This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Well, both coordinates are fairly near the center of the GLOBUS grounds on Vardøya, but 31.1278 actually pinpoints the GLOBUS II dome, as you can see by looking at the Google aerial view. I was not aware that you had a source for the coordinates you used, and I was mainly concerned with adding the {{coord}} parameters; so if you want to go back to 31.1271, you're welcome to do so.
Deor (
talk)
17:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Note from article text
this was in the article text:
The following statement was in the Globus II article before merging, but has no apparent source. The article at
https://geographical.co.uk/people/development/item/3509-vardo-spotlight includes this statement, but that entire paragraph looks to have been actually copied directly from Wikipedia (it was published well after the text appeared on WP). Ok, I found one archived source, but it is from NewsMax.com, which is considered unreliable. "The Russian general
Leonid Ivashov said in a statement to the Norwegian newspaper,
Dagbladet, that Russia had programmed
tactical nuclear weapons to attack the radar station."
Yes, it was (and actually still should be while we discuss this, per
WP:BRD). I'm waiting for you to explain why that hidden note should be removed despite being useful for a future editor who may know how to find the supposed Dagbladet interviewstatement.
-- Fyrael (
talk)
14:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
because discussion of an article belongs in clear text on a talk page, not hidden in a comment in wikitext in the article text. Per
WP:ARTICLESPACE, The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be. This is overwhelmingly the normal practice on Wikipedia. Are you maintaining that it isn't? -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Aha, I see now where we've gone astray. Couple of misunderstandings here. The text you've moved over was never really a discussion, as it never involved more than one editor. It's just a series of notes that I left for myself and potential future editors as I realized that this information from the previous article had no source, then found a source, then realized the source was bad but could potentially be rescued by a more resourceful researcher. So then when you said "move discussion to talk page" I thought you were referring to the discussion between you and I about the changes, which had so far been happening in edit summaries. So, I was rather confused when you (to my eyes) started the discussion by stating the obvious about what had been in the article.
Anyway, while I have seen very useful notes left by other editors about investigations, it's usually attached to some questionable content that's still visible, while in this case I've hidden the content, so it's unlikely anyone would find the note. Realistically, the chances of anyone following up on this are nil anyway, so it's fine if it stays here on talk.
-- Fyrael (
talk)
19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Well, both coordinates are fairly near the center of the GLOBUS grounds on Vardøya, but 31.1278 actually pinpoints the GLOBUS II dome, as you can see by looking at the Google aerial view. I was not aware that you had a source for the coordinates you used, and I was mainly concerned with adding the {{coord}} parameters; so if you want to go back to 31.1271, you're welcome to do so.
Deor (
talk)
17:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Note from article text
this was in the article text:
The following statement was in the Globus II article before merging, but has no apparent source. The article at
https://geographical.co.uk/people/development/item/3509-vardo-spotlight includes this statement, but that entire paragraph looks to have been actually copied directly from Wikipedia (it was published well after the text appeared on WP). Ok, I found one archived source, but it is from NewsMax.com, which is considered unreliable. "The Russian general
Leonid Ivashov said in a statement to the Norwegian newspaper,
Dagbladet, that Russia had programmed
tactical nuclear weapons to attack the radar station."
Yes, it was (and actually still should be while we discuss this, per
WP:BRD). I'm waiting for you to explain why that hidden note should be removed despite being useful for a future editor who may know how to find the supposed Dagbladet interviewstatement.
-- Fyrael (
talk)
14:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
because discussion of an article belongs in clear text on a talk page, not hidden in a comment in wikitext in the article text. Per
WP:ARTICLESPACE, The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be. This is overwhelmingly the normal practice on Wikipedia. Are you maintaining that it isn't? -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply
Aha, I see now where we've gone astray. Couple of misunderstandings here. The text you've moved over was never really a discussion, as it never involved more than one editor. It's just a series of notes that I left for myself and potential future editors as I realized that this information from the previous article had no source, then found a source, then realized the source was bad but could potentially be rescued by a more resourceful researcher. So then when you said "move discussion to talk page" I thought you were referring to the discussion between you and I about the changes, which had so far been happening in edit summaries. So, I was rather confused when you (to my eyes) started the discussion by stating the obvious about what had been in the article.
Anyway, while I have seen very useful notes left by other editors about investigations, it's usually attached to some questionable content that's still visible, while in this case I've hidden the content, so it's unlikely anyone would find the note. Realistically, the chances of anyone following up on this are nil anyway, so it's fine if it stays here on talk.
-- Fyrael (
talk)
19:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)reply