Talk:Pole

Untitled

Might be an idea to merge North Pole and South Pole, so we have one article that covers geographic & magnetic poles instead of two stubs that the reader has to bounce between. -- Tarquin

Where do polar graphs fit? Polar redirects to this page, which mentions nothing about polar graphs... ugen64 22:38, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

It fits in Coordinates (elementary mathematics). I'll make a note on this page. --zandperl 00:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Crystallography

something to do with crystallography

Uh, so, "A pole has something to do with crystallography". That's not very helpful, is it? - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it -- Serephine / talk - 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You go read that page and try to figure out what they're talking about. Here's the sole reference:

The position in 3D space of each crystal face is plotted on a stereographic net, e.g. Wolff net or Lambert net. In fact, the pole to each face is plotted on the net. Each point is labelled with its Miller Index. The final plot allows the symmetry of the crystal to be established.

Note that pole helpfully links back to this disambiguation page. Cheers! Ewlyahoocom 17:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh believe me I tried, I couldn't figure it out. Because there is only one reference to pole, and it is neither explained nor points to an article which explains its use in this contex, I decided the disambiguation page would have been better off without it. Especially considering the informal way in which it was pasted on the disambig. page - it looks as if someone had simply searched for the world pole in all the articles and found it in crystallography. In any case, linking it back to the disambig. page seems like a good idea, hopefully someone who knows a bit about the subject can provide a bit more of an idea. -- Serephine / talk - 01:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pole and Polar on one page

Why are "pole" and "polar" lumped together on one page? Wouldn't it be better to split it into two separate disambiguation pages? Kpalion 09:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly possbile. About 1/4th of the entries are Polar, although 2/3rds of those are names (I guess Pole doesn't have the same frosty connotations). I do hate to break up Polar circle and Polar climate and North pole and South pole. I'll try adding another section. Did you have a problem finding a particular entry (or finding that it isn't here)? Ewlyahoocom 12:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they should be split up. Very few of the entries would be listed on both pages and it would be easier to find things. A link to the other page could be put on both disambiguation pages. -- Kjkolb 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category for the unit

I have moved the unit of length from "Cylindrical objects" to "Science, technology, and mathematics" since a unit of length is neither cylindrical nor an object. I don't think the etymology ought to be determinative because otherwise the vast majority of the definitions ought to be in "cylindrical objects" since most uses of the word "pole" are ultimately derived from the word for a rod-shaped object. -- Ian Jackson 22 August 2010

ERROR!!!

Pole - unit of length and area. Is NOT derived from the cubit. A Pole is the length of a plough team from the horses nose to the ploughmans heels, and is 16 foot 6 inches. Your definition in this article is incorrect. It is an Old English measurement, and still used in some rural parts of lincolnshire, especially for allotments, a standard size for an allotment is 17 poles (ie 17 x (16 feet 6 inches x 16 feet 6 inches)

82.21.207.51 (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section Title

What in the world is the "Politics" section doing being labelled as such, and containing such links as "Axle", "Polar", "Polarity", and "Quarterstaff"? I'd rename it myself, but I'm not sure what the traditional name for an "other" section on a disambiguation page is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk777 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic pole shift on the earth

The earth can not flip magnetic poles. It is a fact the the measurement taken show opposite pole shift however those areas were also impacted by meteors which would of disrupted the magnetic flow below the crust causing eddy currents. The stones/materials that were tested had shown magnetite southern pole settings. Poles don’t flip. Show me proof that measurement were taken along a longitudinal line from pole to pole. Brian sauve (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

post-move discussion

In Talk:Polish people/Archive 2#Requested move 2 February 2023, Poles was moved here. https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Pole for March '23 shows the Polish people are still the most commonly looked up topic, individually significantly ahead of the other entries, and overall 648 outgoing clicks out of 2.5k incoming views (~26%), so I reformatted the list to restore that entry at the top. --Joy (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can still track the readership of the redirects at monthly pageviews stats. So for example WikiNav for January '24 says there were 639 outgoing clickstreams to Polish people, and there were 510 views of the redirect and 2900 views of the list, meaning that's either ~22% or possibly much more for "Poles".

We'd have to split off the plural into its own list to be able to measure clickstreams for that specifically, but because of the topical redirect Poles (people), we can at least vaguely compare its traffic of 884 to the total incoming traffic to see ~30.5%. --Joy (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the traffic for the topical redirect is also impacted by 82 incoming links to it. --Joy (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]