would be nice to have the figure. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fraction is one twenty-seventh, according to this book. --Avenue (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This map with antipodes of the lands overlapping each other can give you an idea, visually, how much land overlaps antipodal-wise. I find this map very helpful. It's actually better than the 2 maps currently provided. In fact I suggested that this map be included under the section under "Mathematical description". Showmebeef (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  %age? 

message: This may be silly, but I think it might be nice to add an antipod parameter to the geo/city info box template. Although it has no practical value, it's the kind of trivia that can get kids excited thinking about the world. (Unfortunately, the most geographically illiterate major country has almost no antipodal land mass, but oh well.) Any support for this? — kwami (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  add to geo info box? 

message: What are the most "antipodean" airports?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.92.245 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer the original question: Tanger International Airport, Morocco (TNG) to Whangarei, New Zealand (WRE). According to the great circle distance 10799 nm, only one nm short of the theoretical maximum of 10800 nm. But now comes the icing on the cake: Since this is the distance between the so-called designated locators, the actual runways cross in projection! I guess this is a bullseye. Regards, 89.15.236.198 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  airports 

message: Tematangi is apparently the point of land most nearly antipodal to Mecca... AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-trivia

message: Are the Cocos Islands (Australia) and Cocos Island (Costa Rica) really near-antipodes, as claimed at the end of the section Cocos (Keeling) Islands#Geography? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Use one of the maps links, like http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/tool.html. I get their antipodes separated by 860km, which wouldn't be notable except for their names: it's 2% of the Earth's circumference. The actual antipode of Cocos/Keeling is Corn Is. off the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cocos Islands 

message: As a tradition, the Olympic flame travels from Mount Olympus to the site of the quadriennial games. It took an extremely circuitous path, and when in Buenos Aires, Argentina, it couldn't have been farther from China -- literally -- as Buenos Aires is antipodal to a site in China. I have few details on where it went within Buenos Aires, and maybe someone could fill us in on whether it traveled through Buenos Aires' Chinatown.  Pbrower2a (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 path of the Olympic Torch 

message: Is it just me or do the two maps only show the american continent. I tried to find Australia, but could only do so with the blue color.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.135.59 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  map shows only america 

message: The map is hard to read, as shows the question that "unsigned" asked on 21 April 2015 23:27: places are relatively easy to find or recognize on the direct map (here in blue), much harder on the flipped one (here in yellow); hence an efficient use is IMO to find a given place (that you already know) on the flipped map, and then to see its antipode on the direct one (that you will more easily read).
So I suggest to lessen the number and visibility of places and countries on the direct map (here in blue) and to increase the number and visibility of places and countries on the flipped map (here in yellow).
For instance, the names on the direct (blue) map could be grayed, and the flipped (yellow) map could be completed with many cities, chosen as most helpful to help localizing everything else around, each one localized with a dot and its written name: London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Hamburg, St-Petersburg, Moscow, Istanbul, Tehran, Muscat, Colombo, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Anchorage, Seattle, New York, Panama, Lima, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Ushuaia, Dakar, Suez, Kinshasa, Cape Town, Sydney, Perth, Auckland, Noumea, Mauritius, Seychelles, Maldives, Jakarta, Darwin, Hobart, Papeete, Kiribati, Honolulu, Midway Michel Merlin (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving readability of the flipped map 

message: One other is close enough that it needs detailed investigation. Iceland and Antarctica's Balleny Islands at least seem to come very close, whether they actually overlap would depend on how accurate the mapping of the latter actually is. The island of Flatey, Skjálfandi with the northern part of Young Island in particular; the Balleny Islands article mentions sea stacks off the northern coast of Young Island for which I can find no co-ordinates. Additionally as both are active volcanic zones, there is always the distinct possibility of a new land antipode being created here. Walshie79 (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: List of countries with land antipodes

message: Is this section notable or useful? As it seems to me, the whole concept of antipodes is Earth-centric, and is linked with the scarcity of land antipodes (and the historical difficulty of getting to them) on a mainly water planet. By contrast, we could list out the entire map of Mars (for example) as pairs of antipodes, but none of them would be notable.80.6.141.218 (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't Earth-centric, the geometrical concept is universal. On bodies such as Mercury, the Moon and Mars, there are interesting geologic features antipodal to large impact basins (a result of focusing of the seismic energy released), something not apparent on Earth. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other bodies 

message: "Pomponius Mela, the first Roman geographer, asserted that the earth had two habitable zones, a North and South one, but that it would be impossible to get into contact with each other because of the unbearable heat at the Equator." This maybe true, but it suggests to the reader that Pomponius was the first Roman author to make such an assertion. Almost the same assertion, however, is already found in Ovidius' Metamorphoses, Book 1, lines 45-51.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:2EA0:A900:8A1:467A:AC90:A800 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So noted. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pomponius Mela

message: Norway is recorded as having two land antipodes; Antarctica and Peter 1 island.  Peter 1 island is at 90 degrees west longitude and Norway is at 8-9 degrees east longitude so they cannot be antipodal; furthermore Peter 1 Island is claimed not by Russia but by Norway so even if it was antipodal it cannot be to a different country - only to itself. So Norway has only one 'country' according to this approach being Antarctica (via Svalbard or Spitsbergen).  It should be removed from the table and put in the paragraph below recording one country antipodes only.  But that raises another issue - what is a country - if Antarctica is considered one is it because of the continent itself or because of the claims of sovereignty (which have some level of international legitimacy in that some countries recognise the claims of others) for those areas or sectors be recognised e.g. Is Canada the antipodes of Antarctica or of France (Terre Adeline Land); Australia (Australian Antarctic Territory) and Norway (Norwegian claim - note not clear if Canada antipodes quite reaches the Norwegian claim). Antarctica is a Land mass not a country so using the territorial claims makes more sense.  If that is used it is possible the Svalbard antipodes is in the unclaimed sector (east of the Ross Dependency) - if so Norway would have no antipodal countries.  And if this approach is taken the claimant countries (of Antarctica) all recognised by the Antarctic Treaty as having claims (not agreeing or rejecting their legitimacy) should have their antipodes recognised where appropriate (mainly Canada, Russia and Denmark [Greenland]) adding to the antipodal countries of Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, United Kingdom, France, and yes, Norway (back on the list). Antipodenz (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway and Antarctica 

message: Where does the idea originally came from, the idea that if you dig a hole in North America straight through the Earth you would end up in China? It's so often mentioned in cartoons and movies. Who started this and why do many people still believe that North America and China are antipodes? I mean, they're both on the northern hemisphere so it's obviously impossible. 2A02:908:1460:CF80:ED48:E198:8125:BC4E (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's roughly true in terms of longitude only (90 degrees West vs. 90 degrees east).  Otherwise, I don't know that you should expect great geographic accuracy from the same entertainment industry which gave us Krakatoa, East of Java (a dumb error in a movie's title).... AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dig a hole, end up in China? 

message: The Moluccas seem to be antipodal to eastern Brazil. Therefore it was true of the Portuguese empire as well?Walshie79 (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Empires