Talk:Discovery Expedition

message: The account that the ice "suddenly fractured" to free the Discovery seems to be in contradiction with the  the book "The Rescue of Captian Scott" by Don Aldridge (1999)(Tuckwell Press) which give the account of how the ships Terra Nova and Morning worked for six weeks under McKay and Colbeck to make a channel to the Discovery and free the Discovery from the ice-- sawing and blasting all the way. There was no "sudden fracture" -- a claim which originated from Scott to cover up his own complete non-participation in the rescue. While I do not have the expertise to adjudicate, Aldridge makes good points to me, and I think this article should at least mention some of this controversy or refute it if anyone feels it can be refuted.
154.20.101.195 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suddenly fractured? 

message: I think that the article at present lacks the detail and care in presentation which a subject rated "high" importance warrants.  There needs to be an account of the expedition's origins, organisation and aims; the personnel list needs expanding beyond the present half-dozen names - one of whom wasn't on the expedition; the sections dealing with the 2 years in the Antarctic are sketchy and incomplete, making no mention of scientific work, and lacking a summary of the expedition's achievements.  There also needs to be a concluding section considering the consequences of this expedition for future polar exploration.  I am preparing appropriate revisions and new material to address these points.Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisions and rewrites completedBrianboulton (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to expand/revise/rewrite

message: I have withdrawn the GA nomination dated 1 February 2008.  The article has been developed considerably since then and I think it is ready for peer review.  This will also assist the GA nominations backlog Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for correcting the information regarding Crean.  As to Bonner & Vince, these are, I believe, incidents in the expedition rather than consequences from it. Vince's death is already in the narrative but I have added your bit about his memorial cross.  I have now incorporated the Bonner details into the narrative (incidentally, his accident was quite definitely in Lyttleton Harbour) and have restored my "Consequences" section.  I have kept your Smith references - Smith's book is now listed in the Sources.  I see you have also done a bit of work in the "Second relief" section.  I've had to tweak this a bit to get the right chronology - the difficulty is that different source books sometimes give differing details of the same event. Anyway, thank you for your continuing interest in these articles. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination withdrawn

message: These are responses to the comments of Ealdgyth, posted before the archive.
*Forerunners: I have reworded second sentence of first para, also second sentenne of second para.  I've accepted "summer of 1841-42" and, in the third para, have now written "at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries" which is close to what you suggested. I have incorporated your suggested wording for the last para of the section, with only a minor amendment.
*Royal Navy, Markham and Scott:I've rewritten the first paragraph of the section, and added a citation to the (slightly amended) last sentence of the section.
*Personnel: Reworded second sentence of first para. Added citation re Wilson at end of second para - though I've altered the sentence - and a footnote re Joyce at the end of the third para.
*Finance: Bird's and Bovril are food manufacturers, of baking powders and meat extract respectively. I have included these details in the text.
:Very cool. So they had free meat substitute and baking powder to go with their mustard (grins). I just find the little details to be interesting in articles like this. Thanks for indulging me! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works very well. I generally hate having to click through to another article just to grasp the context of what is being written about. Saying that the White Ensign was reserved for Navy vessels keeps someone from having to do that just to understand the sentence. Thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Very cool! THanks! Once again, my curiosity at work...Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, they were marginal requests, but better to be safe than sorry. When in doubt, cite it is my motto. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: For someone who hasn't read up much on the Antarctic expeditions (just what I acquired on my recent cruise down there) the changes make a world of difference in understanding what excatly the results of this expedition on what came later were. Very much clearer to me, at least. Mike'll probably disagree... (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Paperback could probably be cut out, it was just there and I figured it needed to be made explicit that it meant paperback. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: As for the image of the statue. Artwork is copyrighted, for varying terms depending on the country where the work is created. Taking a picture of a copyrighted work is what is known as a derivative work, and different rules on whether or not that derivative work can be copyrighted exist, once again varying by country. What I was trying to explain is that if the statue in the picture is still under copyright (i.e. hasn't entered the public domain yet) it may or may not be acceptable to take a picture of that statue and release it under the Commons license. If it isn't legal to do that, then the photographer who took the picture and uploaded it to Commons doesn't have the right to release it, and the sculptor might be able to come and make trouble for the photographer and/or Wikipedia, if the sculptor's rights are being infringed by the picture. It's all very complicated, and your best bet is to either ditch the picture or ask someone knowledge about this sort of thing over on Commons or here (I suggest User:Durova). I know enough for my photography business (in the United States) to just stay away from anything sculpted in the 20th century, honestly. And it appears the picture is taken somewhere else (New Zealand?) so all I can say is that the picture needs to be investigated based on the country the statue is in, which I have no clue on. Did that explanation make sense? Ealdgyth | Talk 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the light of the above I have ditched the statue picture and replaced it with a simple portrait photo of Scott.  Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Amendments after FAC comments archive

message: I have put a note on the copyright and usage status of the map in the talk page for the map. It is based on the Antarctic Digital Database, which is copyright data. Free use is permitted for non-commercial use, but must carry an acknowledgment of the source (as the map on the NOAA web-site does). As it is based on copyright data, it cannot be subject to Creative Commons licensing either. --APRCooper (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, the map was made by NOAA employees. The coastline contours on the map were created using data from the Antarctic Digital Database; however, and this is a very important point - facts and data cannot be copyrighted. (Which is why maps in general cannot by copyrighted, except for maybe their color schemes). Raul654 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You are very wrong. Facts and data cannot be copyrighted, at least not in the US. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (which found that a telephone book cannot by copyrighted). Maps can be copyrighted, but the protection offered is extremely weak, virtually non-existant. See this page (courtesy of the New York Map Society). Raul654 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: nuked. 91.125.101.92 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without being able to see the (since deleted) image, its source or source data, I'll offer the following general comments:  Data are typically only eligible for copyright if they express creativity (i.e. pass the threshold of originality).  Geographic coordinates (such as coastline contours) would likely be considered common property ineligible for protection.  Similarly, mere charts displaying such data are not eligible for copyright.  Maps, however, may be copyrighted as compilations (insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You are correct that Britain and other EU nations allow copyright on compilations and maps. You are wrong that the those rights are enforceable in the US - they are not. And because the servers are based in the US, the Wikimedia Foundation is bound by US copyright law, not British copyright law. Raul654 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to continue the argument, but maps are NOT mere compilations of data, and so are subject to copyright even in the USA. Look at any privately produced map if you don't believe me! But the issue is blurred because your primary map data is not copyright.--APRCooper (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Is the issue that the map cannot be used at all, or that free non-commercial use is allowed if the map carries an acknowledgement of its source - as implied in the opening paragraph of this discussion? Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is simply that the license terms for the data require acknowledgment of the source. I am perfectly happy for the map to be used if this condition is met; it was met by NOAA, but the acknowledgment was removed by whoever created the map. In fact I would encourage the use of the ADD; I am unhappy the map has been removed when my concerns could be met by a very simple change.--APRCooper (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the map had to removed because we cannot use material that has a noncommercial-use-only limitation; it goes against our basic mission. howcheng  {chat} 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map copyright 

message: What is this?  There's no link, so I haven't a clue! 86.133.215.114 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is linked in the very first paragraph. Dabbler (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heroic Age

message: According to the article, "The expedition did not, however, make a serious attempt on the South Pole". Numerous sources disagree; for example:
*http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8bFcJgX0lIUC&pg=PA97 -- "first serious attempt to reach the South Pole"
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/race_pole_01.shtml -- "the first British expedition to make an attempt to reach the Pole"
*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/shackleton/surviving/quest.html -- "aiming to be the first to reach the South Pole"
*http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tpPXLjoqUrEC&pg=PA177 -- "Although other sledging excursions were made in the summer of 1902-3, the most important was the attempt on the South Pole"
*http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gtVjSNvtFPoC&pg=PA48 -- "Robert F. Scott, Edward Wilson and Ernest Shackleton leave McMurdo Sound to attempt the South Pole"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.11 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point you make is reasonable, but please note my use of the word "serious". The South Pole was not a formal objective of the expedition, and Scott himself does not mention it as such, in connection with the Southern Journey. We have Wilson's casual mention of the possibility of reaching the Pole, but effectively he is saying the same as Scott; they simply wanted to get as far south as they could. This is the general view of most polar historians. Some writers of course may choose to call it an attempt on the Pole, without qualification, but I prefer to be a bit more cautious. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thanks, I see what you mean. After seeing so many apparently contradictory accounts I assumed this was probably just an out-and-out error in the article, so I added a "dubious" tag. Now it seems it's intentional and considered wording, so I've removed the tag. I'll leave it to the experts to decide if the current wording is satisfactory. 86.150.101.118 (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Robert falcon scott.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hi! I'm translating this article to the portuguese wikipedia and I've noticed that one of the sources is just "Markham". Could someone help to clarify this? Thanks, Carlos28 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Same problem from Romania, all the best Sebastianpin (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Not worthy of comment in the main article, but perhaps of interest to a passing researcher, might be an auction, by Christie, Manson & Woods, on 25 November 1904, including “The Property of The Officers, S.S. “Discovery,” National Antarctic Expedition—1901, being the surplus remaining over on the return of the S.S. “Discovery” from the South Seas in 1904. (My picture #20944.) JDAWiseman (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine Auction 

message: In addition to the recent tagged edit "The freezing of the ice was beyond the responsibility of the expedition (and its leader) plus in the end the relief mission proved to be unnecessary)"
it has to be said that Robert Scott never called for a relief mission and its arrival in the end proved to be totally unnecessary, as the ice broke loose anyway. See many accounts of the event from the members of the expedition themselves and other reviews by commentators of both the 20th and 21st century. --37.230.17.6 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery freezing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Discovery Expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216011619/http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/Robert%20Falcon%20Scott.htm to http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/Robert%20Falcon%20Scott.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified