Talk:Grytviken

The Royal Marines, SAS and SBS retook the settlement three weeks later without a shot being fired.

The Operation Paraquet article says:

The revised plan involved two Royal Navy vessels subjecting the Argentine garrison at Grytviken to an artillery bombardment. The garrison surrendered after fifteen minutes.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmsyyz (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

First marriage

Regarding the removed statement about the first wedding in history having taken place in February 2006 — certainly not so; there had been several marriages before, the first one being registered on 24 February 1932, between A.G.N. Jones and Vera Riches. (Cf. R.K. Headland's book). Apcbg 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How brief was the battle?

Did anyone get shot in the Falkland War? Did they shot at each other and miss? leave bullet holes in the buildings? was it even a battle?

649 Argentine servicemen, 255 British serviceman and three Falkland Islanders died as a consequence of the fighting during the Falklands war.2.217.150.216 (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Grytviken or King Edward Point?

Normal usage is that Grytviken is the whaling station at the head of the cove and King Edward Point is the low promontory at the mouth. I have moved the link to the Argentine met station to the KEP page. Also removed a paragraph about the GSGSSI/BAS research station, which is also at KEP not Grytviken.PatLurcock 17:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Without a shot being fired"???? An Argentine submarine, the Santa Fe, was attacked by British helicopters and ran aground in the harbour. A British destroyer shelled the Argentine positions. Then they surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.105.198 (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Population?

Is needed. RoyalMate1 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit or Chrome?

I'm using the Chrome browser at the moment, and in the 'Falklands War' sub-section between the paragraph ending "remaining under British control." and "On April 25, the Royal Navy damaged and captured the Argentine submarine" I have three 'edit' points. One for this section and one each for the two preceding sections. I can't see anything wrong with the code but then I'm not that good at it. Is it Chrome that's interpreting it wrongly or is there something wrong with the coding of this entry? --213.208.117.47 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it seems to be the presence of pictures that push these edit links out of the way. Probably some of those pictures could be moved to the bottom or something. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made changes that fixes this problem, and also put's the pictures close to the topics. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't fix the problem, they make it worse. Justin talk 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So **you** fix it, then. But don't edit war. IMPROVE. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so everybody know: The changes have been reverted, and the original problem is back. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. Justin talk 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Give what a rest? I said above I tried to fix the problem. You claim it created anotehr problem. It has now been reverted. I therefore pointed out that the problem is not fixed. Is this somehow confusing for you? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps giving it a rest from the stupid pig headed edit warring, you've now made six reverts. I rarely if ever make a 3RR report for an established editor but you are truly testing my patience. Justin talk 23:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You have broken my patience a long time ago. Why don't you listen to what people tell you, and this whole thing could have been avoided? Or even better, you could have looked at the diff when you did the edit, seen that you reverted more than you intended, and fixed it. In that case I wouldn't have reverted anything, but instead I would have tried to convince you to fix the [edit]-link problem without breaking the layout for you. But you reverted three different things, but only mentioning one. And when I pointed this out you did it again. And again. Yes, pig headed is the right word for that. How about listening to explanations next time? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian

The article says Grytviken is Swedish. I'm pretty sure it's Norwegian, though. Linguistically, it could be both (Norwegian: gryte; Swedish: gryta), and I can't find any sources, but the place was founded by a Norwegian, primarily used by Norwegian whalers, and the church came from Norway, so I think one should have a strong case to claim it's Swedish. Does anybody know more? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about claims, it's about facts. The settlement was established by Norwegians in 1904, taking its name from the cove 'Grytviken' which had been named two years before that by Swedes. (The place had been inhabited by English sealers in the 19th century who left artifacts but no name.) See the relevant paragraph in the article History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Apcbg (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The name stems from the Swedish expedition not from the settlement founded by Larsen. Is this why we repeatedly have to correct people switching Swedish to Norwegian? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems so. This even though the sentence directly after points out it was named by the Swedish expedition. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)