Talk:Bouvet Island

message: I removed a section on visits by radio amateurs because
* There isn't an independent source mentioning the expeditions in the article cited in the source.
* The expeditions have drawn little or no attention outside the world of amateur radio aficionado's
* The section was written in jargon. QSO sounds impressive, but it denotes little more than a chat over the radio.
* except for QSO's (that is, an "amateur radio contact") nothing of any importance is actually added to the knowledge about the island.
* except for the fact that it is "the remotest island", radio amateurs have no interest whatsoever in the island.
Hence I removed it as a WP:UNDUE and b WP:FANCRUFT. A section on the expeditions would be WP:DUE in the DXpedition page, but not (in it's tabular form) here. As to "this is one of the few reasons anyone cares about the island." I think ornithologists worldwide would strongly disagree. I would support a brief mention of the expeditions (with a link to DXpedition), but not a table with the number of radio contacts. Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the removal. I had considered removing it myself. It's just not a good fit, in a glaringly bad way (some of the worst content on WP has been written by amateurs). Dawnseeker2000 12:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And I restored it because HAM activity is one of the only reasons people visit this rock, making a significant percentage of all human visits ever. The reason is because it is a "country" or entity on the HAM list. I'm not a HAM but I keep up on obscure places. Feel free to trim (though it is hardly hurting anyone given the low amount of available content about Bouvit) but do not remove. If youbwant to trim fancruft tables try the beauty pageant pages. Also I was thanked for my restore.  If you want to list more scientific expedition content, please add it.  Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You answered not a single one of the concerns raised above (sources?), you merely claim "significant percentage of all human visits ever" w/o actually citing a source that states that. If you are concerned about pageant pages, turn your attention there. I will trim. Kleuske (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  QSO/DXpedition and WP:UNDUE 

message: No mention of this erruption in 2012? Article says Inactive Volcano...Visible on the Desktop version of google chrome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.239.221 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcanic Eruption 

message: In this article there is a , but not show in article, neither title nor inline. GUT412454 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like maybe the coordinates parameter for that infobox may not be working? I'm not sure but I moved it out of the template so it would at least be displayed at the top. - Aoidh (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate is not show 

message: Does anyone have any scientific literature on how penguins got so far out to this speck of an island? That's a very long swim.  Even with the probabilities of chance migration I am awed by this.  Any sources? 2603:6080:2103:3FA2:2512:3CAB:81E6:D86F (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: flightless birds/remoteness

message: Has no geologist made at least a formal speculation? 2603:6080:2103:3FA2:2512:3CAB:81E6:D86F (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  age of the island?