Wikipedia

Talk:Concordia Station

Latest comment: 2 years ago by VIGNERON in topic Flags
Learn more about this page

Astronomical seeing at Dome C

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone please verify the accuracy of the Astronomy section? roncerito (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is correct. New developments coming up soon.
BTW, the panoramic image illustrating the article is mine. I have not been asked. It's Okay with me, but I'd appreciate a proper attribution and a link to the originating page http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/WinterDCe.html (PS: I'm not a wikipedia editor, so I won't do it myself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.153.37.167 (talk • contribs) 11.34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How far from the south pole?

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The data saying how far inland it is is good, but how far is this base from the South Pole? I followed the co-ordinates link, but that took me to the Mercator projection map used at Google Maps, so that was no good for the Antarctic. Carcharoth 12:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The data from this PDF (section 2) states that it's about 1670 km from the pole. Joyous! | Talk 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Carcharoth 15:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

What agreement was made that enabled the French and Italians to build a base in Australian territory?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Obviously some agreement was made and some capital, either real or political, changed hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.21.206 (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

All territorial claims in Antarctica are held in abeyance subject to the Antarctic Treaty System. Under the terms of the treaty all nations can use the continent for scientific research, regardless of location. This is why the United States can run a research station at the South Pole, which technically lies within all the territorial claims on the continent (except Norway's). Margolensis (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

"few tenths of kilometers" or "few tens of kilometers"?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The first (currently in the article) is a rather odd wording... one should write "few hundred meters" instead. Or is the latter intended? Please fix if you know this. -- 92.229.117.202 (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The first is probably right for most species (though it is a very strange wording), but I believe some penguins breed many km from the water, and therefore spend long periods of the year more than a few hundred meters inland, albeit without food. So, I changed it for now to "few tens". If further discussion decides on "tenths", then please change it to "few hundred meters", rather than reverting. StephenHudson (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Snow and ice environment

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the annual snowfall at Concordia ? (Is it a problem like at Halley?). How fast does the ice flow that Concordia is built on ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concordia Station. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concordia Station. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Concordia Station. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Station construction

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article would benefit a description of the Concordia station's construction, how it adjusts to fluctuating snow conditions, and its environmental control and life support systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.2.202.206 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Contradiction

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Astronomy section states that the station is 'suitable for extremely accurate observations', yet the seeing is 'significantly worse': So, which is it? Is the station good or bad for astronomy? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Flags

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Next to each person who has wintered-over at Concordia, there is a little flag icon. For MOST people the usage is reasonably clear but this does seem to be a case of MOS:FLAGCRUFT too. There are two possible meanings of these flag icons:

  • The national antarctic agency that the person is representing (primarily PNRA=Italy, or IPEV=France).
  • The citizenship of the person themselves (primarily, but not exclusively, for the person filling the ESA doctor position).

In three cases (at the time that I write this) there are TWO flags next to the person's name (Canada/Belgium, France/Italy, and Italy/Australia). These seem to be a mix of the two use-cases listed above. In three cases there is a flag of a third country next to a person who is in one of the PNRA/IPEV positions (2x Russian, and a Swiss).

I note that the same confusions exist in both the Italian and French Wikipedia articles.

I propose that we have no flags, or, a single flag which represent the nationality of the sponsoring research agency and not the citizenship(s) of the person. In many people's cases this is the same (i.e. an italian working for PNRA) but a non-negligible proportion of people have multiple citizenships or are citizens of different countries than those for whom they work (e.g. swiss citizen working for PNRA). I see no reason why we are listing dual citizenships, nor is it reliable-source verifiable for many people. Perhaps there should be a description of each Winter-over's group in prose, but it should not simplified down to merely flags without context. Wittylama 15:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Wittylama: agreed and the no flag solution seems the best to me. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 16:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordia_Station&oldid=1201092542"