This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roald Amundsen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Norway This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Antarctica Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Arctic Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 7, 2004, December 14, 2004, December 14, 2005, December 14, 2006, December 14, 2007, December 14, 2008, and December 14, 2010.

I corrected "Spitzbergen" (the German name) to Spitsbergen (the international as well locally official name). Someone reverted it twice with the pretext "not an improvement". This is wrong: in the article this name is written once as "Spitsbergen" and once as "Spitzbergen". As a general rule any name should not be written in two or more different ways in the same article, so it is certainly an improvement to standardize the spelling. Explain please, why should it be better for this article to maintain this year-old flaw.
Beside that, "rewieving" means to revert changes that worsen an article, not to forbid any content that doesn't come from you.
And second "beside": as long as an article is in Class C ("Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems") I find difficult to imagine any change that is not in some way an improvement. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Both instances now read Spitsbergen, as per the name of that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, and no harm meant: I realise now that the revert was the work of some bot. With all the respect, but this bot could possibly benefit from a bit of revision: I don't think "not an improvement" is an acceptable criterion, especially when the judge is some piece of software. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Well spotted. Please feel free to continue with "considerable editing ... to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems". Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede states " He led the first expedition proven to have reached the North Pole in 1926" but the section "North Pole" does not actually ever state that he reached the north pole. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skepticalgiraffe: Hi! You wrote that “the section ‘North Pole’ does not actually ever state that he reached the north pole”.

But the revision of 11 November said “If these other claims are false, the crew of the Norge would be the first explorers verified to have reached the North Pole.” So the section “Reaching the North Pole” did say ”the crew of the Norge … reached the North Pole. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is written in the subjunctive tense. It implies that he reached the pole, but does not actually state this.

However, I have rewritten the text and now, I hope, it is clearer. I also added a citation that explicitly states that they flew over the north pole.^[1] Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skepticalgiraffe: Subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. That’s a minor point.

The main point is that the section says that Amundsen reached the North Pole (your edits have made that clearer), and is the first man proven to have done so.

The lead should mention this important fact: Amundsen led the first expedition proven to have reached the North Pole. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TylerBurden, which EngVar is this article? And which EngVar uses ".. dead of an apparent suicide"? In British English I think this would be ".. dead after an apparent suicide." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Martinevans123, from what I can see, there doesn't seem to be an established variation of English, so since the topic of the article is Norwegian no particular version needs to be used due to national ties per WP:ENGVAR. If we can find the revision that first introduced a particular variation, we could go with that. TylerBurden (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to respond to your second question, I can revert that portion of my own revert since that seems less about EngVar and might very well be more grammatically correct. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, on both counts. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]