Talk:Grytviken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject South America / South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands work group (marked as High-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Fired shots[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:12, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

First marriage[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Edit or Chrome?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

The pot bay[edit]

I'm somewhat unconvinced this translation of the Swedish is accurate. Generally Swedish toponymy tends to be descriptive, and as I recall the logic to Gryta, as in pot/cauldron would be due to rendering vessels remaining from whale processing doesn't tally with a Swedish initial naming, followed by Norwegian settlement as a whaling station. Though perhaps the situation of the bay, surrounded by mountains is like a pot? I think it may well be equally likely that the name derives from Gryt, with the meaning in older swedish of pile of stones, or more modern burrow, cognate with English grit.Lacunae (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Latitude[edit]

"their daughter Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen was the first child ever born in the Antarctic, on October 8, 1913." At a latitude of 54 degrees South, the island is not in the Antarctic. Dmgerrard (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The antarctic is not simply defied by latitude. South Georgia and hence Grytviken, is generally seen as located in the Antarctic as it is south of the Antarctic Convergence. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. It is defined by the Antarctic Circle at 66° 33′ 44″ (or 66.5622°) south of the Equator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circle or at the very most by the Antarctic Treaty from 60 degrees South. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System Dmgerrard (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to respond in such a manner to a perfectly reasonable reply. Secondly, the material is sourced per WP:RS and WP:V, this is how wikipedia works, WP:VERIFIABILITY not WP:TRUTH. Finally, your own personal opinion, which is what you're expressing, is not suitable as the basis for editing as this is WP:OR. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a personal opinion, it is a geographical fact which is easily verified even by Wikifreaks. Dmgerrard (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's personal opinion. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No it isnt. The Antarctic Circle is the only fixed boundary which is irrefutable. The article should be changed but I will leave it to those who hide behind silly names. Dmgerrard (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you measure a border? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case by astronomical observation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic Dmgerrard (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer. That measures no borders. You'll notice that by the complete absence of the word "border" in the whole article. And before you start arguing more on this path, show me how you measure the border between, say, Norway and Sweden, by measuring Ecliptics. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you are wittering about now but you seem to have strayed from the point. The obliquity of the ecliptic defines the Poles, the Equator, the Tropics and the Arctic & Antarctic. The Circle gives us a far more reliable definiton than a convergence zone between ocean currents which by its definition must be fluid. I speak as a navigator who has actually been to Grytviken and knew full well where I was and more importantly where I was not. That may not suffice as Wikievidence but its good enough for me and I suspect most people who live in the real world. Dmgerrard (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No it does not. What comprises the Antarctic is defined by people, not by astronomy. It is good of you anyway to admit, which you now do, that your standpoint is your personal opinion. Which is what we said above. It seems we now agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. People can disagree about definitions that other people have invented. We have no control over the heavens where matters are defined by a higher authority and are absolute. My opinion is no more personal than yours. Are you equally flexible about what is meant by the Tropics? Dmgerrard (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, last try to make the penny drop:
"People can disagree about definitions that other people have invented." - Exactly. And the Antarctic is a concept invented by...? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
God. Dmgerrard (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. Try again. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)