Talk:Timeline of European exploration

Davis and the Falklands "Discovery"

There are arguments for not writing "1592 - Davis discovers the Falkland Islands. Maybe Davis landing can be stated in another way since the islands appear in much earlier maps than 1592. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copdefalç (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC) :Just because a landmass appears in some map(s) doesn't mean it actually represents a real island(s). Please provide a scholarly source that definitively states that the Falklands were discovered prior to Davis's sighting in 1592. From what I remember reading, your argument appears rather weak. OldBabyBlue (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)(Struck out comment by banned user: Xyl 54 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC))

Guidelines for additions to article

People need to stop adding superfluous entries to the article. To combat this, the following rules will be adopted:

• 1) Only include the first (not second or third) European(s) to discover and/or chart a particular region.
• 2) Do NOT include the first to settle a region if they were not also the first to discover/chart it.
• 3) No dubious claims only supported by secondary sources (e.g. that bastard Vespucci).
• 4) The article is written in present tense (not past tense), so any new entries will follow the same tense.
• 5) No entries that include discoveries made in the ocean or in outer space (there are separate articles for them).

GammaCepheus001 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC))(Struck out comment by banned user: Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC))

Cabot and "Mainland North America"

Why is Cabot credited with reaching Mainland North America on his first voyage? Newfoundland is an island, not the mainland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:D00:1630:C0C0:AEEC:E1A0:3C46 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversy on the inclusion of four items

I've run into a dispute with another editor over the inclusion of the following four items:

• 1702 – The Spanish ship Rosario discovers Rosario Island, later renamed Nishinoshima in 1904, around 940 km (584 mi) south-southeast of Tokyo.
• 1978 – A Danish survey team discovers Oodaaq, a gravel bank north of Kaffeklubben Island, Greenland.
• 2013 – Yaya Island is sighted for the first time from a Russian helicopter.
• 2021 – A Danish-Swiss research expedition coordinated by Morten Rasch, looking for Oodaaq, accidentally finds Qeqertaq Avannarleq instead.

The other editor believes that these are too small and insignificant to warrant inclusion, and that gravel banks, reefs, and islands under one square mile in size should be automatically excluded. They do not find the ability to cite news articles about the discoveries to be an indicator of significance, because "the news will report on anything". They are apparently passionate about this, since their entire edit history involves removing entries from this article. They have responded to me adding these entries twice by saying "please stop vandalizing this page", which I think is a bad faith characterization of my actions.

I believe these are appropriate entries for the article because:

1) They are pieces of land discovered by Europeans

2) There is no previously specified minimum size for inclusion in the article

3) Most importantly, all of these pieces of land are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles that in turn contain citations from valid sources. If they are not significant enough for the article, surely their Wikipedia pages should be deleted as well.

Like I said, I'd like to open this up to other editors to start forming a consensus whether any or all of these should be retained in the article. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a bunch of tiny specks of land that have wikipedia articles. That doesn't mean we should include every single one. All the entries up until yours included significant stretches of coastline, river, or a number of island discoveries. Your entries are the only tiny, insignificant ones on here. Please stop adding them. ChristopherColumbus1492 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I am definitely aware of your position, which I discussed in my post. I'm now looking for other editors to share their opinions on it as well. I only added them in twice, in line with the three revert rule, the second time with more motivation in the edit summary. I have made it clear I am not going to add them back in unless a consensus forms supporting their inclusion, so you do not have to ask me to stop adding them. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You added nothing. There wasn't a single entry that included underwater discoveries until you added one. If you wanna create an article on underwater discoveries knock yourself out but don't include that trash here. Why do you keep adding tiny, insignificant discoveries? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. You wanna answer my question? ChristopherColumbus1492 (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment on the issue, not the other editor. You also don’t own the page, so your opinion about what’s significant or not is just that. Let’s not head to ANI, ok? Parsecboy (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So you think a gravel bank is "significant" How exactly? ChristopherColumbus1492 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we check to see if ChristopherColumbus1492 is another sockpuppet of Jonas Poole, who currently has 40+ banned alt accounts, two of which commented above on this exact talk page on two different occasions years apart? He was/is famous for getting furious and attacking other editors for not agreeing with his specific whims. If it quacks like a duck... Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

So you're gonna point fingers instead of answer my question? Sounds like you know you lost. ChristopherColumbus1492 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I already included my rationale for adding the entries in my original post here. This isn't about winning or losing, I just wanted to hear more opinions from other people on whether those entries belonged. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

So by your definition, a gravel bank shouldn't be included? Well, I'm glad we settled that. ChristopherColumbus1492 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have received permission from a Wikipedia administrator to restore these items. I am thus doing so. Please don't remove them again unless more people weigh in and a new consensus forms against them. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

So you realized it wasn't gonna go your way so you went to the principal? I see. I'll be reverting your edits as a consensus wasn't reached. You did the opposite of what you said you'd do. That makes you a liar. I hate liars. ChristopherColumbus1492 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Discuss the dispute, not the other person. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out a second personal attack that was just made in an edit summary: "revert vandalism from vandal". Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I hate that I'm letting myself be dragged down into this argument, but: two to one is in fact a consensus. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qmwnebrvtcyxuz: what User:Parsecboy actually told you was "Your best bet would probably be to try to get more people involved - you might try posting neutral invitations for comments at relevant wikiprojects WP:GEOGRAPHY and WP:HISTORY seem like the best place to start). You could also start an WP:RFC or request a third opinion." They have been removed again and I back that removal. Seriously, a gravel bank? I'd strongly suggest starting an RfC which you can then post to the Wikiprojects. Keep it simple. Should there be criteria including size? might be a good question. Sources should not be the media in any case. If you can't find academic sources, then it isn't significant enough. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion on this without attacking me.

I would like to point out that User:Parsecboy said that to me after all the discussion that has gone on here. So the characterization of "what [he] actually told you...", insofar as it might be interpreted I misrepresented his words, is misleading. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, not mine. I'm just reporting what he said for clarity. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not a matter of interpretation (assuming you believe in the linear nature of time); they restored the material here on 18 April and I answered them more than a day later on 19 April. Chastising them for not listening to what I said is not a valid take on the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Thanks for the clarification. Did you give them permission? I should have checked the timeline rather than look for that. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Permission for what? It's not within my power to give or withhold permission for anything (as I told Qmwnebrvtcyxuz earlier); nor is permission required. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: exactly. Not our job. I was responding to the above statement "I have received permission from a Wikipedia administrator to restore these items. I am thus doing so. Please don't remove them again unless more people weigh in and a new consensus forms against them. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 4:12 am, 18 April 2022, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC+1)" where I assumed you were the Admin involved. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

While Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has had an account for a long time (in fact they predate me by a couple of weeks), they haven't edited a whole lot in that time, and it seems they aren't particularly familiar with how things work; hopefully this bit is more clear to them now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

When I said I received permission, I was basing it off Parsecboy saying: "Since discussion has petered out, and he seems to have stopped editing, you might just restore the material and move on. If he returns, I can deal with it." I took this to be 'permission' which I now realize was more suggestion. Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fine then, I can understand your confusion. I still would support an RfC. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion declined: There are more than two editors involved (specifically, They have been removed again and I back that removal. Seriously, a gravel bank? suggests involvement). As has been suggested, you can instead start a request for comments and post it to the relevant WikiProjects listed at the top of this page. — LauritzT (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)