 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Coordinates edit
Deor, the FAS sourcebook says 31.1271 E. What's the source for 31.1278? -- Fyrael (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
Note from article text edit
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."
- David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)- 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)- 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)
- 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,