From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Navigation:

Informal assessment prepatory to GA-run:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
  • Flesh out Integrated Bridge Systems. ECDIS seems like a good place to start.
  • Celestial section needs citations
    • Description of circle of equal altitude might be useful
    • Brief description of other observations: az/amp/mp/lan/
  • The marine sextant section is too heavy on anatomy and too light on 1) what it actually is used for, and 2) how it works. There should be some good info in Bowditch...
  • Radio navigation and satellite navigation focus more on history than the actual subject matter.
  • Cobble together a summary of History of navigation and add it back as a section
  • After stabilizing content:
    1. Develop stubby paragraphs per 1a
    2. Could use a number of copyedits
    3. Rework lead to mirror the new article's table of contents

HausTalk 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sailing re-organization effort[edit]

Although Navigation is not limited to navigation while under sail, I thought readers of this talk page might be interested to help with this. Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting this article to b-class[edit]

I was WP:BOLD and made some significant changes in the article today to try and open up a path towards making this a b-class article. The biggest changes were structural: grouping modern stuff together and removing a section on the point system. I also replaced the "types" section with text from the public domain section 101 of Bowditch 2002. If there are no objections, I'd like to continue, using WP:SUMMARY to add sections for piloting, radio/radar, and satellite navigation.

"Navigation in other cultures" strikes me as a minefield. I've had a couple of notions about what to do with it, and I think the best approach might be to split it off into another article. Any feelings? Cheers. HausTalk 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (p.s. archived old talk, too)

History of navigation split[edit]

In the process of rewriting the History section, the article grew to 50 kilobytes. As Navigation is still missing some significant pieces (bearing, range, latitude, longitude, prime meridian, etc...) and is likely to keep growing steadily, I decided to split History of navigation off to its own article. Probably the best thing to do would be to summarize the history article here on Navigation... Cheers. HausTalk 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Piloting and Pilotage[edit]

These topics seem to have a significant problem: the terminology simply doesn't seem to be used as recorded here. Bowditch, for example, defines piloting as "navigat[ion of] a vessel through restricted waters." (ref) Likewise, googling on "pilotage" indicates that it means the provision of piloting services, and not the act of navigation itself. I can find no evidence of a British/American division on this either.

I'd like to try to straighten this out, but I'm asking for some support for the current definitions before I go and make a radical rearrangement of this and other articles of dubious terminology (e.g. seamark). Mangoe 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look for a reference, but I have definitely seen "pilotage" used roughly as described in this article, and not as a term for "what a ship's pilot does". Paul Koning 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have come across some references to this with respect to aviation. Looking at the various official admiralty-type websites, however, shows a consistent use in reference to pilotage as the supplying of pilots. Mangoe 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone referred to Bowdich (The Practical Navigator)for a definition? I will look it up to make certain, but I believe it refers to piloting as visual navigation within sight of land and restricted maneuverability. Using DR, Visual and radar fixes to maintain a running track of the vessels position.I55ere (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This definition of "pilotage" gives the article a very strong maritime bias. "Pilotage" is also used by aviators to refer to any navigation by reference to landmarks, regardless of the airspace being flown through, the only requirement being good visibility. (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another terminology issue[edit]

This time it's sea mark, which is utterly unsourced. Again, I can't find evidence that it is used in the sense given here, at least not widely so. It most commonly appears as a catch-all term in legal lists (e.g. "No person shall make fast to, or interfere with, any light, beacon, sea mark, racing buoy or tide pole in the river." [1]). Other references speak of "sea marks" as more or less ad-hoc landmarks. The only case where I've found "sea mark" used as in the article is in a few Canadian boating sites, and they also use the the alternate terminology interchangeably.

The universal term here seems to be aid to navigation, or navigational aid. Right now the former has no article and the latter is stubby. It appears that two projects made two articles independently. My impulse is to fold everything into one of the two latter terms, and right now, I'm tending to prefer the former to the latter, as it is the form which seems to occur in formal definitions by the governing bodies. But before I do this I'd like to see if there is something behind the "sea mark" article of which I am unaware. Mangoe 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Derivation of word navigation[edit]

In the second sentence, I doubt the sanskrit derivation is true. I think the correct derivation is as described in : (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Marine navigation[edit]

The ideal marine should probably have a system integrated similar to the tempomaat Not sure where to put it dough (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed name change[edit]

The scope of this article is limited to marine navigation and as such I propose that the article be renamed to "Marine Navigation". Comments or thoughts?Rubisco (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

===I think the name should not be changed. The word navigate is derived from the Latin roots "navis" meaning "ship" and gate referring to movement. Why be redundant and change the name to ""marine ship movement." Yes I know the term navigate has been extended to aircraft and space ships, but that can easily be delt with within the article.--Tvbanfield (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was also think along the lines of non-vehicular navigation, such as mountaineering, orienteering etc. Perhaps the answer is to extend the scope of this article to reflect these other, more diverse types of navigation.Rubisco (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I was about to add a section here commenting on the obvious error in the opening which ignores navigation in the absence of a vehicle when I noticed this section. Since navigation on foot predates all other forms it is clearly inappropriate that an article headed 'Navigation' should ignore it. The passage on derivation of the word is inappropriate in the opening not least because words change their meaning over time, particularly becoming generalised to embrace concepts well beyond the scope of the origin. Either the article should be renamed to reflect its limited scope or, better, the opening should be completely rewritten to correctly reflect the subject. The derivation of the word, if it is to be included at all, this being after all an encyclopedia and not an etymological dictionary, should be in a subsidiary section. treesmill (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just going to open a section here called "naive question," but I see my topic already opened. Per the navigation disambiguation page, "Navigation is the theory and practice of navigating, especially the charting of a course for a ship, aircraft, or spaceship (American Heritage Dictionary)." If that is so, why is aircraft and space navigation not covered in this navigation article? Actually, I wandered in here wanting more information on SPOFs as that article seems to fail to cover anything but computer SPOFs/potential SPOFs. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Help! In search for DR data.[edit]

I work with other historians on the origine of medieval portolan charts. The question how accurate dead reckoning (DR) navigation by sails could be is of overwhelming importance there. We could not find much historic date because most nautic historians supposed DR had the accuracy of the portolan charts from the same time. But that is in doubt.

I created a page with the DR data I found so far. If you have data or sources, please send it there or to its discussion page. Besides historians, it may be of interest to present sail navigators too. -- Portolanero (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Celestial navigation[edit]

Weirdly enough, the article does not divide "Celestial navigation" in the subsections: "during the day" and "at night". Also the section about the chronometer should be made smaller and integrated to the sextant. Finally, in the section or even in the entire article, there is no mentioning of the gnomon, kamal, Cross-staff, Backstaff or astrolabe

See (gnomon= oldest navigation equipment )

also, the Sounding_line, the most useful instrument for navigation troughout history hasn't been mentioned. (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Attention: the link to the "Precision navigation tutorial at University of New Brunswick" is outdated. The GGE department of this university does, however, have a good collection of research and learning material which might be worth-while to link: see . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

proposed chart update[edit]

longitude and latitude
World map with equator.svg

The below is blah, isn't a good brief for those confused about which is longitude or latitude. The above is a memory tool that double re-inforces itself. Why: reader may not know which is being discussed in text (what the writer knows). Example if you say it is N-S line does that mean of deg. changing or deg. equal? if i don't already know i still don't know how degrees are marked!)

The chart below fails to show simple degrees for any country or time.

The below is repeated on 50+ similar wiki pages. The one above might be said to add little, but i think a good memory tool may be central to understanding the rest of the topic for those that don't already know which is which degrees to lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstar55 (talkcontribs) 18:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Solar compass and theodolite[edit]

the Solar_compass and theodolite aren't mentioned. They were used in WW2 by the SAS, see mention in article (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)