Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands work group

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Hi all! Given that this will affect a lot of articles (118 articles in total), I thought it better to start a discussion about this to see other opinions before being WP:BOLD and performing any additional mergers myself (I've already merged eight stubs into their parent articles the other day before realizing there's dozens of other articles). Although most articles about South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are stubs, I think we should also be thoughtful about what qualifies for having its own article per WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE, and especially WP:GEONATURAL. All the articles in the Category:Rock formations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its sub-category Category:Rock formations of South Georgia all rely solely on USGS public domain info and have all been stubs for over a decade (most of the articles seem to have been created by the same user in 2010). While I haven't done any comprehensive search for other sources for notability, I have serious doubts that literal rocks (almost all to small/rough for any form of human habitation) in the desolate, ice-cold seas surrounding Antarctica have enough coverage or things to be said about them to make up their own, comprehensive, stand-alone article.

That said, I think all the articles (~29) in Category:Rock formations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its sub-category should either be merged to a newly created list called List of rock formations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands or merged into their most logical parent articles (many of the rocks are close to islands which have their own articles also in need of expansion). In addition, I also propose merging all the stubs (~89 pages) in Category:Headlands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and its sub-category into List of headlands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands or merged into their most logical parent articles, per the same reasons above. While it can be helpful to have separate articles, especially for topics that warrant it, in my opinion this is a great example of where the excessive division of content on these exceptionally minor geographic features makes it tougher for readers to locate info and adds unnecessary complexity to a topic that really isn't that complicated. Cheers, Dan the Animator 18:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * pinging involved and potentially interested users. Thanks everyone and sorry for the bother, Dan the Animator 18:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

worth pinging too, given his extensive work on merging geo articles of Antarctica of late.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of merging trivial stub articles into parent articles on nearby features, and have been doing a lot of that lately for Antarctica, e.g. Russell East Glacier. The gazetteer-type information is preserved, but we get rid of tiny stubs and put the information into context. Some thoughts:
 * A regional list is not an appropriate target, since the rocks, headlands etc. are unrelated apart from being the same kind of thing.
 * An island, with headlands and rocks close offshore, is a natural target. For a sailor's point of view, they are very much features of the island. The rocks and headlands belong there.
 * Other features of an island such as bays, glaciers and hills can also be merged into the parent island article. A glacier may flow from a mountain into a bay that lies between two headlands and contains some tricky rocks.
 * I have seen attempts to merge feature descriptions into a parent in narrative form. It does not work well. A list form is much more readable. Wikipedia is a reference work. Nothing wrong with lists.
 * If there is any hint of notability, such as a source showing a bird colony or unusual geology, whatever, do not merge. But the parent article list could include the feature with a main link to its article.
 * Having a redirect from "Foo Rock" take the reader to "Bah Island" is disconcerting. The reader will think the link is broken. It should take them to "Bah Island#Foo Rock"
 * The redirects should each point to an anchor for the list entry, or (which I prefer) to a level-3 section heading. A level-2 list header followed by a lot of short level-3 sections may look a bit odd on a laptop, but on a phone the short sections look quite natural, and that is how most people see Wikipedia now.
 * We should preserve the coordinates. They are useful information
 * Another advantage of section headers for each feature name is that geogroup will pick up the header names and show it on a map. See first box to the right.
 * Without section names, we can still give the geogroup effect by adding name to the coordinates, e.g. Roman Knoll (Antarctica) is at -63.7°N, -58.46444°W
 * Of course, if the coordinates are too vague it does not work. See second box to the right
 * Lately I have been using copernix to link to an annotated satellite view of the feature and an OpenStreetMap view giving coordinates of features in the article. The annotated satellite view may show other features that should be merged into the parent article. See third box to the right
 * By merging stubs into their natural parents, such as islands, we make the article on the parent more useful, without losing any information. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Aymatth. We should aim to merge the lesser notable rocks and features. As long as the information we have and coordinates aren't lost.♦  Dr. Blofeld  06:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing I worry about is that often people merge articles simply by copypasting stuff over, without checking citation formats and the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the source article only cites one public domain or CC4.0 source, like GNIS or SCAR, it may be easier to just copy from the source. The list entries can be trimmed to avoid repetition: "is a feature of Foo Island in the Bah archipelago of the South Shetland Islands." can be dropped for an entry in a list of features of Foo Island; abbreviations can be expanded only the first time they appear in the list; convert templates can be coded consistently and so on. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed reply and for your work with Antarctica! :)  I agree a lot with your points although I will say for the stubs in question, I don't think it would make sense to have them each in their own separate sub-section (regardless of the section heading level #) like the way the article Russell East Glacier is formatted. For the South Georgia & South Sandwich Island rock formations articles in question, I checked all of them and they almost all have the form of one sentence along the lines of [insert name] is a rock, ## metres (## ft) high, which lies ## nautical miles (## km) off the southeast side of Candlemas Island in the South Sandwich Islands and a second sentence or two simply stating the origin/history of the name (example: They were charted and named in 1930 by Discovery Investigations personnel on the RSS Discovery II). Same is true for the headlands stubs based on my spotchecking.
 * Maybe if there's more info about a specific feature it could have its own dedicated section at the parent article (just like an actually notable feature can have its own separate article) but with the stubs as they are, I don't think there's enough content on the articles themselves to justify giving them individual sections (it would just end up making the parent/merge target article unwieldly long and unreadable imo). An example would be my earlier (tho definitely not perfect) merge of eight similar articles (specifically, I merged Grindle Rock, Wilson Rock, Freezland Rock, Fryer Point, Trulla Bluff, Harker Point, and Turmoil Point all to their parent article Bristol Island). While technically I could have just copy-pasted the few sentences into their own sections at the article for Bristol Island, similar to how the Russell East Glacier article is organized, I think having the "discovery content" separated into its own section while the rest (mostly geographic content) went in the other sections fit better with that article. And I'd assume this is the case with most of the other stubs & parents too.
 * While it is true this would possibly prevent a more section-specific redirect, I don't think there's anything too wrong with having it redirect to the article more broadly. That said, for most of the parent articles in question, the redirects could be sent to "Geography," "Geographic features," "Surrounding features" or whatever section already exists on the target article. No need to have the section title specifically be about the place and whether readers think this would be disconcerting is mostly subjective (I've personally used redirects that go to sections with different titles and had no issue with it and doubt many readers would have a particularly strong preference either way). For the coordinates, I completely agree and many thanks for explaining the templates! I'm not too familiar with the wiki markup for coords so any help is really appreciated!! :) Also, about Jo-Jo Eumerus's comment above (which by the way, apologies in advance if I am indeed one of those people!), I think the sort of mistakes that come from mergers can be avoided if these articles are all merged in one go by editors with a adequate familiarity of these types of articles where the sort of common errors can be avoided. Thanks again everyone for the replies and interested to hear more thoughts about this! (also feel free to ping me about anything!) Cheers, Dan the Animator 03:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically the stub content only takes two or three lines on a laptop, which gives a very short section. But if you look at it on a phone, as most readers do, the section takes half a screen, and is a reasonable chunk of information. The principle of least surprise is violated by redirecting to an article header or a section in an article where it is not immediately obvious that the link has come to the right place. If you really dislike short sections, an alternative is bolded entries in a bullet list, coded like:
 * Which renders
 * Keltie Head -63.78333°N, -57.68333°W. A rounded headland with vertical cliffs which rise to a small ice dome 395 m high, forming the northwest end of Vega Island. Discovered by the SwedAE under Otto Nordenskjöld, 1901-04, and named by him for Sir John Scott Keltie, Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, 1892-1915.[1]
 * A redirect to Vega Island will take the reader to this entry, so there is no surprise. Visually, the list is slightly more compact with bullets rather than level-3 headings, which would render:
 * Keltie Head -63.78333°N, -57.68333°W. A rounded headland with vertical cliffs which rise to a small ice dome 395 m high, forming the northwest end of Vega Island. Discovered by the SwedAE under Otto Nordenskjöld, 1901-04, and named by him for Sir John Scott Keltie, Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, 1892-1915.[1]
 * I do not see a big difference between the two styles. The bullet list maybe looks better on a laptop, and the sections look better on a phone. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A minor point: if you use level 3 headings in the list you should place after the lead section to avoid flooding the table of contents. If you use level 4 headings, place  after the lead section. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any policy or guideline where the mobile version is given special preference or priority over the desktop version and I doubt any policy like that exists. Principle of least astonishment also isn't a wiki-specific guideline but would probably be easily addressed by creating soft redirects if it is a major concern. For the page layout, its not about me not liking short sections (personally, it would make merging significantly easier so if anything I would actually prefer it).
 * It's about sticking to WP:MOS, specifically MOS:OVERSECTION and MOS:PARA, which are both established wiki policies. To cite MOS:PARA, Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose, each dealing with a particular point or idea...Bullet points should... be used in the body only to break up a mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort to comprehend. This isn't a complicated topic and per my comments above, splitting the discovery info and geographic info into separate sections is a fairly logical, cohesive division (readers who are interested in exploration look at the discovery section; readers who're interested in the surrounding geography could look at the "surrounding features" section). Also, to cite MOS:OVERSECTION, Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings. Dividing the content by each landform inherently will create lots of very short sections that are difficult to expand (if the stubs couldn't be expanded for 10+ years, I doubt their sections would either).
 * Also, a lot of the content is shared between the different landforms and there's no reason to say something like "charted and named in 1930 by Discovery Investigations personnel on the RSS Discovery II" five times in the same article for each of the different landforms (instead, it could easily be rewritten as "During the RSS Discovery II expedition, Discovery Investigations personnel charted and named in 1930 the features [insert names]"). And about TOC limit, that should only be used in very limited circumstances. Generally, only articles about highly complex, multifaceted topics should even need to have their TOC limited and stubs about mostly uninhabited islands are definitely not that. Hope my explanations make sense and let me know what you think! Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, a lot of the content is shared between the different landforms and there's no reason to say something like "charted and named in 1930 by Discovery Investigations personnel on the RSS Discovery II" five times in the same article for each of the different landforms (instead, it could easily be rewritten as "During the RSS Discovery II expedition, Discovery Investigations personnel charted and named in 1930 the features [insert names]"). And about TOC limit, that should only be used in very limited circumstances. Generally, only articles about highly complex, multifaceted topics should even need to have their TOC limited and stubs about mostly uninhabited islands are definitely not that. Hope my explanations make sense and let me know what you think! Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The information about features is gazeteer-type information, which is typically presented in list format. Running it together into blocks of prose makes it less accessible. The reader is likely to come to it from a link, such as one from the person it is named after, or from a search which found the redirect. They go direct to the list entry, which tells them what they want to know, then maybe browse other features in the list, or the information about the parent. I would say Manual of Style/Lists is relevant, including MOS:EMBED and MOS:DEFLIST. This suggests a simple markup for list entries, which is fine as long as the name has an anchor.
 * Keltie Head
 * -63.78333°N, -57.68333°W. A rounded headland with vertical cliffs which rise to a small ice dome 395 m high, forming the northwest end of Vega Island. Discovered by the SwedAE under Otto Nordenskjöld, 1901-04, and named by him for Sir John Scott Keltie, Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, 1892-1915.[1]

Aymatth2 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is true if the target/parent articles are lists themselves but they aren't (MOS:LIST would be applicable if the separate, stand-alone earlier proposed were created but for the current parent articles, they fall under the general MOS guidelines for articles). The content doesn't have to be "blocks" of prose: a lot of it can be trimmed into the parent articles and probably be turned into a few sentences. I think an embedded list may make sense but I feel there's too much unnecessary fluff that would just be repeated (most of the landforms were named by the same few expeditions and having to restate that for each landform is too redundant, amongst other duplicate info/boilerplate text shared between them). If a list were necessary tho, it would be better if it were in a table to avoid the excess text (to use the Keltie Head example above, the info can be summed up in 4-5 columns: coordinates, physical description, elevation, and name origin/history). Dan the Animator 21:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically most or many of the features were named by the first expedition to explore the area, but some were named later. The repetition of discovery information can be handled by a note earlier in the article saying something like "The island was discovered by the SwedAE under Otto Nordenskjöld, 1901-04, who named many of the features", then saying in the feature entry "Named by Nordenskjöld for Sir John Scott Keltie, Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, 1892-1915.[1]"
 * A 5-column table just doesn't work on a mobile phone. We really do have to be sensitive to the way most readers will see the information. Check this discussion on your phone: Aymatth2 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see the benefit of repeating "named by Nordenskjöld." If its already stated earlier in the article, why state it again? Why not just condense it and say "The SwedAE expedition led by Otto Nordenskjöld discovered the island in 1901-04 and named many of its features, including Keltie Head who he named for then-Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society Sir John Scott Keltie."? About the table, thanks for creating a sample! I did check it on my phone and it works perfectly fine. Some sideways scrolling is necessary but there's no major issues as far as I can tell.
 * Considering it looks like we'll agree to disagree about which approach is better for merging the content, if its alright with you, I can send a request at WP:3O for a content-neutral, uninvolved editor to see their opinion. Whatever solution there is to merging, it probably would be better coming from an editor with less topic knowledge (since generally readers should be assumed to have a limited knowledge on the topics they read, like SGSSI). Let me know what you think! Dan the Animator 01:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also about the sideways scrolling: I'm not sure if there's any policy against it but considering many WP:FLs use bigger tables with no issue, I see no reason why there would be an issue with this 5-column one. Dan the Animator 01:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeating "named by Nordenskjöld" is because half the features were named by someone else. Vega Island has features named by Nordenskjöld, UK-APC, Ross, FIDS and AAE. Putting the naming information along with the coordinates, description etc. for a feature is natural. It would be awkward to have one section explain each feature's name, and another section describe where and what each feature is. If I followed a link from John Scott Keltie to Keltie Head, I would want to see what and where it is, and also who chose the name.
 * On a phone, the text form is more compact and much easier to read than the tabular form. Sideways scrolling is very awkward. Also, the column headers will be invisible for any but the first couple of table entries. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I see where the disagreement is coming from. While for Antarctica it might be true that there were tons of expeditions, meaning each landform has unique name histories, that isn't the case with SGSSI. Just spotchecking through the landform articles in any of SGSSI's categories would show that effectively all the features were named by three sources: Capt. James Cook, the Discovery Committee and/or the UK-APC. And this is true throughout the island chain. The sample tables below (which thanks again for making them) have a bit of fluff in the text (phrases like "broken sharply" and "spectacular, near vertical" sound unencyclopedic in tone and add extraneous trivia) and could be slightly smaller.
 * It's more unnatural to repeat the text "discovered and named by Capt. James Cook" 10+ times in a single article than it is to condense it into a separate "Discovery" section where it could say "On his voyage, Capt. James Cook discovered and named various islands and landforms across the island chain, including..." I'm on mobile now while replying and still have no issue with the table (if large tables were a major accessibility issue or too awkward on mobile, wouldn't they be banned from being FLs, some of the highest quality work on wiki?).
 * That said, I still firmly think the stub content in question (which is exclusively for SGSSI) would be better off properly integrated with the existing content on their parent articles (much more so than I support a table). Since there's no opposition, I'll send a request at 3O for a third opinion for an uninvolved editor to chip into the discussion and hopefully bring a sort of compromise/resolution to this question. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aymatth2, just letting you know, I plan on switching out the examples below with SGSSI examples for increased relevance since this discussion is only about that British non-Antarctic island chain which has lots of differences with Antarctica (I'll make sure to maintain the examples' formatting as it is). After that, I'll add a request at WP:3O for someone to take a look at the discussion. Cheers, Dan the Animator 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you leave the Antarctica examples and add another set for Siuth Georgia etc., maybe before them, with a different title. It would be useful to see the difference. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or if you pick an island, I could do it. I have been churning these out, so could maybe
 * do it faster. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be great, thanks Aymatth2!!! :) Below's two random headlands & two random rock features I selected based on their shared connection to the main island South Georgia, which most of the stubs are apparently related to.
 * Headlands: Restitution Point & Chaplin Head
 * Rock formations: Bucentaur Rock & Ems Rock
 * Also, if you can add the Format comparison samples using the above stubs on top of the Antarctica ones that would be great! (I think it would make sense to have them under a subsection called "Comparison of formats for SGSSI stubs" and to rename the other subsection to "Additional comparison of formats for Antarctica stubs") By the way, no worries about rushing with this! I've been busy myself with other on-wiki things and some really unexpected off-wiki things recently (hence my sometimes delayed replies here) so feel free to take your time! Thanks again for everything and let me know if I can help with the format sample creations! Dan the Animator 00:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey I noticed you already starting merging some of the SGSSI stubs with your preferred format. I really appreciate your eagerness to help with the merging but I was hoping we both could hold off on actually doing any of the merges until we came to an agreement or consensus here of how those merges should be done. I don't mind you making merges in other topic areas (e.g. Antarctica) but since this discussion about SGSSI is still open, I think it would be best to only make improvement edits to SGSSI articles and no merges until the discussion final outcome. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that merging should be done to a parent such as bay, island or peninsula that "owns" the feature, but have not converged on a format. It takes effort to work out which articles should be merged into a parent, and to clean up the result: resequence, fix links, drop redundancy etc.. After that, it is easy to change format. The simplest way to compare formats is to do a couple of merges, tidy them up, then present them here in each of the four formats. We can pick the one we want and apply it to the merged articles.
 * You suggested four sample features. The natural target for Restitution Point is Prince Olav Harbour, but that has already had several stubs merged into it, with raw redirects to the article header, no anchors, information such as coordinates dropped. I prefer to skip that one. Chaplin Head naturally merges into Undine Harbour. Bucentaur Rock and Ems Rock naturally merge into Stromness Bay. I propose to continue those merges in level 3 header format, which is easiest, then present versions in different formats here. We can decide which we want to use.
 * Again, merging takes some thought and effort, but reformatting the result is simple and mechanical. I am not interested in an edit war. Can you please undo your reversions so I can continue. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly we agree on merging to parent articles but disagree on formatting. But the way to demonstrate the different formats is not and should not be to test them out on 10+ articles themselves. This creates unnecessary extra work in all outcomes and decreases the importance/effectiveness of this discussion by incentivizing ourselves/other users to "try out" their own merge formatting. I don't disagree that doing some of the merge work now could be slightly helpful (e.g. for the technical aspects) but I don't think it's particularly fair or helpful to go through with all the merges with your format and then return to this discussion (if your or my formatting is applied to all the merges, other users (including the 3O) could make the argument to keep it as-is, thereby weakening the strength of the argument for the other formatting).
 * About Restitution Point, as mentioned above, I completely randomly selected from the category of Headlands of South Georgia. I didn't want to add in any of my own biases into the selection process and I think the random selection increases the applicability of the page to the other pages in the category. Same goes with the others. The idea was to replicate the samples you gave below about Antarctica with the content of those 4 stubs, not to do anything with the stubs themselves. That said, I don't mind choosing another one.
 * I also really don't want to edit war but like almost any other wiki discussion, I think it's best practice and only fair to avoid making edits that have undue interference with the outcome of the discussion. I have an off-wiki thing I really have to deal with right now unfortunately so I can't follow up until a bit later today but it would mean a lot if you could avoid making any more mergers or major edits with SGSSI articles. I commit to having the WP:3O request sent as soon as possible and trying to speed up the resolution of the discussion but until then please avoid any merging any SGSSI stubs. Thanks and really sorry about the reverts, Dan the Animator 17:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The format decided here is the format that will be applied. A realistic comparison of formats, particularly between the 1-para and 2-para formats, can only be done for related features merged into a common parent, where we can see the overlap of content for side-by-side features, and how much duplication can be eliminated. I do not see much difference between South Georgia stubs and parents and Antarctica stubs and parents, but am willing to provide good faith samples for review if they are not immediately reverted. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Aymatth2! Apologies for the later than anticipated followup but good news, I just opened a request at 3O so hopefully there'll be a sort of resolution to this discussion soon. Also, thanks for the additional samples below! I think they're tremendously helpful in general and will also probably help the 3O figure this discussion out too. I agree with the need for a common parent to compare 1-para and 2-para formats though I'm not particularly supportive of the idea of using live articles as test sample pages per my reasons above.
 * That said, after thinking about it a lot more earlier today, given my pre-discussion merger of content from multiple stubs to Bristol Island using my formatting and my use of that live page as an example earlier in the discussion, I will undo all my earlier reverts from today with the understanding that no additional mergers are made (in any format) until this discussion is concluded. That way, there could be a more equitable comparison between the two formattings (feel free to also make whatever edits necessary to best represent your formatting on Undine Harbour (which I'm guessing is your key target page for comparing?)). Hopefully this should be alright but please let me know if you disagree with any of the above and many thanks again for your outstanding diplomacy throughout this whole discussion! Dan the Animator 05:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I should have just finished undoing all my reverts but feel free to let me know if I missed any/messed up anything! Also, have to say but great photo choice with Undine Harbour and thanks for adding in that infobox! Definitely helps to see these things to appreciate their awe effect! :)  Dan the Animator 05:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Aymatth2, hope you're doing well! Apparently the 3O was rejected for having "more than 2 editors" which I personally think is a mistake on CanonNi's part but is what it is I guess. Considering how much time's passed, if its alright with you, I rather just accept your preferred formatting and go forward that way and forget about 3O. I still feel that my formatting was the better approach but at this point, I really rather move on and try to help finish up this merging task since getting the merging done is more important than the formatting (plus, your formatting's also easier to go with). Let me know if this is alright with you and if you'd like to work together on finishing up all the mergers. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me. I have sort of lost interest in stub merging though. It makesthe parent articles more useful, and saves effort on stub AfDs, but it gets very mechanical after a while... Aymatth2 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry!!! Your merges and contributions on Antarctica are great and I was really looking forward to working together with these islands and bringing down the stub count. Well hopefully you get your interest back with merging but no worries if not. Thanks for everything! :) Dan the Animator 17:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

3O TLDR Summary

 * For 3O: in case the above discussion is TLDR, here is the brief sum-up of the discussion and disagreement
 * Both Aymatth2 and I agree that the stub content should be merged but disagree on approach:


 * - Aymatth2 is in favor of merging the content into separate subsections for each merged stub (see sec #3: List of Headings below (or go to the Undine Harbour article). It looks better on a phone, and the redirect brings the reader directly to all of the info they're looking for. Coordinates are less obtrusive than inline to the text, but help the reader understand where the features are. See Geogroup boxes to the left.
 * - I (Dan the Animator) am in favor of merging the content into existing sections within the article (see sec #2: Two paragraph below (or go to the Bristol Island article). One key reason for this is it reduces redudancy/fluff (a lot of the to-be merged stubs share details like when/by whom they were discovered).
 * Other approaches (separate list article, creating tables at target page, etc.) are also mentioned and demonstrated in this discussion. Feel free to ping if there's any questions. Dan the Animator 16:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ps. Aymatth2, I tried to present your position best I could without it being too long but feel free to edit my explanation of it above! Dan the Animator 16:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of formats: South Georgia Island example (Undine Harbour)
Check the appearance on a phone as well as a laptop. A more realistic example would have ten or more features, so the paragraphs would be considerably longer. Anchors may be placed in any of the formats so that redirect pages can jump to the description of the appropriate feature. With the two-paragraph approach, presumably that would be in the second paragraph. The reader may not realize there is more about the feature in the first paragraph. Click to link, , ,

1. Table

2. Two paragraph

Coal island was charted by Discovery Investigations personnel on the Discovery during the period 1926-30, and by HMS Owen in 1960-61. It was named by the UK-APC in 1963 in association with Coal Harbor. The name Coaling Harbor, given to Coal Harbor in about 1912, suggests a possible early use of the bay by sealers and whalers. The name was shortened to Coal Harbor by Discovery Investigations personnel. Frida Hole was probably named by early whalers or sealers who used the bay as an anchorage. The name Em Island was given for Grassholm, probably by Discovery Investigations personnel who surveyed this coast in 1926. The SGS, 1951-52, reported that this feature is known to whalers and sealers as "Grassholmen," and that Em Island is unknown locally. The indefinite form of the name has been approved. Chaplin Head was charted by Discovery Investigations in 1926, when the hill above the headland was called "Sharp Peak." Following the SGS, 1951-57, renamed Chaplin Head after Lieutenant Commander John M. Chaplin, Royal Navy (1888-1977), survey officer in Discovery, 1925-27, and in charge of a hydrographic survey party in South Georgia, 1928-30.

Coal Island (-54.0421°N, -37.9461°W) is a small tussock-covered island with off-lying rocks marking the west side of the entrance to Coal Harbor, near the west end of South Georgia. Coal Harbor (-54.0426°N, -37.9421°W) is a small bay 0.5 nmi east of Undine Harbor. Frida Hole (-54.0481°N, -37.9303°W) is a small bay lying 0.5 nmi southeast of Coal Harbor. Grassholm (-54.06083°N, -37.93454°W) is an island 1 nmi south of Frida Hole. Chaplin Head (-54.05786°N, -37.90267°W) is a headland between Undine Harbor and Schlieper Bay.

3. List with headings

-54.0421°N, -37.9461°W. A small tussock-covered island with off-lying rocks marking the west side of the entrance to Coal Harbor, near the west end of South Georgia. Charted by Discovery Investigations personnel on the Discovery during the period 1926-30, and by HMS Owen in 1960-61. Named by the UK-APC in 1963 in association with Coal Harbor. -54.0426°N, -37.9421°W. A small bay 0.5 nmi east of Undine Harbor. The name Coaling Harbor, given in about 1912, suggests a possible early use of the bay by sealers and whalers. The name was shortened to Coal Harbor by Discovery Investigations personnel. -54.0481°N, -37.9303°W. A small bay lying 0.5 nmi southeast of Coal Harbor. Probably named by early whalers or sealers who used the bay as an anchorage. -54.06083°N, -37.93454°W. An island 1 nmi south of Frida Hole. The name Em Island was given for this feature, probably by Discovery Investigations personnel who surveyed this coast in 1926. The SGS, 1951-52, reported that this feature is known to whalers and sealers as "Grassholmen," and that Em Island is unknown locally. The indefinite form of the name has been approved. -54.05786°N, -37.90267°W. A headland between Undine Harbor and Schlieper Bay. Charted by Discovery Investigations in 1926, when the hill above the headland was called "Sharp Peak." Following the SGS, 1951-57, renamed Chaplin Head after Lieutenant Commander John M. Chaplin, Royal Navy (1888-1977), survey officer in Discovery, 1925-27, and in charge of a hydrographic survey party in South Georgia, 1928-30.
 * Coal Island
 * Coal Harbor
 * Frida Hole
 * Grassholm
 * Chaplin Head

4. One paragraph

Coal Island (-54.0421°N, -37.9461°W) is a small tussock-covered island with off-lying rocks marking the west side of the entrance to Coal Harbor, near the west end of South Georgia. Charted by Discovery Investigations personnel on the Discovery during the period 1926-30, and by HMS Owen in 1960-61. Named by the UK-APC in 1963 in association with Coal Harbor. Coal Harbor (-54.0426°N, -37.9421°W) is a small bay 0.5 nmi east of Undine Harbor. The name Coaling Harbor, given in about 1912, suggests a possible early use of the bay by sealers and whalers. The name was shortened to Coal Harbor by Discovery Investigations personnel. Frida Hole (-54.0481°N, -37.9303°W) is a small bay lying 0.5 nmi southeast of Coal Harbor. Probably named by early whalers or sealers who used the bay as an anchorage. Grassholm (-54.06083°N, -37.93454°W) is an island 1 nmi south of Frida Hole. The name Em Island was given for this feature, probably by Discovery Investigations personnel who surveyed this coast in 1926. The SGS, 1951-52, reported that this feature is known to whalers and sealers as "Grassholmen," and that Em Island is unknown locally. The indefinite form of the name has been approved. Chaplin Head (-54.05786°N, -37.90267°W) is a headland between Undine Harbor and Schlieper Bay. Charted by Discovery Investigations in 1926, when the hill above the headland was called "Sharp Peak." Following the SGS, 1951-57, renamed Chaplin Head after Lieutenant Commander John M. Chaplin, Royal Navy (1888-1977), survey officer in Discovery, 1925-27, and in charge of a hydrographic survey party in South Georgia, 1928-30.

Comparison of formats: Antarctica example (Vega Island)
Click to link, , ,.

1. Table

2. Two paragraph

Keltie Head was discovered by the SwedAE under Otto Nordenskjöld, 1901-04, and named by him for Sir John Scott Keltie, Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, 1892-1915. Sandwich Bluff was charted in 1945 by the FIDS, and so named because a horizontal snow-holding band of rock breaks the western cliff giving it the appearance of a sandwich when viewed from the north. Vertigo Cliffs were named allusively by the UK Antarctic Place-Names Committee (UK-APC) in 1987. The name of Cape Well-met commemorates the long delayed union at this point of a relief party under Doctor Johan Gunnar Andersson and the winter party under Doctor Otto Nordenskjöld after twenty months of enforced separation. Cape Gordon was discovered by a British expedition 1839-43, under James Clark Ross, and named by him for Captain William Gordon, RN, a Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty. ...

Keltie Head (-63.78333°N, -57.68333°W) is a rounded headland with vertical cliffs which rise to a small ice dome 395 m high, forming the northwest end of Vega Island. Sandwich Bluff (-63.83333°N, -57.5°W) is a flat-topped mountain, 610 m high, broken sharply at its west side by a steep dark bluff standing slightly west of center on Vega Island. Vertigo Cliffs (-63.8°N, -57.43333°W} are spectacular, near vertical cliffs on the north coast of Vega Island. The cliffs rise to about 200 m high and extend west for 7 nmi from Cape Well-met, broken by a cirque near the west end. Cape Well-met (-63.78333°N, -57.31667°W) is a dark, conspicuous headland near the center of the north side of Vega Island, close south of Trinity Peninsula. Cape Gordon (-63.85°N, -57.05°W) is a jagged headland 330 m high, forming the east end of Vega Island.

3. List with headings

-63.78333°N, -57.68333°W. A rounded headland with vertical cliffs which rise to a small ice dome 395 m high, forming the northwest end of Vega Island. Discovered by the SwedAE under Otto Nordenskjöld, 1901-04, and named by him for Sir John Scott Keltie, Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, 1892-1915.
 * Keltie Head

-63.83333°N, -57.5°W. A flat-topped mountain, 610 m high, broken sharply at its west side by a steep dark bluff standing slightly west of center on Vega Island. Charted in 1945 by the FIDS, and so named because a horizontal snow-holding band of rock breaks the western cliff giving it the appearance of a sandwich when viewed from the north.
 * Sandwich Bluff

-63.8°N, -57.43333°W. Spectacular, near vertical cliffs on the north coast of Vega Island. The cliffs rise to about 200 m high and extend west for 7 nmi from Cape Well-met, broken by a cirque near the west end. Named allusively by the UK Antarctic Place-Names Committee (UK-APC) in 1987.
 * Vertigo Cliffs

-63.78333°N, -57.31667°W. A dark, conspicuous headland near the center of the north side of Vega Island, close south of Trinity Peninsula. The name commemorates the long delayed union at this point of a relief party under Doctor Johan Gunnar Andersson and the winter party under Doctor Otto Nordenskjöld after twenty months of enforced separation.
 * Cape Well-met

-63.85°N, -57.05°W. A jagged headland 330 m high, forming the east end of Vega Island. Discovered by a British expedition 1839-43, under James Clark Ross, and named by him for Captain William Gordon, RN, a Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty
 * Cape Gordon

4. One paragraph

Keltie Head (-63.78333°N, -57.68333°W) is a rounded headland with vertical cliffs which rise to a small ice dome 395 m high, forming the northwest end of Vega Island. Discovered by the SwedAE under Otto Nordenskjöld, 1901-04, and named by him for Sir John Scott Keltie, Secretary of the Royal Geographical Society, 1892-1915. Sandwich Bluff (-63.83333°N, -57.5°W) is a flat-topped mountain, 610 m high, broken sharply at its west side by a steep dark bluff standing slightly west of center on Vega Island. Charted in 1945 by the FIDS, and so named because a horizontal snow-holding band of rock breaks the western cliff giving it the appearance of a sandwich when viewed from the north. Vertigo Cliffs (-63.8°N, -57.43333°W) are spectacular, near vertical cliffs on the north coast of Vega Island. The cliffs rise to about 200 m high and extend west for 7 nmi from Cape Well-met, broken by a cirque near the west end. Named allusively by the UK Antarctic Place-Names Committee (UK-APC) in 1987. Cape Well-met (-63.78333°N, -57.31667°W) is a dark, conspicuous headland near the center of the north side of Vega Island, close south of Trinity Peninsula. The name commemorates the long delayed union at this point of a relief party under Doctor Johan Gunnar Andersson and the winter party under Doctor Otto Nordenskjöld after twenty months of enforced separation. Cape Gordon (-63.85°N, -57.05°W) is a jagged headland 330 m high, forming the east end of Vega Island. Discovered by a British expedition 1839-43, under James Clark Ross, and named by him for Captain William Gordon, RN, a Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty.

___