Jump to content

Talk:Arctic exploration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stuff to mention in a polar exporation overview

  • Hudson and Baffin the northwest passage seekers
  • Byrd and his flyovers
  • The Nautilus surfacing at the pole
  • the Manhattan (tanker icebreaker) doing a northwest passage traversal
  • the IGY International Geophysical year in 1957? with a lot of antarctic stuff
  • McMurdo Base
  • Shackleton expedition (this is polar exploration writ large, but Shackleton's story is the most widely known today)
  • Crossings of both on foot, sledge, dog teams, etc. Maybe a section of different methods of polar travel
  • Mountain climbing in Antarctica

Great start!--Brad Patrick 04:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early exploration

[edit]

There should be a section regarding early polar exploration with regards to the search for the northeast, then northwest passages. Bastiq▼e demandez

Modern-day exporation

[edit]

Current polar exploration involves paleoclimatology and global warming Bastiq▼e demandez

What no...

[edit]

S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG it's a FREE dictionary! Add it! Bastiq▼e demandez 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources

[edit]

So I've got the ever readable Pierre Burton beside me and I'm gung-ho to at least beef up and source the 19th century Arctic material. Are there other good survey works that editors have? I know this page has been under the spotlight—perhaps we can get together and take it to FA. Marskell 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split suggestion

[edit]

I think this page should be split into pages focussing on:

  • Exploration of the Arctic
  • Exploration of the Antarctic

At the moment there is hardly any material on this page which falls between these two topics so it would be pretty easy to split. I will go ahead and do it shortly if there are no objections. Thanks Andeggs 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Splitting articles is usually done when the main article is getting too large. I don't see any size issues that would require splitting here. Actually, since both are related, I think keeping them together is a good idea. Why not redirect the suggested titles here? - Mgm|(talk) 07:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but the exploration of the Arctic and Antarctic is completely different so they should indeed be split into two separate entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.229.239 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the split. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - It is not the size of the article that necessitates the splitting, but the huge content differences. These two should not have been bundled for a start. gidonb (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Arctic and Antarctic exploration are completely different with very few individuals who crossed into both spheres. In addition there is extensive Arctic exploration done by land with Russia as a stepping off place, with no parallel in Antarctica, which was, after Shackleton's first furthest south merely a race for the southern pole, while the Arctic exploration always had additional aspects. Someone will argue and exception, I can think of many myself, but the presented different ventures, different strategies to entirely different sets of explorers. It's like covering the Sahara and the Atacama Desert in one article, and only together in that article. --Blechnic (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for all the reasons mentioned above. 86.142.109.137 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as above and as the article is mainly Arctic exploration with an Antarctic para popped in here and there: Is there a consensus? So I would like to have done/do (1) extract Antarctic material into new article (2) Rename this page to Exploration of Arctic (to keep history). Then the Arctic article could be cleaned-up; premature to do it now if it is to be split. Intro para of each should refer to other article and what they have in common. PS: the British "heroic" Antarctic expeditions were scientific too - not just a "dash for the Pole" ! Hugo999 (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to me that there's general agreement and it now really just needs someone to get on and do it! I suggest that Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration could also be merged into the proposed new Exploration of the Antarctic (or Antarctic Exploration) article. I don't really see the point of having both unless said article becomes overlong. 86.140.131.103 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Antarctic Exploration does not need a new Article. There is already a very good quality article History of Antarctica which covers the topic far better than this page. However, it does seem ridiculous repeating that article in a substandard way in this article so the best way to achieve the split seems to me to be to create a redirect to History of Antarctica from Antarctic Exploration and to rename this page Arctic exploration. A disambig type page from Polar exploration giving either option Antarctic and Arctic as there is no point doing a summary from the arguments poeple have made above. Polargeo (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I will start doing this by trimming out the small amount of Antarctic stuff and directing to the relevant article History of Antarctica then we can see about the name change. That is unless I get a bararge of complaints but it does seem like this is the general consensus. Polargeo (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay a new article exists Arctic exploration taking all Arctic details from this page. This page, Polar exploration, should probably become a link page to Antarctic and Arctic exploration articles rather than repeating info. If someone wants to add more general bipolar info into this page in the future then that can be done with links to the separate pages on the two different poles. Polargeo (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance and Early Modern versus Modern Era

[edit]

I'm working on expanding arctic exploration in the Renaissance, where the Renaissance continues into the 17th Century. From an exploratory point of view, the modern age probably doesn't start until the advent of steamships in the late 18th Century. If we chop sections out of the Modern Era into the Renaissance, the entire Northwest Passage section would move. What's the consensus on how this topic is split historically? SwordsmanRyan (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, take a look at my proposed rearrangement at my subpage. SwordsmanRyan (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Box

[edit]

For a long time, U.S. acquired Arctic data but classified the results. U.S. Vice President Al Gore pushed for de-classifying some of this. It is unclear on how much this has occurred or the timeline of de-classifying. The area was known as the "Gore box." Perhaps this deserves an article, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.194.249 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic exploration. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic exploration. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arctic_exploration&oldid=1216969310"