Talk:William Speirs Bruce

Truncated biography

Does anyone intend to continue this article, which stops when Bruce was 26 years old and has nothing whatever to say about the important events of his life? At present it is hardly more use than a stub. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to complete the biographical entry I started. Please feel free to continue it, or to dispense with it as you see fit.Imkgeo (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am intending to build up the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition first. When I 've done that I will tuen my attention here. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am now working on the extension of this biographical article. Because my sources are different from those used by Imkgeo I have had to abandon most of his/her material as I can't cite it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Please note, this is not a GA review, but it may help with future review processes.

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem may hinder a GA nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes GA review, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards

In response to the (unsigned) above I have reformatted the inline citations. I would point out, however, that the properly formatted information per {{cite web}} is included the Sources section. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Speirs Bruce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A very nice article that I am happy to pass for GA. I have appended a list of comments to consider, but none is significant enough to warrant a delay to this nomination.

• "but his perspective changed" I think interests is a better term than perspective here
  • "Interests" isn't really strong enough; his whole outlook changed. I think "outlook" is the word.

Good call, better.

• "its unusual spelling has caused repeated problems." - a bit vague, what kind of problems?
  • I've expanded (confusion with the more common "Spiers")
• You need to provide a better introduction to the second section than "The main object of the Dundee Whaling Expedition, 1892–93," the title alone is not enough. Something as simple as "The Dundee Whaling Expedition of 1892–93 was an attempt . . ." would do the trick.
  • I'm sorry, but I don't understand the objection. The whole first sentence of this section reads: "The main object of the Dundee Whaling Expedition was to investigate the commercial possibilities of whaling in Antarctic waters, by locating a source of "right" whales in the region". That (with links) seems a pretty clear and comprehensive introduction to me

The problem is that this is the very first time the DWE is mentioned, and beginning the sentence with "The main object of. . . " suggests that we are already aware of the existance of the expedition, which a reader is not. The alternative I suggested above is a small change but it eliminates this uncertainty.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Robert Rudmose Brown" - who is he? (i.e. Explorer Robert Rudmose Brown said . . .) link him if he is notable (if there is no article, make one).
  • Rudmose Brown was the botanist on the SNAE, later co-author of The Voyage of the Scotia and later still, Bruce's first biographer. I've expanded the text a little, and redlinked him. When I can find out some basic information (dates etc) I'll do a stub for him.
    • On investigation I found a wikipedia article "Robert Neal Rudmose-Brown", so I've linked to that. Don't know where the hyphen came from.
• MP Charles Price should (red)link to Charles Edward Price.
  • OK, done
• "but was politely ignored." - how (this seems a little counter intuitive).
  • It's the sense of the source, but I've reworded in a non-interpretative way
• "and had to deal with the closure of his laboratory, but his health was failing" - shouldn't that be "as his health was failing"?
  • I've reworded this sentence.
• "and another time" - Should be "and on another occasion".
  • Agreed and done.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this review and your helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Scottish?

He was born/grew up in England and had a Welsh mother. Did he see himself as "Scottish?" If not, calling him British is more neutral.--85.211.120.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bruce's marriage details

The following text was added to the "Marriage and family life" section in August 2012, by an IP editor, presumably Colin B. Withers:

" However, his marriage has now been found. It took place on the 26 January 1901, at Nigg, in Ross & Cromarty, at the Chapelhill United Free Church after banns. Bruce gave his occupation as Naturalist and Zoologist, son of Samuel Noble Bruce, surgeon MRCS, and a bachelor, while Jessie gave her status as a spinster, daughter of Alexander Mackenzie, master tailor, deceased. Bruce gave his residence as 17 Joppa Road, Portobello, Edinburgh, while Jessie gave hers as Chapelhill, Nigg, and as one of the witnesses was Isabella Mackenzie it would appear that Nigg was Jessie's home parish. (Colin B. Withers)."

This is interesting and relevant. It would be good to include in the article at least the date and location of the wedding, if not the supplementary detail. However, we need a reliable source for any information that is added; this is a featured article for which the standards of sourcing are stringent. An online genealogy site would not be considered of sufficient reliability. If Colin Withers is still watching this page, perhaps he would state exactly where he got the information from. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Speirs Bruce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003123646/http://scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessbulletin/bb-02/bb-11-04f.htm to http://scottish.parliament.uk/business/businessbulletin/bb-02/bb-11-04f.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

wiiegk;rstgjiurjdsk;l

hallo 72.138.95.18 (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

i don't understand wiki

Wiki is bad, i can't understand a single thing so change some thing before I give u a bad review! 72.138.95.18 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)