Talk:Compass rose

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

Windrose.png image[edit]

  • Maybe it's just my computer, but for some reason I don't seem to be able to view the Windrose.png image. All I see is a black box, both here and at the image page. If the image is not visible on all browsers, it might not be ideal to have it illustrating the article. But maybe the problem, whatever it is, can be solved? Regards, Redux 00:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This came up as a source of confusion in the wind rose article in past years due to its change in definition, but I've added lines concerning the historical use of a wind rose as the first compass roses into the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polar conventions[edit]

Does anyone know of any conventions for displaying a Compass Rose on a map in the (ant)arctic regions? I just saw a map of Canada being used in a Canadian High School. It looked vaguely like the map at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/canada_pol99.jpg, but at the bottom right of the info box, there was a CR declaring that up was north - however, from the CR was distinctly more Easterly than Northerly. Wouldn't a CR only work on 2D map projections where the lines of longitude didn't converge?samwaltz (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it was displaying the magnetic north pole, if anything there is a bigger degree of difference as you get closer to the poles. 131.91.94.152 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC) usemasper[reply]

As a Canadian who has seen an awful lot of maps of Canada, in high school and beyond, and who is familiar with the differences between true and magnetic north, I have to say -- that I have no clue at all what either of the above two comments mean or could be referring to. But both comments appear to come from editors who would not necessarily have much experience using maps of Canada (a European and a Floridian?). 184.175.1.242 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

48 points[edit]

Over in the article magnetic compass there is mention of a 48 point compass. Here, only 32 points are discussed. Does anyone know anything about what the 48 points are called, or when they are (were) used? Rwflammang (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think the Chinese used 48 points EamonnPKeane (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a very good summary of the history of these points at Classical compass winds. Rwflammang (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd directions[edit]

Have you ever seen a compass rose with and "O" instead of an "E" for east? There is a map in my school that is labeled like that and I wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.139.76 (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the "O" was for "west", then it might be in French ord, est, sud, oeust = north, east, south, west. "O" for "east" I'm not familiar with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AH! German: norden, osten, süden, westen = N,E,S,W. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "nord" for the French north -- you left off the n, and west would be "ouest". As for east starting with "o", doesn't Spanish (and related languages) use "oriental" for east, as in the "mercado oriental", meaning "eastern market"?184.175.1.242 (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of gallery[edit]

Since galleries are mentioned on the "What wikipedia is not" page, I removed it, which should have happened 3-4 years ago. Check the Manual of Style (or What Wikipedia is not) for more on this deletion. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absurdly narrow reading. True, wikipedia is not a gallery. But that does not prevent a page having a gallery of multiple images if it is pertinent to the article (the "gallery" feature is there for a reason). This is about compass roses, of which there are multiple ways of depicting them, including several of historical interest mentioned in the article. It would clutter the article (indeed, I find it already too cluttered) to just distribute them within the text. A gallery format with a selection of different types of roses at the end is suitable. Perhaps it can be pruned, but not omitted. Walrasiad (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. And thank you for the good faith assumption (absurd?), it was appreciated. The image use policy is actually quite clear. How do the images within the gallery expand upon what already lies within the main article? All the images look quite similar to one another, which would violate the policy. The true test for wikipedia is to answer the question, "Is this what an encyclopedia article would look like, with all these images compared to the minimal text?" The answer to that question is clear to me, anyway. See if the new image alignment looks less cluttered. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Absurdly narrow", a manner of speech to express not only narrow, but so narrow it yields up unreasonable consequences. WP:IAR. As for how they expand, here's some examples you have deleted:

  • - a compass rose without decoration, demonstrating the color-coding system of rhumb lines of 1300s Italian style portolan charts, referred to in the text.
  • - a compass rose with a fleur-de-lis as northmark, introduced by the Portuguese school of the early 1500s, referred to in the text.
  • - the world's largest compass rose - OK, maybe not necessary.
  • - an 8-point compass rose, a 16 point compass rose and 32 point compass rose, so that the children can see the difference between the numbers 8, 16 and 32 at a glance. (Don't assume they already know.)
  • And I don't remember the others.
  • And should there be a serious discussion of compass roses, it might imply illustrations of 12-point roses, 24-point roses, compass roses with traditional windnames, etc.

Now, you could put all these different compass roses in the middle of the article text that risks making it quite unreadable. Or you could make a gallery of them at the bottom for reference. Yes, there was some repetition and unecessary stuff, but these can be pruned and reduced. You do not need to delete the gallery outright.

P.S. - I was preparing to improve & expand this article quite a bit. Without a gallery, I can't illustrate my points, so it's not worth my while.

Remember: this is an article about a type of illustration. It is hard to convey imagery by words, and "hope" people understand by text alone. I don't expect people to "get" what "undecorated color-coded rhumb lines" means or a "stylized pole star on the northmark" looks like without seeing a picture. 1000 words and all. Walrasiad (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you expand the article a bit, you'll be able to add what you feel are the more unique images back into the article due to the greater content, so it would be worth your while. Remember, the content is not truly gone, as it lies in the article's history. Per your comments, I replaced one of the 32 point roses with an 8 point rose, so now we have 8, 16, and 32 point roses covered. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bet on it. For example, I recently put in that brief paragraph on the depiction of the compass on portolan charts. Just for that paragraph, I used three compass images: (1) undecorated compass rose with color-coded rhumb lines; (2) the Catalan atlas rose with the pole star, (3) Reinel's compass with fleur-de-lis. Two out of three were in the gallery you deleted. And that is just one paragraph. If I were to make a serious effort, I would need several more images. Walrasiad (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I did a clear up of these, which was reverted. This is to explain why I removed what I did.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mariner's Wind Compass Rose[edit]

Some years ago in Venice, Italy, I took a photo of a strange clock having one hand, and names in place of Roman numerals. I thought it was located in the Piazza San Marco, but now all attempts to find anything about it are in vain. At that time, some university brains researched for me and found it was a wind "clock". Can you tell me more about this particular wind compass, with a photo if possible? Gatsby36Gatsby36 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is an archived debate . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging Rhumbline network into Compass rose.

Rationale: The heart of Rhumbline network is the section on network design, which is mostly about compass roses (referred to as wind roses). The following section, Vellum map creation process, mostly repeats this information. Planispheres with double hexadecagon is just a couple of images of Cantino planisphere and Teixeira planisphere, which have their own articles. Other material not related to compass roses would be better located in Rhumbline or Portolan chart. See also an earlier discussion at Talk:Portolan_chart#Merger_proposal. RockMagnetist(talk) 07:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really make sense. This is about compass rose, not potential things that can be created with it. Otherwise we'd merge this with the article on GPSs and other navigation systems. This page doesn't need to be piled on and clogged with more stuff. Why not leave it at rhumbline network? Seems like a fine article by itself. Walrasiad (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could tell from the rather diffuse conversation at Talk:Rhumbline network, most editors agreed that "rhumbline network" does not really merit an article separate from a discussion of the individual lines (whether they are called rhumblines or windrose lines). And this article could use a history section. I'm not suggesting that anything not directly relevant to compass roses be imported. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the impression I get from reading that discussion. It seems they are quite keen on keeping a distinct article on rhumbline network. At any rate, this article has a history section - the history of the compass rose. If we were to add the history of applications of the compass rose, we'd be piling on everything from chart-making to navigation techniques to Scott & Amundsen's exploration of Antarctica to GPS satellites. And not even all the history of the rose itself is here - imagine only we were to merge the article on Classical compass winds with this? It would be overwhelmed. It makes no more sense to insert the rhumbline network article here than it does to insert, say, Medieval rules of navigation by compass. They are specific applications, things in themselves, which are sufficiently distinct and detailed to require their own articles. Walrasiad (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens, there seems to be no end to this network of articles! I still think that Rhumbline network doesn't merit a separate article, but ought to redirect somewhere - maybe Classical compass winds would have been the right target for a merge - but I'm getting tired of playing musical merge, and I think I'm going to drop this. Thanks for your input. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockscientist. excuse my imperfections.. nobody is perfect!.. so I've rewritten the Use of rhumblines as you've demanded.
@Walrasiad. thanks for your common sense.. there is even another point against the "mergemany". I've created the article in four languages and it has been very difficult to find the right term in every language. One can use "wiquipedia" as the greatest graphical dictionary.. (I use it with my chinese wife when I have a doubt), its great point it is that by a single click you access to the term in the language you need & you know exactly if it is what you're talking about.. a merge maniac has merged (without any warning) my article haystack inside hay depriving-thousands of users in several languages- of a direct access to it (what they see is hay)...
I am a senior consultant and for 35 years I used to give my point of view to firm directors..among them Jim Wales in Gdansk 2010 (I gave my pointabout a visual editor in the general meeting..: Hi Jim, congratulations for "wikitext", you have achieved a great language much easier to learn to edit than the cumbersome "hypertext", but today there are plenty of "wysiwyg" editors for "hypertext" and none for "wikitext", wich represent its main drawback to be used by "full of knowledge" lawyers, architects, writers of my generation unable to become..ever.. "skilled wikitext editors".. , nevertheless they are able to edit with "wysiwyg" editors like "word", etc..Back in 1987 I saw at Macworld-Boston (as a member of Apple Spain) the presentation of "Hypercard" wich gave birth a bit later to the "Berners-Lee hypertext", very complicated and difficult to edit (impossible for non professionals..) but boom!, the 20 following years gave birth to hundreds of "wysiwyg" editors for "hypertext", making it usable by everybody.. professional or not not..That's what Wikipedia needs, a "wysiwyg" editor able to be used not only by newcomers (a newcomer arrives to be a skilled editor in a couple of weeks..) but by anyone else specially the "professionals of a certain age with great knowledge" I've mentioned before, that will end their editing days without becoming "skilled wikitext editors"...

Jimbo's answer: so, you think, we are losing a big amount of "full of knowledge" with lawyers, architects, writers, etc.. that will never be.. "skilled wikitext editors".. don't worry .. we will have a "visual editor" in two years time.. by 2012... And .. although with some delay he kept his word--Mcapdevila (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge of points of the compass into compass rose[edit]

wide overlap fgnievinski (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I see two related but separate topics: a set of traditional angles defined by successive halving, and a type of graphic figure found on compass cards and some charts or maps, usually including a degree scale on modern examples. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: There's also cardinal direction and I agree that the scope of these three articles should be better delimited. It seems like we should have the list of named directions in different traditions in just one article, and deal with various cultural practices around those (like visual display) in another article or articles. Arlo James Barnes 20:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Merger will probably be overloaded with too much information for one article. Currently, the two articles are a bit of a disorderly mash-up. The articles need to be considerably reorganized. I suggest there should be probably be three articles.
(1) "Points of the Compass" should be merely descriptive of the points of the modern compass, a straight-up useful article for reference, without too much extra stuff. This should serve the "master article", with subsections with brief (very brief) summaries pointing to longer side-articles below.
(2) "History of Compass Points" (or "History of Compass Directions" if you prefer), a longer deeper article on historical and alternative compass points (Classical, Sidereal, Chinese, etc.), removing and collecting those sections from the other two articles,
(3) "Compass Rose" limiting itself purely to the visual figure, and its depiction on charts, statues, etc. with a dive into the history of the image.
Walrasiad (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like your thinking Walrasiad. You also need to consider the use of points in giving relative bearings: "two points off the starboard bow". It might also be worth mentioning that this is the origin of the rather weird angle (22+1⁄2° = 2 points abaft the beam) through which navigation lights have to be shown. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Social[edit]

A compassion rose sometimes called a wind rose rose of the winds or compass star is a 124.123.163.195 (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Compass_rose&oldid=1213613866"