Talk:The Voyage of the Beagle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
[edit] asssasin bug
would someone be so kind and date exactly darwins description of a stinging bug in the article Triatominae ? thanks.--217.251.145.195 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Extract from entry for 25 March 1835, info added to Triatominae ...dave souza 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tasmania
Barbara Shack 14:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)I've added the following. The link validates it. "In Tasmania Darwin learnt that English settlers belonging to the Church of England hunted natives for fun and let dogs eat the corpses. [1]"
- Interesting info about settlers hunting natives, good work with all the editing. Many thanks....dave souza 01:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Split
This needs to be split into The Voyage of the Beagle, about the book, its influence, about its being seen as the genesis of Darwinian thought, and Second voyage of HMS Beagle about the voyage itself. — Dunc|☺ 17:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Essentially what you're proposing is that this article becomes sections 5, 6 and 8 only, with the rest being hived off to a new article about the voyage, and some new material added on the aftermath which at present is covered in the Inception of Darwin's theory article. The downside is that we end up with an article about the book referring to another article to say what the book's about, and an article about the voyage linking elsewhere to refer to the book that made the voyage famous. In my view this has some logic, but is unnecessary and in some ways makes navigation more complicated. ..dave souza, talk 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Please clarify what you're proposing to do. .. dave souza, talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, there are now a lot of pages referring to the voyage linked to this book page. I've fixed the Darwin template: please go through the What links here list and check the others. Ta, ... dave souza, talk 13:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I just saw this after the split and think it is a terrible idea. Very confusing. Sure, there is some logic to it, but only after you come here and read the talk page and think about it - and even then it's not a strong case. It's a much stronger case to leave it as one whole article together. Most readers will find this strange, the book and voyage are usually discussed together. I've added a much needed top hat dab to help clarify the logic in the layout. -- Stbalbach 17:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. More than one book was written on the subject, and there are other historical sources about the voyage as well – obvious when you realise that this was the colonial age, when bureaucracy was strong in the Empire and record-keeping meticulous. I was confused because there weren't two articles. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. The split is a big improvement.--ragesoss 23:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok I can see the merit, I was not aware it is of note outside the context of Darwin. I think the top hat dab is important, the majority of folks like myself will see the two as linked and not easily pick up the split in the lead section. -- Stbalbach 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
