This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.
Perhaps you don't mean "notion". It's a dismissive word. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC).
Notion: "Föreställning, begrepp, uppfattning, åsikt, aning, idé, infall". Uppfattning: "apprehension, perception, understanding, conception, idea, interpretation, opinion, conception, idea" etc. It seems it can be dismissive, but not necessarily in all circumstances? I have now asked an American, who said in a context like "the notion what X was a sailor comes from the book Y" xe found the word neutral. Maybe British English is different on this point, I have no clue.
No it is not meant to be dismissive, and I will be careful with that word in the future knowing it can be seen as implying something negative. What I meant is to add a statement of source to the record which I can not adeqately fit in the article, since I have no original source for it - it is mentioned in a note in the article on the expedition, but without explicit source. All the rest of what I have added are from the two sources I have given. Why don't you add the source on this one *hint hint* since it should be obvious that I can not? // Habj 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's Lundström, but I can't seem to find it right now. I will keep looking. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC).
The border between this article and the article on the expedition
I suppose this article should contain some short info on the expedition, but not too much since the expedition has its own article. If the current version is an adequate way of drawing the line I do really not know. // Habj 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The balance looks fine to me. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC).
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (non-admin closure) — Music1201talk 02:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose the use of an abbreviation rather than the full name. Board Wesger (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC).
Support per nominator. Contra In ictu oculi, WP:INITS says Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format. Examples ... J. P. Morgan. I see about 3x as many GBooks hits for "S. A. Andrée" without expansion (i.e. -"Salomon August Andrée") as for "Salomon August Andrée", which I think falls rather short of the "nearly as often as they use initials" exception to WP:INITS. Also, where his name is mentioned in the titles of books (see e.g. Worldcat), it is uniformly as S. A. Andrée. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)