This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert Falcon Scott article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Robert Falcon Scott is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 12, 2012, November 12, 2016, November 12, 2018, November 12, 2019, and November 12, 2022. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A grave error of the article (and of the comments, for that matter) is that it's not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles (1.852 km), and NOT in statute miles (1.609 km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:F72A:1596:88AA:1814:6588:ECDD ( talk) 09:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm suggesting to use the same units (with the modern equivalent unit) as Scoot was using. This will ensure coherence between historical account and wiki account. Thus the distance unites should be in geographical miles and temperatures in °F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
However, as is now the article is difficult to follow. Everyone knows that Scott's tent was 11 miles (geographical) from the next depot. And suddenly the article at wiki gives 12 miles. And also the line "the 82°S meeting point for the dog teams, 300 miles (480 km)" is incorrect and it should be 475km, 295m, 256nm. These differences are significant, and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I suggest, however, to stay with the sources. In this case, Scott's journal reads "Wednesday, March 21. Got within 11 miles of depot Monday night …" The figure "11 miles" is repeated in every book about Scott. what then in the wiki it is 12 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry mixing unites as you are suggesting is leading to problems as described in the entry above "A grave error of the article (and of the comments, for that matter) is that it's not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles (1.852 km), and NOT in statute miles (1.609 km). Your suggestion "I suspect nearly everyone who visits the page has no idea of the distances involved." is undocumented. However, if you are correct, that all the distances, geographical locations should be removed from this entry. However, the wiki should also be a reference source and regardless of unites used it should give correct values. And at this moment it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Your suggestion "I suspect nearly everyone who visits the page has no idea of the distances involved." is undocumented": a. That's why I said "I suspect", and b. coming from someone who said in their previous post that "
Everyone knows that Scott's tent was 11 miles...", that's a bit rich. The idea that we should remove all geographical locations is, frankly, ridiculous, and I'm not sure whether you should be taken seriously or not. You've not edited WP much, and you need to understand that there are ways we do things, and ways we don't. We don't, for example, use archaic measurements, which is why we don't refer to rods or chains in articles.
OK, caould we agree that each distance in this article will be reviewed and given (if) in nautical miles (km equivalent). For example "this and that at 100 miles (185 km)." New-polymath ( talk) 10:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Not a big deal just a 1-mile difference. However, the author of these lines not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles.
New-polymath ( talk) 11:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
OR
is pending. Please consider the above and let me know.
New-polymath ( talk) 13:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with either option, but I think at the first occurrence of "miles" in the article, it should be made clear which mile we're talking about, so that there's no confusion. So perhaps either something like 12.7 statute miles (20.4 km)
; or maybe 11 nautical miles (12.7 mi; 20.4 km)
or 11 geographical miles (12.7 mi; 20.4 km)
.
In any case, it's a bit confusing if Scott's diary uses "mile" unqualified to mean "nautical mile", but we're using "mile" unqualified here to mean "statute mile". So I think it would be valuable to clarify that somewhere, perhaps with a citation. For example, here's an excerpt from
Race for the South Pole: The Expedition Diaries of Scott and Amundsen, p.xvii:
Units are a bugbear. For distance, both Amundsen and Scott, being seamen, use the nautical or geographical mile. It is equivalent to one-sixtieth of a degree, or one minute of latitude. It is fixed at 1.85 kilometers or, in imperial measure, 6.080 feet, equivalent to 1 1/7 statute miles. The statute mile is 1.6 km. It is sometimes uncertain which mile Scott is using. Amundsen sticks to the nautical mile.
For obvious reasons, Scott consistently uses imperial measures. The pound (lb) for weight, equals 454 grams, and the ton of 2,240 pounds, is equivalent to 1.017 metric tonnes of 1,000 kilograms. For length, there is the foot, corresponding to 30.48 cm, the yard of 3 feet (0.91 m), and, for depths at sea, the fathom or 6 ft (1.82 m). In the case of volume, the imperial gallon equals 4.55 litres or 1.2 US gallons of 3.79 litres.
The Norwegians were still imperfectly metricated. For mass, volume, and everyday length they used metric units. The nautical mile for distance was one exception; altitude another. They still measured this in feet. [...]
For temperature, Scott used Fahrenheit, Amundsen, centigrade (Celsius) throughout. [...]
Direction can be even more confusing. Both expeditions used the traditional mariner's compass, with its 32 points. A 'point' is 11 1/4°, and 1/4 point is the smallest practical unit, about 2.81°. To complicate matters, Amundsen uses plain degrees to express magnetic variation.
Personally, I think it makes the most sense to use the unit used in the source material, and then provide unit conversions to the common ones in parentheses for convenience. This makes it clear which numbers are the original, and which numbers are derived. Conversions can introduce rounding errors not found in the original measurements. Ahiijny ( talk) 18:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
To wrap up I suggest the following changes. Example from the Introduction section. The text:
will be replaced by:
with a footnote:
New-polymath ( talk) 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
To wrap up I suggest the following changes. Example from the Introduction section. The text:
will be replaced by:
with a footnote:
The above is in line with wiki policies and with our shared understanding. New-polymath ( talk) 15:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
For the reasons stipulated above, I insist on making changes of all distances given in Scott's entry, that is:
distance in geographical miles (conversion to km)
These changes are in line with wiki policies including:
1. Unites of measurement [ [4]] and that the explorers of Antarctica used geographical (nautical) miles and,
2. The burden of proving the rationality of the above as evidenced by +10 books (mentioned above).
3. Additional reasons are evidenced above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs)
Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long." We are in line with our own guidelines and no-one is confused by the two measurements. To clarify matters even further, I am in agreement with Ahiijny that we need to clarify the type of mileage we are using (linking at first mention) and also having a footnote to explain that Scott used nautical miles in diaries, as other explorers also did, but stating that the article is using statute miles.
Mary Christmas - not according to wiki policies, but with common sense. New-polymath ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Kids, remember, the last Scott's camp was 12.6 miles from salvation depot." Snark and sarcasm are not the best way to get other people to work with you. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
New-polymath ( talk) 18:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
A Request for Dispute Resolution was opened for this issue at the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard if anyone would like to contribute. Or, if ya'll want to take a breath, walk away for a few, then come back a little calmer then contribute that would be great as well. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
New-polymath ( talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC) New-polymath ( talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC) New-polymath ( talk) 19:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
New-polymath ( talk) 20:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
ALL POLICIES ARE ACCEPTED. New-polymath ( talk) 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Ahhhhh I wake up and the discussion has already gotten this long... Uhh first of all, please allow me to attempt to provide a list of facts that we can agree on, and then we can hopefully continue from there (please correct me anywhere I'm mistaken). Summarizing the above section, I believe these are the assertions that have been made so far (with some inferences/interpretation on my part): Ahiijny ( talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Facts:
"Wednesday, March 21. Got within 11 miles of depot Monday night …"
User:SchroCat's assertions:
11 nautical miles (13 mi; 20km)) is undesirable because it is clumsy, clunky, and stops the flow of reading.
User:New-polymath's assertions:
At this point in time, I would like to also cite some relevant sections from MOS:UNITS:
Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,508 kilometres (1,558 mi) long. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so.
Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice versa – and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions – a double conversion may be appropriate: Rosie weighed 80 kilograms (180 lb; 12 st 8 lb) (markup: {{convert|80|kg|lb stlb}}
)
Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). Small numbers, especially if approximate, may need to be converted to a range where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so about one mile (1–2 km), not about one mile (2 km). Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to. This may be evidenced by multiples of common conversion factors in the data, such as 160 km (from 100 miles). See false precision.
In a direct quotation, always retain the source units. Any conversions can be supplied either in the quote itself (in square brackets, following the original measurement) or in a footnote.
Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the{{ convert}}
template'sorder=flip
flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary:{{convert|200|mi|km|order=flip}}
→ The two cities are 320 kilometres (200 mi) apart.
Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except: [...] When units are part of the subject of a topic – nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law (5 nautical miles) [...] it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It might be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs.
Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name (Energies rose from 2.3 megaelectronvolts (MeV) to 6 MeV).
In nautical and aeronautical contexts use statute mile rather than mile to avoid confusion with nautical mile.
Please correct me if I have mischaracterized any of your arguments. If these points are accurate, let's please try to argue along these points, and everyone lay off on the personal jabbing and wiki-policing. We're all trying to make the article better, we're just not all exactly on the same page on how to do so. SchroCat, please don't WP:BITE the newcomer. New-polymath, I understand your frustration, please try to avoid the snark, as it's not going to help persuade people to see your side. Thanks ^_^ Ahiijny ( talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It may have something to do with the fact that I was struck by lightning in September, but for the second time in as many months I find myself writing SchroCat is 100% right here -- and I say this as someone who really, really knows our guidelines on this.
In nautical and aeronautical contexts use statute mile rather than mile to avoid confusion with nautical mile. I fear that this could be read, out of context, as implying statute miles are the recommended (primary) unit for nautical/aeronautical articles, but that's not what it means; it's simply a statement of how to avoid confusion in presentation, given that the choice of units has already been made. I've revised it to read:
In nautical and aeronautical contexts where there is risk of confusion with nautical miles, consider writing out references to statute miles as e.g. 5 statute miles rather than simply 5 miles..
In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except ... the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon.This is unquestionably a UK-strong-ties article, so distances are in miles/feet and temperatures in C. (I didn't realize it until now, but the guideline doesn't explicitly call these miles out as statute miles, though that's certainly what's meant, and I've clarified that in the guideline.)
When units are part of the subject of a topic.
100 miles (161 km). Perhaps we should extend that to
100 miles (161 km; 87 nmi)but personally I'd want to see arguments for why this would serve our readers. Readers who know what a nmi is also know what a statute mile is, and are used to making a rough mental conversion from the latter to the former, so there's little point in supplying both; but there are plenty of readers who know what a "mile" (i.e. statute mile) is, but have no idea what a nmi is, so if you're supplying just one it needs to be statute mi. (Readers who know neither know km, and we're definitely giving that conversion.)
And New-polymath, if you're such a polymath surely you can learn to indent like everyone else. Please do that, because it's getting really annoying; see WP:Indentation. E Eng 01:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. BTW, "One Ton Camp" -- is that a short ton, long ton, or shipping ton, harbor ton, wet ton ... what?
non-scientific article with strong ties to the United Kingdom, and thus statue miles for distance are prescribed as the primary units. There's a small clause in the guidelines that implies there are situations in which nautical miles may be suitable as the primary unit (the specific example named is
articles about the history of nautical law), but it seems that this article doesn't meet those requirements, because most of the travel was land-based.
direct quotationclause in the guidelines, I suppose it's possible to preserve these numbers. But I can't help but wonder if there's a nicer way to preserve them.
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.So, the guideline is not ironclad if a compelling case can be made for an exception. So I suppose there is still the opportunity for the WP:IAR argument to be made here (to be used sparingly, though).
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.My interpretation of this policy is: If you still don't agree with the application of this guideline, then perhaps the best avenue to pursue now would be to start a wider discussion on the MOS:UNITS guidelines, specifically on whether an exception should apply in the context of historical polar exploration. I believe the correct venue for discussing changes to existing guidelines and policies (correct me if I'm mistaken?) is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Ahiijny ( talk) 07:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I wish to contribute to this discussion, however, some civil rules should be observed by participants. SchroCat comments "FFS" or "I hope that fucking gets through to you" directed to me are unacceptable. What are wiki policies in such a case? New-polymath ( talk) 08:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Here below is created by SchroCat section called "An entertaining diversion" that is unacceptable[ [5]] New-polymath ( talk) 09:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, he did not rape her. She was smiling and she had a short skirt. Besides, she did not say no! New-polymath ( talk) 10:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
|
How did he/does one pronounce his name? The Falcon part, to be specific. [fɔː…], [fæl…], or something else? 2A02:8108:1140:945:68F2:AAA0:F1E5:6386 ( talk) 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This article does not present an impartial summary of Mr. Scott’s polar experiences in my opinion. It takes a heroic view of Scott and ignores a lot of evidence that shows he was in fact, inept, such as the multiple verbal orders that Scott gave en route to the Pole that were contrary to the written order he left behind. Roland Huntford’s book was very even-handed and he dismantles the notion that Scott was a hero in any sense of the word. He and his companions died needlessly because of Scott’s own lack of planning and preparation, and his own hubris. 73.228.192.105 ( talk) 22:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert Falcon Scott article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Robert Falcon Scott is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2010. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 12, 2012, November 12, 2016, November 12, 2018, November 12, 2019, and November 12, 2022. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A grave error of the article (and of the comments, for that matter) is that it's not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles (1.852 km), and NOT in statute miles (1.609 km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:F72A:1596:88AA:1814:6588:ECDD ( talk) 09:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm suggesting to use the same units (with the modern equivalent unit) as Scoot was using. This will ensure coherence between historical account and wiki account. Thus the distance unites should be in geographical miles and temperatures in °F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
However, as is now the article is difficult to follow. Everyone knows that Scott's tent was 11 miles (geographical) from the next depot. And suddenly the article at wiki gives 12 miles. And also the line "the 82°S meeting point for the dog teams, 300 miles (480 km)" is incorrect and it should be 475km, 295m, 256nm. These differences are significant, and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I suggest, however, to stay with the sources. In this case, Scott's journal reads "Wednesday, March 21. Got within 11 miles of depot Monday night …" The figure "11 miles" is repeated in every book about Scott. what then in the wiki it is 12 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry mixing unites as you are suggesting is leading to problems as described in the entry above "A grave error of the article (and of the comments, for that matter) is that it's not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles (1.852 km), and NOT in statute miles (1.609 km). Your suggestion "I suspect nearly everyone who visits the page has no idea of the distances involved." is undocumented. However, if you are correct, that all the distances, geographical locations should be removed from this entry. However, the wiki should also be a reference source and regardless of unites used it should give correct values. And at this moment it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Your suggestion "I suspect nearly everyone who visits the page has no idea of the distances involved." is undocumented": a. That's why I said "I suspect", and b. coming from someone who said in their previous post that "
Everyone knows that Scott's tent was 11 miles...", that's a bit rich. The idea that we should remove all geographical locations is, frankly, ridiculous, and I'm not sure whether you should be taken seriously or not. You've not edited WP much, and you need to understand that there are ways we do things, and ways we don't. We don't, for example, use archaic measurements, which is why we don't refer to rods or chains in articles.
OK, caould we agree that each distance in this article will be reviewed and given (if) in nautical miles (km equivalent). For example "this and that at 100 miles (185 km)." New-polymath ( talk) 10:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Not a big deal just a 1-mile difference. However, the author of these lines not realized that Scott's expedition gave all distances in geographical miles.
New-polymath ( talk) 11:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
OR
is pending. Please consider the above and let me know.
New-polymath ( talk) 13:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with either option, but I think at the first occurrence of "miles" in the article, it should be made clear which mile we're talking about, so that there's no confusion. So perhaps either something like 12.7 statute miles (20.4 km)
; or maybe 11 nautical miles (12.7 mi; 20.4 km)
or 11 geographical miles (12.7 mi; 20.4 km)
.
In any case, it's a bit confusing if Scott's diary uses "mile" unqualified to mean "nautical mile", but we're using "mile" unqualified here to mean "statute mile". So I think it would be valuable to clarify that somewhere, perhaps with a citation. For example, here's an excerpt from
Race for the South Pole: The Expedition Diaries of Scott and Amundsen, p.xvii:
Units are a bugbear. For distance, both Amundsen and Scott, being seamen, use the nautical or geographical mile. It is equivalent to one-sixtieth of a degree, or one minute of latitude. It is fixed at 1.85 kilometers or, in imperial measure, 6.080 feet, equivalent to 1 1/7 statute miles. The statute mile is 1.6 km. It is sometimes uncertain which mile Scott is using. Amundsen sticks to the nautical mile.
For obvious reasons, Scott consistently uses imperial measures. The pound (lb) for weight, equals 454 grams, and the ton of 2,240 pounds, is equivalent to 1.017 metric tonnes of 1,000 kilograms. For length, there is the foot, corresponding to 30.48 cm, the yard of 3 feet (0.91 m), and, for depths at sea, the fathom or 6 ft (1.82 m). In the case of volume, the imperial gallon equals 4.55 litres or 1.2 US gallons of 3.79 litres.
The Norwegians were still imperfectly metricated. For mass, volume, and everyday length they used metric units. The nautical mile for distance was one exception; altitude another. They still measured this in feet. [...]
For temperature, Scott used Fahrenheit, Amundsen, centigrade (Celsius) throughout. [...]
Direction can be even more confusing. Both expeditions used the traditional mariner's compass, with its 32 points. A 'point' is 11 1/4°, and 1/4 point is the smallest practical unit, about 2.81°. To complicate matters, Amundsen uses plain degrees to express magnetic variation.
Personally, I think it makes the most sense to use the unit used in the source material, and then provide unit conversions to the common ones in parentheses for convenience. This makes it clear which numbers are the original, and which numbers are derived. Conversions can introduce rounding errors not found in the original measurements. Ahiijny ( talk) 18:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
To wrap up I suggest the following changes. Example from the Introduction section. The text:
will be replaced by:
with a footnote:
New-polymath ( talk) 13:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
To wrap up I suggest the following changes. Example from the Introduction section. The text:
will be replaced by:
with a footnote:
The above is in line with wiki policies and with our shared understanding. New-polymath ( talk) 15:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
For the reasons stipulated above, I insist on making changes of all distances given in Scott's entry, that is:
distance in geographical miles (conversion to km)
These changes are in line with wiki policies including:
1. Unites of measurement [ [4]] and that the explorers of Antarctica used geographical (nautical) miles and,
2. The burden of proving the rationality of the above as evidenced by +10 books (mentioned above).
3. Additional reasons are evidenced above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New-polymath ( talk • contribs)
Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long." We are in line with our own guidelines and no-one is confused by the two measurements. To clarify matters even further, I am in agreement with Ahiijny that we need to clarify the type of mileage we are using (linking at first mention) and also having a footnote to explain that Scott used nautical miles in diaries, as other explorers also did, but stating that the article is using statute miles.
Mary Christmas - not according to wiki policies, but with common sense. New-polymath ( talk) 16:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Kids, remember, the last Scott's camp was 12.6 miles from salvation depot." Snark and sarcasm are not the best way to get other people to work with you. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
New-polymath ( talk) 18:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
A Request for Dispute Resolution was opened for this issue at the WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard if anyone would like to contribute. Or, if ya'll want to take a breath, walk away for a few, then come back a little calmer then contribute that would be great as well. Nightenbelle ( talk) 19:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
New-polymath ( talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC) New-polymath ( talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC) New-polymath ( talk) 19:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
New-polymath ( talk) 20:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
ALL POLICIES ARE ACCEPTED. New-polymath ( talk) 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Ahhhhh I wake up and the discussion has already gotten this long... Uhh first of all, please allow me to attempt to provide a list of facts that we can agree on, and then we can hopefully continue from there (please correct me anywhere I'm mistaken). Summarizing the above section, I believe these are the assertions that have been made so far (with some inferences/interpretation on my part): Ahiijny ( talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Facts:
"Wednesday, March 21. Got within 11 miles of depot Monday night …"
User:SchroCat's assertions:
11 nautical miles (13 mi; 20km)) is undesirable because it is clumsy, clunky, and stops the flow of reading.
User:New-polymath's assertions:
At this point in time, I would like to also cite some relevant sections from MOS:UNITS:
Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, provide a conversion in parentheses: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,508 kilometres (1,558 mi) long. But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so.
Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice versa – and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions – a double conversion may be appropriate: Rosie weighed 80 kilograms (180 lb; 12 st 8 lb) (markup: {{convert|80|kg|lb stlb}}
)
Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). Small numbers, especially if approximate, may need to be converted to a range where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so about one mile (1–2 km), not about one mile (2 km). Be careful especially when your source has already converted from the units you're now converting back to. This may be evidenced by multiples of common conversion factors in the data, such as 160 km (from 100 miles). See false precision.
In a direct quotation, always retain the source units. Any conversions can be supplied either in the quote itself (in square brackets, following the original measurement) or in a footnote.
Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the{{ convert}}
template'sorder=flip
flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary:{{convert|200|mi|km|order=flip}}
→ The two cities are 320 kilometres (200 mi) apart.
Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except: [...] When units are part of the subject of a topic – nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law (5 nautical miles) [...] it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It might be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs.
Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name (Energies rose from 2.3 megaelectronvolts (MeV) to 6 MeV).
In nautical and aeronautical contexts use statute mile rather than mile to avoid confusion with nautical mile.
Please correct me if I have mischaracterized any of your arguments. If these points are accurate, let's please try to argue along these points, and everyone lay off on the personal jabbing and wiki-policing. We're all trying to make the article better, we're just not all exactly on the same page on how to do so. SchroCat, please don't WP:BITE the newcomer. New-polymath, I understand your frustration, please try to avoid the snark, as it's not going to help persuade people to see your side. Thanks ^_^ Ahiijny ( talk) 20:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It may have something to do with the fact that I was struck by lightning in September, but for the second time in as many months I find myself writing SchroCat is 100% right here -- and I say this as someone who really, really knows our guidelines on this.
In nautical and aeronautical contexts use statute mile rather than mile to avoid confusion with nautical mile. I fear that this could be read, out of context, as implying statute miles are the recommended (primary) unit for nautical/aeronautical articles, but that's not what it means; it's simply a statement of how to avoid confusion in presentation, given that the choice of units has already been made. I've revised it to read:
In nautical and aeronautical contexts where there is risk of confusion with nautical miles, consider writing out references to statute miles as e.g. 5 statute miles rather than simply 5 miles..
In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except ... the primary units for distance/length, speed and fuel consumption are miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon.This is unquestionably a UK-strong-ties article, so distances are in miles/feet and temperatures in C. (I didn't realize it until now, but the guideline doesn't explicitly call these miles out as statute miles, though that's certainly what's meant, and I've clarified that in the guideline.)
When units are part of the subject of a topic.
100 miles (161 km). Perhaps we should extend that to
100 miles (161 km; 87 nmi)but personally I'd want to see arguments for why this would serve our readers. Readers who know what a nmi is also know what a statute mile is, and are used to making a rough mental conversion from the latter to the former, so there's little point in supplying both; but there are plenty of readers who know what a "mile" (i.e. statute mile) is, but have no idea what a nmi is, so if you're supplying just one it needs to be statute mi. (Readers who know neither know km, and we're definitely giving that conversion.)
And New-polymath, if you're such a polymath surely you can learn to indent like everyone else. Please do that, because it's getting really annoying; see WP:Indentation. E Eng 01:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. BTW, "One Ton Camp" -- is that a short ton, long ton, or shipping ton, harbor ton, wet ton ... what?
non-scientific article with strong ties to the United Kingdom, and thus statue miles for distance are prescribed as the primary units. There's a small clause in the guidelines that implies there are situations in which nautical miles may be suitable as the primary unit (the specific example named is
articles about the history of nautical law), but it seems that this article doesn't meet those requirements, because most of the travel was land-based.
direct quotationclause in the guidelines, I suppose it's possible to preserve these numbers. But I can't help but wonder if there's a nicer way to preserve them.
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.So, the guideline is not ironclad if a compelling case can be made for an exception. So I suppose there is still the opportunity for the WP:IAR argument to be made here (to be used sparingly, though).
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.My interpretation of this policy is: If you still don't agree with the application of this guideline, then perhaps the best avenue to pursue now would be to start a wider discussion on the MOS:UNITS guidelines, specifically on whether an exception should apply in the context of historical polar exploration. I believe the correct venue for discussing changes to existing guidelines and policies (correct me if I'm mistaken?) is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Ahiijny ( talk) 07:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I wish to contribute to this discussion, however, some civil rules should be observed by participants. SchroCat comments "FFS" or "I hope that fucking gets through to you" directed to me are unacceptable. What are wiki policies in such a case? New-polymath ( talk) 08:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Here below is created by SchroCat section called "An entertaining diversion" that is unacceptable[ [5]] New-polymath ( talk) 09:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Of course, he did not rape her. She was smiling and she had a short skirt. Besides, she did not say no! New-polymath ( talk) 10:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
|
How did he/does one pronounce his name? The Falcon part, to be specific. [fɔː…], [fæl…], or something else? 2A02:8108:1140:945:68F2:AAA0:F1E5:6386 ( talk) 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This article does not present an impartial summary of Mr. Scott’s polar experiences in my opinion. It takes a heroic view of Scott and ignores a lot of evidence that shows he was in fact, inept, such as the multiple verbal orders that Scott gave en route to the Pole that were contrary to the written order he left behind. Roland Huntford’s book was very even-handed and he dismantles the notion that Scott was a hero in any sense of the word. He and his companions died needlessly because of Scott’s own lack of planning and preparation, and his own hubris. 73.228.192.105 ( talk) 22:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)