Talk:Roald Amundsen
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roald Amundsen Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:OnThisDay User:MiszaBot/config
Reaching the North Pole / Spitsbergen vs. Spitzbergen
I corrected "Spitzbergen" (the German name) to Spitsbergen (the international as well locally official name). Someone reverted it twice with the pretext "not an improvement". This is wrong: in the article this name is written once as "Spitsbergen" and once as "Spitzbergen". As a general rule any name should not be written in two or more different ways in the same article, so it is certainly an improvement to standardize the spelling. Explain please, why should it be better for this article to maintain this year-old flaw.
Beside that, "rewieving" means to revert changes that worsen an article, not to forbid any content that doesn't come from you.
And second "beside": as long as an article is in Class C ("Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems") I find difficult to imagine any change that is not in some way an improvement. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
- Both instances now read Spitsbergen, as per the name of that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, and no harm meant: I realise now that the revert was the work of some bot. With all the respect, but this bot could possibly benefit from a bit of revision: I don't think "not an improvement" is an acceptable criterion, especially when the judge is some piece of software. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
- Well spotted. Please feel free to continue with "considerable editing ... to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems". Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, and no harm meant: I realise now that the revert was the work of some bot. With all the respect, but this bot could possibly benefit from a bit of revision: I don't think "not an improvement" is an acceptable criterion, especially when the judge is some piece of software. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
North pole
The lede states " He led the first expedition proven to have reached the North Pole in 1926" but the section "North Pole" does not actually ever state that he reached the north pole. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell Hi! You wrote that “the section ‘North Pole’ does not actually ever state that he reached the north pole”.
- But the revision of 11 November said “If these other claims are false, the crew of the Norge would be the first explorers verified to have reached the North Pole.” So the section “Reaching the North Pole” did say ”the crew of the Norge … reached the North Pole. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- That sentence is written in the subjunctive tense. It implies that he reached the pole, but does not actually state this.
- However, I have rewritten the text and now, I hope, it is clearer. I also added a citation that explicitly states that they flew over the north pole.[1] Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Template:Reply to
Template:Redirect category shell Subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. That’s a minor point.
- The main point is that the section says that Amundsen reached the North Pole (your edits have made that clearer), and is the first man proven to have done so.
- The lead should mention this important fact: Amundsen led the first expedition proven to have reached the North Pole. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
<templatestyles src="Reflist-talk/styles.css"/>
References
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
".. dead of an apparent suicide"?
TylerBurden, which EngVar is this article? And which EngVar uses "Template:Tq"? In British English I think this would be ".. dead after an apparent suicide." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Martinevans123, from what I can see, there doesn't seem to be an established variation of English, so since the topic of the article is Norwegian no particular version needs to be used due to national ties per WP:ENGVAR. If we can find the revision that first introduced a particular variation, we could go with that. TylerBurden (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to respond to your second question, I can revert that portion of my own revert since that seems less about EngVar and might very well be more grammatically correct. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, on both counts. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I forgot to respond to your second question, I can revert that portion of my own revert since that seems less about EngVar and might very well be more grammatically correct. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)