Talk:Geological compass

Merge proposal
My main reason for suggesting that Breithaupt compass be merged into Geological compass is that the first version of the former contained the entire text of the latter, suggesting that it can be considered part of the same topic. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there's been no response in five days, I think it's okay to merge now.--I dream of horses (T) @ 08:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea- it all seems a little arbitrary.

Brunton Compass is an entry. Why then should not Breithaupt Compass also be an entry.

No response means people are busy doing things other than learning how to be a Wiki expert. Clear range (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Though it isn't at all clear in the current version of that article, a Google Books search for "Brunton compass" indicates significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think the same can be said for the Breithaupt compass. In this case though, notability wasn't my main concern (I wouldn't be surprised if more coverage of the Breithaupt compass could be found with a trawl through a decent library) – rather, the fact that there's really no reason for Wikipedia to have the same content available in two locations when redirects can be used to the same effect. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK - so whereas a Brunton is commonly used in North America, by a wider variety of geologists, a Breithaupt is a more specialised instrument. I can dig up more references. Looking at wikipedia with an Editor's eye (after all I do that job for several distinguished scientific journals) I see that there is no rhyme nor reason to many entries, and many entries are little more than random wanderings through a topic.

That's fine - it is a new way of publishing content - and it will evolve. But I am not sure that it is not a good idea to have redirects to more expansive coverage. I am a professor and quite busy. So I do this when I can. Expansive coverage has to come in increments I guess. So my thought is that perhaps short coverage in one place and more expansive in another - I agree that the same content is not a good idea. Shall I address this? Clear range (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Short coverage in one place which is expanded on elsewhere is called summary style, the idea being that long articles dealing with broad topics should contain brief summaries of more specific topics which are also articles in their own right. (For example the compass article has short sections on the thumb compass and the gyrocompass, each of which also have more expansive articles of their own.) Do you think more expansive coverage of the Breithaupt compass than is currently included in its own article and this article would be possible? I'm going to redirect Breithaupt compass here, but feel free to expand it back into an article which contains more in-depth information than the geological compass article. (By the way, if by "no rhyme nor reason" you mean no notability, then you should follow the deletion process for those articles.) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

removed advertising
I changed the article regarding to the advertising tag:

-differentiation between classic and modern compasses

-added images for the different types

-added new section about the history of modern compasses

-added section overview of implementations

-removed links from online shop and added in stat of that the original producers of the compasses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ims1986 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 February 2015