Talk:Clock position

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Accuracy

I don't believe there is any clock in the vertical plane implied but I will find out. Meanwhile this topic is underdeveloped as the system is very widely used and for relative bearing preferred, especially for on-the-spot observation and verbal reporting.Botteville (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can find out an aviator in the air used only the system desrribed; i.e., he did not refer to a second, vertical clock. However, lookouts in ships looking for aircraft did refer to a vertical circle through the line of sight. But, they used degrees not actual clock numbers. I had that in but one critic apparently felt it was too marginal, did not illustrate clock references.Botteville (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back changes (not reversions)

Against stripping the titles to one word. The content is NOT obvious. It would't be all of aviation, all of relative bearings, etc. Points. Since clock positions are points, how can you say this is about clock positions but not about points? However, it could be developed more so I am putting it here for ref until I get to it.

The points terminology "Point" is a word with multiple meanings. With regard to relative bearings, one point is one unit of the units in which the bearing is stated. There are a few different ways to state relative bearings. One system views the imaginary circle, not as a clock, but as a compass, the ship pointed in the north position (not really north in this case). In that case the units are "compass points" in which, for the typical 32-point compass, one point is 1/4 of 45 degrees, or 11.25 degrees. This system is useful for calculating compass bearings by adding the relative bearing to another known compass bearing to obtain the true bearing of the observed object, as they are all the same units (mathematical operations must be between quantities of the same units). For the 360-degree circle, the points are the degrees. For the 12-hour clock, the points are the hours.Botteville (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements

Yes, the pelorus material should be mainly under pelorus. So we will have to bite the bullet and rewrite pelorus. However most of that material talks about degrees. Should the degrees be in here? Probably not. It goes best under relative bearing and absolute bearing. So, those will have to be rewritten. I will be gradually working on it so I am leaving your ref request in even though there is not much to ref right now.Botteville (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

I do not see this as being primarily in the aviation portal. I have not gotten much into the history of it yet but it seems to have preceded aviation.Botteville (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing this point up for discussion. Does this belong in the aviation portal? Aviation applications are only a small part of a much larger topic undoubtedly preceding aviation.Botteville (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denudation problem

User hohum insists on denuding my inputs of statements or phraseology vital to the meaning. Hohum, I wish you would try to see that. Have some respect for other users. If there was a good chance that you were right, I responded to your other comments. Thank you for your attention.Botteville (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed material which was not to do with the topic of this article. If you have specific examples, you can voice them here per WP:BRD. (Hohum ^@) 02:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been violating WP:BRD-NOT flagrently and without discussion. I responded to your changes the first time you made them and rejected some giving the reason. I think I took the relevance comments most seriously and set up to move the material to the most relevant article. You continued to revert without discussion. Now you seem to have stopped just short of your reversion limit, which is good, because I was about to bring that up. I went as far as I could to see your changes as good faith. Understand, most of the material you marked as "not to do with this article" does too have to do with this article, but some perhaps less directly. Degrees are not exactly clock numbers but the numbers are translated into degrees readily for precision. If there was another article that was perhaps better suited for the material I set up to move it there, to be placed in at some future rewrite. Some of your understandings are blatently wrong. Either you do not understand the topic or the vocabulary or you think because you have been on WP for a long time (as long as I) and have worked on quite a few of these articles you are automatically right and expert. Frankly many appear to be your personal opinion, which you were going to impose without discussion or following procedure. I did not know how to apply "good faith" in your case as I did not see anything that could be readily called that. A person on as long as you ought to show more explicit good faith, I think. Looks like you caught yourself just in time. I see you have not reverted further. I'm happy with that and with the content so far. If you want to revert material I have re-reverted please start a discussion on it here. We will go over every detail if necessary. It appears we are not agreeing on anything whatsoever, which to me is unusual. I don't usually see it. There are only two answers to this head butting: other editors must participate or someone of higher rank must be a third party. Meanwhile since most of this writing is mine, the article having been a stub, please leave a disputed point in until I agree to allow you to revert it or a third-party administrator makes a decision on it. We will list disputed points below. I am not through with this article by any means. Also a relevant point may not be explained as well as it could. I usually rewrite those so they are clear, but you may do it (or someone else). I regret this discussion is so long but it looks as though it is going to get longer.Botteville (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly WP:TLDR, apart from your misunderstanding BRD. You made the Bold change, I Reverted it. You should start to Discuss why it should be in the article. However, I notice you haven't actually reverted the bulk of what I removed, nor specifically mentioned any of it. I'm happy to discuss in good faith, but you need to stop moaning, pointing fingers, and engage constructively. (Hohum ^@) 19:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss in various places, starting with the reversion comment. You got it backwards, you need to discuss why it should not be in the article beyond your standard "irrelevant" comment, which is totally arbitrary, a matter of your opinion, and totally wrong. You're somewhat late to notice I did not revert much of your excisions, as I have been mentioning it all along. I also gave my reasons for not putting it back. I gave you reasons for every change I made but you act like you never saw them. If you were happy to discuss anything you would have discussed it. You're bringing this up now now because you are at your reversion limit. I am not moaning and the use of that word to another editor inappropriate. I'm supposed to take that in good faith? Only by policy. I don't know what you mean by "pointing the finger." Do you mean pointing the finger at wrong changes and incorrect understanding? I don't know what you mean by "engage" or "constructively." I thought I was contributing to an article and making sure it is right, which seems to me to be constructive. As far as length is concerned, you can terminate this fiasco any time you please. Since you are not now reverting there is nothing to discuss. I'm going to continue adding referenced material. If you disagree with any of, make a section for it here and we can discuss it.Botteville (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no addressing of specific text, just more tirades against an editor. You don't seem to have reverted any of my substantive edits anyway, so it's baffling what the fuss is all about. Lets both get back to editing. (Hohum ^@) 08:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

The unregistered author feels a need to include the use of a 24-hour fancy Russian watch, something but few Americans would ever possess. The article on it also is in the initial stages. The English here, however, was pretty much incomprehensible, of little use in understanding the watch. I made some fixes pertaining to the northern hemisphere. For the southern, what circumstances are we talking about? Who is reflecting what and when? Is there a watch designed for the southern hemisphere? Does the user do this in his imagination? Why does he do it? If we can't come up with some clearer explanation I suggest we cut out the part about the southern hemisphere. Save it for the Russian watch article, or maybe go there first.Botteville (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the distinction between northern and southern hemisphere is not valid; moreover, I question the so-called mirror image. I think we need a ref here, and I do not think you will find one, so I'm removing that part. If you find a ref and show me that I am wrong, by all means rewrite it.Botteville (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed watch picture

I was hoping to find a nice picture in WP showing how to find north on a watch. I was sort of misled by my hope into ignoring the "northern hemisphere" and "southern hemisphere" on the pic. This is not a universal distinction. You might live in the northern hemisphere south of the tropic of cancer and for some part of the year the sun would be for you in the northern sky, not the southern. The real distinction is the half of the sky the sun is actually in. There is only one case in which all southern hemisphere persons look north at the sun, and all northerners look south, and that is at the equinox, when the sun is right on the equator. Sometimes we just don't have a picture. There are a lot of good pictures on the Internet, but we don't have them.Botteville (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]