Talk:Fairway Rock/Archive 1

message: Should the article name have the word island in it?  All the references I find online refer to it as just Fairway Rock, which makes a lot more sense to me.  In fact, the online version of The Columbia Gazetteer of North America refers to it as Fairway Rock.  If that is its proper name, does anyone know if there's some policy concerning articles on islands to tack the word island onto the article even if it's not in the name?  I'm not sure if I'd agree to such a policy, but it would be nice to know.  We may need to get this article moved.  --Tox 05:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter 2005 created Fairway Rock then created Fairway Rock Island and did a cut-and-paste move. However, the real name of the island is Fairway Rock.  The Columbia Gazetteer's article as cited in this article, lists the name as Fairway Rock, and a perusal of the gazetteers listed on Wikipedia easily confirms the name.  As I thought, Wikipedia Naming conventions are clear on the matter.  Furthermore, rock is a geographical term in its own right, so the title makes as much sense as Fairway Rock Rock.  —Tox 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Article/Move Discussion

message: * Support see above —Tox 17:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move Votes

message: I fixed the cut-and-paste move first, then moved the article as requested. Rob Church Talk 07:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome

message: exactly how small does an island have to be to be to small for human habitation? Gringo300 07:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right, that makes no real sense.  There probably are legitimate reasons why the island's not suited for human habitation (or at least not practical for it), but the island is supposed to be a mile long, so if it has any width at all you could build a house on it.  I'm going to remove that statement.  --Tox 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Habitation

message: Look, references that are just listed in the reference section are useless to anyone coming to the article.  They in no way indicate which information in the article came from that source.  Furthermore, Paul Martin needs to read the guides I pointed out to him: Wikipedia:References and Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style.  Yes, these are guides and not policy, but they back up what I'm saying.  Putting numbered links throughout the article does not clutter it up, but at the same time a full citation must be placed in the references section at the bottom.  Would anyone else like to weigh in on this?  Tom1907 (who is not a sockpuppet) agrees with me.  —Tox 15:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I found a source for Beechey having named Fairway Rock -- namely, Beechey himself.  For what it's worth, Beechey also gives coordinates, but I'm sure modern sources are more reliable for that.
--Tom1907 16:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beechey, and the naming of Fairway Rock 

message: Does anyone have a good source indicating who thinks Fairway Rock was used to monitor Soviet submarines?  Or are we starting the rumor ourselves?  The US Navy site, of course, only discusses the RTGs and never says anything about Soviet submarines.  —Tox 16:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the rumor, since no one ever posted a source and I could not find one in my Google searches.  —Tox 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet submarine monitoring 

message: For anyone who would watch, follow or participate to that related discussion, I recommend the Talk: Hexadecimal metric system. Paul Martin 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion