Talk:Scottish National Antarctic Expedition

Omond House

Is Omond House still standing? Has it been preserved as a historical relic? PhilUK (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I answer my own question. Yes, the remains are still there and are maintained today by the Argentine government as part of its Orcadas base. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38574003 (includes photo). PhilUK (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Using seasons to note time

WP:SEASON deprecates this, and this article is a great example of why. I took out "in early spring" referring to March. But March in the southern hemisphere is autumn! It's a super article all told, but it doesn't need this distracting and ambiguous terminology. --The Huhsz (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoever came up with this idea of having the seasons reversed down there was nuts! Causes nothing but trouble. See also WP:ASTONISHME#penguin. EEng 23:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Prose quality

Why is "The building was constructed from local materials using the dry stone method, with a roof improvised from wood and canvas sheeting." better than "The building was constructed from local materials using dry stone, with a roof of wood and canvas sheeting." on an online encyclopedia? Surely the building as a whole was "improvised"; the wording that is being restored implied that the expedition carried plans for the walls but when it came to the roof had to extemporise. Did they? And why is "the drystone method" better than "drystone"? I'm sorry, but this looks like flabby writing to me. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Dry stone is a method of building, so it needs the additional wording. You may consider it how you like, but the FA version is immeasurably better than your proposed sub-standard changes. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Is dry stone something else other than a method of building? Such that we need to elucidate lest the reader be confused? Nope, don't think so. Are you able to explain why you think "the FA version is immeasurably better" than my version? Or why my changes are "sub-standard"? Take your time. Please don't edit the descriptive section heading as it is my work. I have put in a question mark to help maintain your dignity while you work out your reasons for preferring the wordy version with no more meaning. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your version reads like it is a building material, rather than a method; such clarification will aid the reader who is unaware of what it is. I've changed the heading as talk page headers are supposed to be neutral, not a means of point-scoring.- SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked you not to do that please. No points are being scored here, we are discussing how to improve some sub-optimal writing. It is a method which employs a particular building material. It is also wikilinked to help those for whom it is a burning question. I still don't agree with you but thanks for deigning to explain your logic. What about "improvised"? Is there evidence the expedition had plans only for the walls but had to "improvise" when it came to roofing? Surely not. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop being a pain in the neck on the header. I've told you we're supposed to have neutral headings (See WP:TALKNEW: "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Bold in orginal), and your point scoring is doing nothing but highlighting what a combative approach you're taking when there is no need.

The result of your sub-standard writing has also been reverted with good reason. Dry stone walls are, from an engineering point of view, fairly straightforward (one material, a little bit of skill and it goes upwards; it's a common sight in parts of Britain and an easy thing to do. A roof is not. A roof is technically far more difficult to build, and so yes, they would have had to improvise. That's all. I don't know why you've got uppity about these minor changes. I've left all your other changes in place, but only altered those that were sub-standard from the original. There is no need to start point scoring and getting aggressive just because something rather poor has bene reverted to a better version. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Uppity, eh? Is this a status thing for you, hence all your talk about point-scoring? If there is evidence that the expedition improvised the roof but built the dry-stone walls from a plan, I would agree with you. But is there? Otherwise the wording seems clumsy and confusing; in all likelihood they "improvised" the entire building. I don't agree with your proposed heading either; it isn't about "recent edits"; as you acknowledge yourself you left most of my recent edits in place. It's about the clarity and quality of prose on a Featured article. Let's discuss it under that heading and maybe there is more likelihood that a third person will come and help out, which is what I think we need at this stage. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to turn the hose on you two? EEng 16:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Flabby writing"! Good grief, this is an article from the much missed Brian Boulton, perhaps one of our greatest ever writers. There is nothing flabby about this, other than your rotten edit, The Huhsz. I agree with SchroCat, the article is best left in the last good state, and that was before all this kicked off. Cassianto^Talk 17:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  To me, the meaning is clear - the walls were put up following a known methodology, dry-stone walling, but the roof, a more difficult proposition, was extemporized as best they could. I don't see it as "flabby, clumsy [or] confusing". KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  Well it's hardly flabby, but three sentences starting This building ... The building ... The completed house, mentioning twice that it's of stone, isn't exactly tight either, and it jumps around in time -- we get the christening before the building. Perhaps

  The major task completed during this time was the construction of living accommodations for those who would remain on Laurie Island to operate the proposed meteorological laboratory. The 20-by-20-foot (6 by 6 m) building – constructed its walls built from local materials using the dry stone method, with and roof improvised from wood and canvas sheeting – had two windows and was fitted for six people. It was christened "Omond House" after Robert Omond, director of the Edinburgh Observatory and a supporter of the expedition. Rudmose Brown wrote: "Considering that we had no mortar and no masons' tools it is a wonderfully fine house and very lasting. I should think it will be standing a century hence ..."

  Personally I'd omit "improvised" since from the Brown quote the reader will get the idea that they made do as best they could, but it's a minor point. EEng 18:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The "This"/"The/"The" is a good point, and I like the suggested rewording. I'd retain "improvised" as I personally think there's an intentional contrast with the easier wall-construction, but it's no deal-breaker for me either. KJP1 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I made some little changes above. EEng 18:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Good suggestion, that's far less flabby. It seems so obvious as to hardly be worth stating that the building was improvised, and the next sentence spells out why dry-stone construction was used. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

drivel

Gosh! "Rotten edit", "uppity"; coming in here is like walking into a private members' club at closing time. Get over yourselves! "Uppity" indeed! --The Huhsz (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Oh fuck off. If you hadn't been so idiotic from the start this could have been dealt with in a much better way, but you kept being an idiot over the title and your battlefield stance and sarcasm drove it downhill from the start. Next time don't be a WP:DICK. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Oh, gosh. A tough guy. On the Internet. Yawn. I'm away to wipe my daughter's arse. Have fun with your private members club and your dick-admiring. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

But are you OK with the proposed wording? EEng 19:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a good compromise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Please revert these edits. They're similar to lots of edits (example) that were reverted as vandalism and that led to the article being protected. 50.215.33.122 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Piper Kerr and Penguin Meme

Greetings fellow editors! I found this funny meme on Facebook, which labels who is Piper Kerr and who is the penguin, but I honestly think it would be best to remove the image (which I will do), since many protections can be added to the page, and it will be constantly vandalized even after the protection expires. Thanks JayzBox (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Article gaining media presence outside Wikipedia does not itself warrant changing the content. The image is small enough that the more precise caption could be useful. Oppose to changing the caption, and strong oppose to removing the image. BlueBanana (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly support changing the caption to align with the meme. It does no harm. It's factually correct. It negates the need for protection. It makes people happy. And happy people might be more willing to give financial support or otherwise become constructive members of this community. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs - And I, as strongly, oppose it. The problem with humour, aside from whether is is encyclopaedic, is that it is very subjective. Some indeed find it riotously funny, others find it puerile. It is also worth bearing in mind that the, greatly respected, main author, now sadly dead, did not see fit to caption the image in this way. The argument about encouraging donations I find deeply unconvincing, and it wouldn’t be a strong argument even were it true. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And I am indifferent either way. 73.230.220.85 (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article hoping to find the meme caption, and was sad it wasn't there. I'm with Bob Droob - It's factually correct. It negates the need for protection. And it is unquestionably NPOV. Carlo (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should keep the word "right", I'm with @Bob drobbs Effco (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe the caption ought to be changed to align with the meme. MiguelX413 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

Please revert this edit. "This content will be vandalized if it's not removed" is not a good reason for removing part of the article. 50.215.33.122 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it actually vandalism?

Who did the majority of the work to get this to FA status? What do they think of the (right) and (left)? Looking back in the history it seems like people have just been beating the snot out of each other on this point for around ten years. jp×g🗯️ 09:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The main author was User:Brianboulton, now deceased, and therefore unable to express a view. What we can know is that he didn’t see fit to caption the picture in that way at the time he put the article through its FA candidacy. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG, @KJP1 Looking at WP:VAND, I don't really see a definition that this neatly fits in to. Not sure if that says more about the meme-style edits that sporadically occur here, or more about WP:VAND needing a section on "meme-influenced edits" to cover such a case. An argument against that would be WP:BEANS, since we clearly don't want more viral attempts to get people to modify articles in ways that, while not dicdef vandalism, are clearly meant to be funny but are of no actual value.

To the specific edits in question, labeling "(right)" in the image description would be relevant if there were some question about who in the image was being discussed, but unless our expected readers are non-human lifeforms, I don't think that in sensible. As to the bit about the penguin being indifferent, that's easier to categorize as WP:OR, as there is no source to back that up, and for all we know the penguin quite enjoyed the bagpipes being played. I do think that moving the image and caption text off to a template is unnecessary. It's not like someone can't just copy the code out of there and make the changes, the template accomplishes nothing and I'm really tempted to take it to WP:TFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I've not a clue what that template does/is designed to do. Does it stop additions to the caption? If it does, then I'd suggest it does have some value. The image caption has been subject to "vandalism" in the past, all around the meme. For me, it's just not very humorous, but even if it were, I still don't think it would belong on here. We're an encyclopaedia, not a rag mag. Of course, it can and does populate the internet, [1] which is just fine. But not here, in my view, largely for the reasons you've outlined. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Welllll... but looking at the bigger picture... we've been self-selecting for humorless people since forever. The problem with that is, humorless people tend to have more of other characteristics, such as self-importance, rigidity, pedantry, and lower in... inner mirth and sense of proportion. Present company excepted, of course! If you can't laugh off a (true, referenced, harmless, uncontroversial, and amusing) fact in some obscure caption, you're less likely to laugh off some slight but rather make a federal case of it, or believe that some trivial dispute is worth a knife fight, and so on.

Sure, you can't have annoying or obvious or unfunny or disruptive jokes, but this one isn't. It is subtle, and thus demonstrates subtlety of mind, so why call out the no-fun brigade. If this was a slippery slope where if we nip this in the bud we're going to get more of this to an unwanted degree, that'd be different. But its not. I myself slipped a similar-type joke in more than 15 years ago and its still there and it hasn't inspired anyone else or damaged the project none. We're a popular publication not a scholarly tome. So don't worry about it. My 2c.

Speaking of scholars tho, I remember when two (famous and distinguished) physicists wrote a paper... their names were IIRC Hans Bethe and one Aleph (or like that) and they asked George Gamow to sign on as an author even tho he had nothing to do with it, so that it would credited to Aleph, Bethe, and Gamow... get it? Alpha, Beta, Gamma. Groaan. Nerd humor! Oh well.

Oh, Order of the Occult Hand, lol. Good enough for AP and the Washington Post and so forth. Of course the bosses hate it. But the bosses are also the "This is a place of business, Star Wars figurines on your desk do not advance our business goals, remove them" types. I'm not a boss and don't identify with them, sue me.

OK, I am prolix, but I'm saying, hey a lot of us are Wikipedia nerds (let's face it, and I include myself, and granted a lot of us aren't, I am talking statistically), and nerd humor... hey don't fight it too hard. Another instance I recall is that those HTML programmer codes, the ones that return a 404 for page not found (and other codes for other situations) includes a code for "I am a teapot" heh. It's not used in the real world but it is there and could be. And I mean those codes are super serious and important, but that one joke one hasn't led to the code list being polluted with nonsense generally and doesn't cause any harm, and is fun shared in-joke for that nerd community which (to a tiny degree at least) kind of binds that community a bit more onto a brotherhood/sisterhood, which is good, and also is good for the Wikipedia community. I mean we are managing a group of volunteers here, managing any group is actually a skill and probably even harder when your workers aren't getting paid and can leave at will, and really all of us are responsible for management as well as content creation, at least when we address questions like this.

Bottom line, for my part not only is it not vandalism but is actually a good thing on net and my vote is to restore the droll little joke/ Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, what she said. jp×g🗯️ 13:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

To make it clearer for those who aren't aware of what's happened with this article: Apparently at some point an image in this article referred to a penguin as "indifferent". Then, when that was removed, it was changed so that the human subject of the article was noted with "(right)". Both changes were made not seriously, but rather as a light bit of humor, but as if by some occult hand they were ultimately removed/reverted. Such attempts were deemed "vandalism", and ultimately a template was created to move the image and its caption off the page (see Template:Piper Kerr Photo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). In looking at the archives and discussion here, I'd say there's a weak consensus to include "(right)", it does no harm and provides a little humanity to a project that is otherwise very sterile and, one might say, formulaic.

On an unrelated note, I'm going to try and work in "as if some occult hand" into emails at work going forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To what end, as there isn’t the remotest chance of the two being confused? As pointless discussions go, this one is right up there. KJP1 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See, if it'd been left alone at simply instituting some minor protection of the page it wouldn't have drawn any attention (or rather, any more attention). But y'all lost the plot when you created a one-off template to try and obfuscate the caption from ne'er-do-wells. "(right)" is harmless, is at this point an in-joke in the vein of many others, and there's been more effort to keep it out than such an edit seems worth. I don't agree that this discussion is pointless at all, it calls into clear view that while this is a serious project interested in providing free knowledge for all, there's no need to go out of our ways to suck the fun out of anything that might creep into an article (such as this). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Note [D] says the following:

The presence of land in this location was later confirmed, by the expeditions of Wilhelm Filchner (1911–1913) and Ernest Shackleton (1914–1917).

Please remove the comma; it's unneeded and a little distracting. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)