Talk:Ascension Island/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

  • ఋ
=====

Plagiarizing article text from BBC?

The recent edits by user BeckenhamBear have added text that is identical to a BBC article recently written on this subject (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11137903).

Specifically, the sentences: The plan was that trees would capture more rain, reduce evaporation and create rich loamy soils. The "cinder" of an island would become a garden.

The wiki page lists this source as a reference but these sentences are taken word for word from the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.84.212 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The text submitted by BeckenhamBear is indeed copied directly. Copyright infringement possible and likely. Drmholliday (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with everyone here. Furthermore, this is more applicable to the Geography and ecology section. If we want to address this in this article, the text should be adapted from Green Mountain, foremost because of copyright, but also because I think it is worded better.

Actual Height

Anyone have info on how deep Ascension Island is below the ocean surface? From what I have heard, the exposed land is merely the tip of a tall underwater mountain. 71.226.179.164 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)aglassonion

Googling for "ascension island seafloor" gave me two references:
  • [1] says it's a 4000 meter volcanic mountain sitting on top of a locally thickened crust.
  • [2] says it ranges from 879m above sea level to about 3200m below sea level.
So the answer to your question is about 3200m. Wdfarmer (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wideawake Airfield

would it be sensible to take this info out of here and set up a separate page on this airfield.SuzanneKn 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

About the flora and fauna

can some one look into the exotic flora and fauna of the island as i have read in newscientist that there was and extensive campain to vegetate the iisland when it was a stone ship.


Image:Ascension_Island_Location.jpg Image:ascension-island.jpg - missing images removed from article, to be reinstated if they can be retrieved.

Most of the text in the Ascension Island article is reproduced from the Ascension Island website http://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/ascension.htm and is British Crown Copyright; the following copyright notice applies:

Material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to authors, the source and copyright status must be acknowledged.
The permission to reproduce Crown copyright protected material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.

Question about copyright

Does the statement above "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately" preclude editing by others to change the material? Dabbler 00:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Moot point, since there should be absolutely no crown copyright text in WP anywhere at any time! Too late for me to work on it tonite, but I'll try to scrub the bad bits tomorrow (I assume the the Ascension govt is not copying WP text onto their website... :-) ). Stan 04:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, the copyvio dates from 8 February 2005, and was perpetrated by User:GarciaB - apparently not his only offense. Hard to disentangle, because people subsequently rearranged all the text blocks. My plan is to "skeletonize" by deleting all the copied text, resulting in a clean version, then to add back new versions section by section. We'll lose some useful edits, but can't be helped. Stan 13:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms

If Ascension Island is a dependency of Saint Helena, shouldn't it be using Saint Helena's flag and badge? --  Denelson83  19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No basically. A dependancy is a seperate legal entity, and it is either entitled to its own flag and arms (as in Tristan da Cunha, another dependancy of St Helena, or the Falkland Islands Dependancy) or uses the home country's. Ascension Island does not have a seperate arms or flag as of yet, so uses the Union Flag and the Royal Arms of the UK. See the government homepage for instance.

Crown Copyrighted Royal Arms must not be used here Tauex 01:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As at 8 August 2007, the Ascension Island government website (http://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/aig/ascension-island-welcome.htm) displayed the St Helena flag. GeoWriter 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That is just a link though to the Governmet of Saint Helena website! The official flag of Ascension Island remains the same as the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's a shame that ALL British colonies don't just use the Union Flag and be done with it! YourPTR! 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this still apply? Ascension's constitutional position changed in 2009: it is no longer a dependency of Saint Helena, but is instead a constituent part of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

NASA use

I think maybe what's confusing about NASA use of Ascension is that the active radar installation which had been on the island was dismantled and removed some time ago. At least one source indicates there is still a radio communications transmitter and receiver station there, though. It is possible the current equipment is no longer at the same location where the radar had previously been installed. Perhaps the new equipment requires very little staffing, and thus isn't much noticed? (sdsds - talk) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

UK claim to extend EEZ on Ascension Island

This was reported by the BBC today, I think it is relative to the article?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7583353.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byb3 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected?

Has this page been protected? I can't edit the transport section to reflect on the changes to the RAF charter flights to the Falklands & the UK & theres no protected padlock on the page 82.11.155.43 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Scarce water, yet many streams shown on map

If there is little or no water to the extent that someone died of thirst when marooned there, they why are there many streams shown on the map? 89.240.107.12 (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the possible death of thirst occurred before the vegetation project (which was specifically designed to create a rain-trap for the island) and secondly, those may be seasonal streams. It's also possible the man in question was an idiot. No-one knows for sure. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Metric and Imperial measures

According to the style guide, measures in this article should either be metric first or imperial first. I have attempted to make it metric first. There are good reasons for doing this.

  • The metric system is unified, whereas there are differences between Imperial and US customary measures.
  • There are differences between editors about whether to use degrees fahrenheit or degrees celsius in a UK based article.
  • This article uses both Imperial measures and metric measures and because of this, it should fix on either metric first or one of several varieties of non-metric measures first.

I will revert the article to Metric first. If people don't like this, then do your worst. I have at least tried to give the article some consistency. Michael Glass (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Again as had been pointed out elsewhere, imperial first on UK/US articles, like this one. Justin talk 08:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, quoting from the policy [3]:
Which system to use
For US-related articles, the main units are US units: 23 miles (37 km).
For UK-related articles, the main units may be either metric or imperial: 23 miles (37 km) or 37 kilometres (23 mi); the choice of metric or imperial first should be consistent throughout the article.
The policy clearly states that for UK-related articles the main units may be either metric or imperial but the choice of metric or imperial first should be consistent throughout the article.
With every respect.
  • The policy for US and UK articles is different. US units must come first in US based articles.
  • UK-related articles can be Imperial first or metric first, but it must be consistent.
  • As I have pointed out elsewhere, many articles, including Great Britain and United Kingdom are metric first.
  • The only stipulation is that the use of units must be consistent.
Please have a good look at this article. It is not consistent in its use of units and it would be good to make it conform to policy. Michael Glass (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well as the official Government website uses imperial [4] would it not make sense to use imperial first? Justin talk 15:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin, at the moment the article is metric first, except for the paragraph that you reverted. The easy way to fix the problem is simply to metricate one paragraph rather than revising the whole article. Wouldn't that make sense? If you are so disposed, we could go through the paragraph to make sure that both of us are happy with it before we restore it to the text. Then the problem of inconsistency would be solved. Furthermore, I would be happy to ensure that every Metric reference had an Imperial equivalent, so that all readers would have the figures in the system that is most comfortable for them.

However, if you were not satisfied, and preferred to have the article with Imperial first, then you are welcome to change it. However, in that case you would have to do the work yourself.

As for the official Government website being a model, it has its own problems. If you look at the page you will find that they quote Celsius temperatures at one point and temperatures in Fahrenheit temperatures at another point, and both are quoted without the equivalents being given in the other system! Michael Glass (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll change it then. May ask you for help with the conversion tool though. Cheers. Justin talk 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Justin, from what you wrote I gather that you have agreed to change the paragraph to conform with the rest of the article. Here is what my previous edit did:

Ascension's climate is tropical, with temperatures at the coast ranging from about 20 to 31 degrees Celsius (68–88 °F), and about 5 degrees cooler at the highest point. Rain showers may occur at any time during the year, but tend to be heavier between January and April.

If you prefer, we could use one of the conversion templates that can be found at [[5]]

The template for Celsius to Fahrenheit can be found here: [6] Using this template this is what we get:

Ascension's climate is tropical, with temperatures at the coast ranging from about 20 °C (68 °F) to 31 °C (88 °F) and about 5 degrees cooler at the highest point. Rain showers may occur at any time during the year, but tend to be heavier between January and April.

I think that the first version is better. However, the conversion templates do demonstrate the accuracy of the conversions. I hope that this is helpful. My only concern is that 5 degrees Celsius is only roughly equivalent to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. You may prefer a closer approximation, for example, 5.5 degrees. Michael Glass (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Banking

It states in the main article that domestic money transfers can be made to the UK because Ascension Island is in the UK banking system. I could well believe this, but I'd like to have more clarification. This certainly would not have been true about 25 years ago, but having said that, it came to my attention in the 1990's that Gibraltar banks now have APACS sorting codes, and as such operate within the UK bank clearing system. Theoretically there is no reason why this shouldn't extend to Ascension Island. Telecommunications to Ascension Island are the best. Is anyone aware as to whether or not this Bank of Saint Helena has an APACS sorting code? David Tombe (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Following some investigation, it appears to me that Ascension Island is not in the UK bank clearing network. The Bank of Saint Helena has a facility through Lloyds TSB in the UK for the purposes of conducting money transfers. There is a difference between a telegraphic transfer on the one hand, and being in the local bank clearing network on the other hand. To be in the UK bank clearing network, a bank needs to be physically located within the zone of the one day postal service from the clearing centre. Telegraphic transfers may well have been operating instantaneously since the 1880's, but to be in the normal everyday clearing network, the documentation must be able to move between the various banking locations, within the time span of the ordinary postal service. It surprised me to discover in the 1990's that Gibraltar is now in the UK bank clearing network. But then, Gibraltar is only an hour away from London by air. Ascension island on the other hand is in the South Atlantic Ocean and I can't see it being practically possible for it to be in the UK bank clearing network. I have amended the article accordingly. If anybody feels that I am wrong on this issue, please feel free to discuss the matter here. David Tombe (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

"... 'Open' Champion three times in the last four years (2003 - 2007)." Guys, it is 2010 already. 211.31.224.131 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

SVG version of the map

I recently coverted the PNG map used on this article to SVG, I don't know if it should be used or not - opinions?
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

PNG version
SVG version
It looks good. Only difference seem to be the colors seem a little off and the label for "Boatswain Island" is cut-off. --MarsRover (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all; sorry it's took me so long to respond - I've been busy. Right, I believe the colours are a good enough match - anyway it doesn't really matter what shade of green they are. For now, another editor will have to take care of the label that's cut off, and another thing that bugged me is the file is rather large - 270KB, in comparison with the 14KB that the PNG is, and I don't know how to solve that; well quickly anyway. This was my first attempt at repairing a computer converted SVG file - so I'm not experienced enough.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand -- if the PNG is smaller, doesn't have any text cut off and looks better then why on earth would we use the SVG?? AC (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The file's size could easily be reduced by someone who has a little more experience with vector images than me, as well as fixing the other problems. The reason vector, or SVG, images are often used in place of PNG is they can be made to be any size. PNG are raster images, made up of pixels; vector images are made from directions, like this shape goes here, and this shape has this colour, thus they can be made any size. --George2001hi 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.01010.x has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is done, in a roundabout way. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Population?

The population in the infobox says 880 but the link here which is cited in other spots says 1100 ... so which is it? Is there a cite for the number of 880? Beside it it says N/A so I'm guessing not? If I can't find a citation I'll switch it to this number with a cite for the above link. AC (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, this link says 880... and it is the gov't website, but is it possible that the above link is more recent? Why would they write 1100 unless they got that number from somewhere? AC (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And again here it says 1100 and breaks it down. Starting to get really confused. I wonder how I can confirm which one is correct? AC (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
OH MY GOD the section Demographics here cites the link saying 1100 in the sentence that breaks down the population of 880. The cite is used to back up the nickname of the people from St. Helena, which is on this page .... man, this is sooo damn confusing! AC (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I advise that you calm down? The island's population is one that shifts about quite a bit in reality, as the majority on the island are either military personnel or somehow employed/family based there related to the military presence. An exact figure is going to be hard to pin down and would be out-of-date within months. I suggest any figure in the 1000 area (plus/minus 200 or so) is about right. David (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Island natives are being deported from their island to make way for the U.S. military base, so the 1100 down to 880 probably reflects that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.44.158.2 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This statement is rather dubious and inflammatory. Where are you getting this info? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
From here, I think. Lieutenant pepper (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed flag

The current official flag remains the Union Flag until such time as the Queen grants the island a coat of arms and flag. A new flag and coat of arms have been approved by the Island Council and the designs are similar to option B (currently shown in the infobox). The proposed arms can be seen here (http://www.the-islander.org.ac/art_9495.html) and are different to the arms shown on proposal B. We should remove proposal B from the infobox and restore the Union Flag to that position until the new flag enters official use.Dn9ahx (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link needed, SVP

We need to disambig this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Islands

see CNN "An eight-hour leg to the Ascension Islands -- a tiny speck of land in the Atlantic -" in article on this Island at http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/world/americas/falklands-life/index.html such that people looking for this, find that, but with no clue as to their error or typo.

G. Robert Shiplett 22:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the top of each article. David (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ascension Island. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ascension Island. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ascension Island. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

General Substitution of "Space Force" for "Air Force" not valid

The global change from U.S. Air Force to U.S. Space Force is incorrect. Historic Air Force use remains. Even 2019—2020 changes to Space Force are limited and global change is incorrect. For example, only Patrick Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station got a name change. Further, the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act prohibits any further changes and transfers until the "Secretary of the Air Force briefs the congressional defense committees on the results of a business case analysis" (See Space News, Cape Canaveral, Patrick Air Force Base renamed as Space Force bases, 9 December 2020). Palmeira (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira: While Patrick and Cape Canaveral got the name change, on 20 December 2019 all of Air Force Space Command became the Space Force, transferring over all assets and units as Space Force units (personnel are a bit trickier, but those are starting to come over as well). The NDAA only prohibits the transfer of ownership of the bases until Congress is briefed (which is a moot point, since Space Force wings and garrisons still run them and perform all functions, even on thoughts that still have the Air Force Base name). With regard to Ascension island, the facilities on the Island are operated by the Detachment 2, 45th Mission Support Group (https://www.patrick.spaceforce.mil/Units/45th-Mission-Support-Group/) and the 23rd Space Operations Squadron (https://www.schriever.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/275805/23rd-space-operations-squadron/) both of these units have transferred to the US Space Force and the Eastern Range is officially a Space Force range, which wouldn't be affected by the NDAA since it's not an installation (https://www.airforcemag.com/article/building-the-space-range-of-the-future/). Ascension Island has already been identified as a Space Force operating location in independent sources (https://www.stripes.com/news/us/space-force-units-are-already-operating-worldwide-and-experts-expect-more-to-pop-up-soon-1.641654).
Now, with regard to a residual Air Force mission, I can't find any residual non-Air Force Space Command missions on the island that haven't transitioned over to the Space Force. (AFRL is tricky because it's a combined activity between the two services, with the Space Force gaining authority for its space activities). Specifying that as AFRL should be sufficient for now to alleviate any confusion, but the range management activities have fully transitioned to the Space Force. Garuda28 (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ascension_Island/Archive_1&oldid=1169307124"