Talk:Points of the compass/Archive 1

The table and the images

Something is not right with the table and the images. Coloured compass rose overlaps the table in a way that spoils the usefulness of the article. Not entirely sure how to repair it, since there is so little text in the article, interspersing the images within the text is likely not an option as yet. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit history of the article - on 4 Jan and 22 Jan, I and others had a fiddle with the images. I'm not sure if I improved the situation or not! (My problem was the coloured one was too small to read - don't laugh, one day you'll have to wear reading glasses too. ;-)

There are a number of variables involved, the two main ones being the width of the coloured rose and the width of the page.

The width of the page is whatever the user has their browser set to. If it's wide, no problems. If it's narrow, the rose overlaps the table.

The width of the rose dictates how well you can read the rose. At 300px, it's too small to read. At 500px it looks great, but it's too wide for most people's browser window.

Hence, 400px was chosen as a compromise.

And as you say, there is so little text in the article that you don't have a lot of (any?) options.

I hope you're more inventive than I am and can come up with a better answer than I did.

Best wishes (and good luck). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is some time the I saw the film "North by Northwest", but I thought that "Northwest" referred to the airline featured and not the direction. Could be my memory ... I don't have a copy of the film.

Brodie, Jack (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This page could do with some clarification as the initial discussion needs to refer to 32 points of the compass but the diagram is of a 16 point compass. It seems to me that the table is clear and shows that in fact the term "by" is not an occasional addition to the 3 letter terms but rather it moves from 16 points to 32 points. Keeping them separate is done at the 2 letter level, e.g. North by West is very different from North West. I don't feel competent to change the article (as I came to the page for clarification myself!). If I do find a definitive answer, I'll post it. Thanks for all the good work. Ed Edowns (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical Distinction

In Oxford University's publishing house Glossary on Ships and the Sea, I recall it gives the two different ways of boxing the compass. One was used by the British, and the other by the Americans, if I'm not mistaken. They differ only in the smallest distinctions. 4.154.254.145 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

disambiguation making things ambiguous

"points of the compass" redirecting to "boxing the compass" is not helping things. Points of the compass should be reidrected to Bearing_(Navigation), as that explanation makes more sense. As an example, the classic cry from the Titanic "Iceberg right ahead" gets quite a changed meaning when you put it into modern terms on this page vice bearing's explanation. "Iceberg right ahead" using Bearing_(Navigation) explanation, meaning one point off the starboard bow, is not necessarily incompetent lookouts, just really bad navigation, as it's within about a dozen degrees of being a point source, so was seen about as soon as the lookout could have seen it, still much too late for the titanic to turn though. If you put it into the terms on this page, it'd be iceberg west by north, or almost directly starboard of the lookout and about 50' into the actual collision (where it was actually seen would be "iceberg ahead right", or north by west vice west by north), and, given the reports of the violence of the collision, would have been uttered by a prone lookout, as he waould have been knocked off his feet quite a few seconds beforehand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.120.138 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Boxing the compass → Points of the compass – The problem here is not necessarily the article, it may just be as simple as changing the redirect from pointing to Boxing the compass to compass#Points of the compass and leaving Boxing the compass as is. The article discusses an (old) mariner's practice limited to a 32-point compass. The 8 points, 16 points of a compass are not discussed here (or weren't, I provisionally have added them into the lead), so points of the compass redirecting here seemed strange. Why does this matter? - it doesn't; but it is related to something more important, Talk:Southwest (disambiguation) and where Southwest (etc.) should redirect? So the proposal is either move this article, or change the redirect to point to the paragraph in Compass (but is that really enough?). Open to better alternatives. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion about the redirect, but your addition improves this article even if it remains "boxing". Dbfirs 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Much better and commoner title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the current title seems like jargon in comparison. bd2412 T 14:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, we certainly need an article on points of the compass, and Boxing the compass can just be a redirect to the appropriate section. The article on Compass is already long enough, but section 6.3 on points will need to have its "main article" link changed (and remove the link to boxing at the end). Dbfirs 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Boxing a compass is just a list. There is more history on the points of the compass in the compass rose article. Maybe some material could be transferred from there to a main "points" article? Walrasiad (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

128 compass points?

I have removed this recent addition because I believe it to be a misunderstanding of the reference provided. I can cite many other references that contradict this interpretation. Removed sentences that I believe to be false:
The set of 32 named points can be increased by another 32 directions using half-points. These are constructed by taking the more important of the two directions it lies between and adding a half-point deviation toward a cardinal point. For instance, the direction between numbers 1 (North) and 2 (North by East) is "North-half-East"; that between numbers 3 (North-Northeast) and 4 (Northeast by North) is "North-Northeast-half-East", and so on. The set of directions can be increased yet again to a set of 128 named directions using quarter-points, although for communicating heading these fractional points have been superseded by degrees measured clockwise from North.
This contradicts [1] for example. There does seem to be some confusion over this, perhaps encouraged by Wikipedia. If there really are 128 points then we ought to record this, but point out that it is not standard. Dbfirs 08:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I can find many references to 128 quarter points having been in common use, perhaps the most authoritative being . This appears to have been a standard text for use in training for the US Navy for many years. It includes discussion on deciding whether to use, for example, Nor-Nor-East half East or Nor-East by North half North, which are equivalent. I'm inclined to re-add a section on the 128 points unless a strong argument can be made against this. This system does appear to have been in widespread, standard use until the early 1900s. User:Jaa101 —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with my internet connection at present, so I haven't been able to download that book. Are you sure that it has 128 compass points, and not just alternative names for 64? Does it mention directions such as "North by East a quarter North"? Dbfirs 15:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

All 128 points are listed with different angular measures on page 16 of this 1916 edition. It lists N.3/4E. at 8° 26′ 15″. --Jaa101 (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed they are, and this is also recorded elsewhere. I think I was confused by the fact that "quarter points" can also refer to the extension to 32 points, but I don't know how I missed the 128 point usage. Do you know when this was introduced and for how long it was used? I suspect that the degree system was adopted soon after the extension from 32 to 128 points, but the quarter points between the well-known 32 were clearly taught at one point in history. Would you like to put back an improved version of the text that I erroneously removed or shall I? There's a file already in Commons that would be a useful addition to the article. Dbfirs 08:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how far back the usage goes. Google Books has an 1817 "The New Mediterranean Pilot" that uses quarter-point bearings extensively. It's clear from my citation above that they were still in use a century later but about to be superseded by degrees clockwise from north. The OED has alternate definitions of "quarter point": there can be either 32 or 128 in a circle. The oldest quotation that's unequivocally in the latter sense is "1795 C. Hutton Math. & Philos. Dict. I. 314/1 Each point of the compass contains the 32d part of 360, that is 11¼ degrees, or 11° 15′; consequently the half point is 5° 37′ 30″, and the quarter point 2° 48′ 45″.". --Jaa101 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Charles Hutton because he caused the current confusion between the usages of "trapezium" and "trapezoid" by misinterpreting Taylor's translation of Proclus. In 1769, Falconer in his Marine Dictionary (also 1789 edition) wrote: "The quarter-points of the Compass are distinguished by the word by", so it's possible that Hutton coined this new "quarter point" usage, but perhaps he was just reporting it. Either way, it clearly existed from 1795, and Hutton's dictionary was widely used, so it would become popular from then. Dbfirs 09:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the improved text to the article. Do you know whether these quarter points were widely used aboard ship? Dbfirs 07:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very difficult to be sure how common the usage was from encyclopedias and texts for the education of naval officers. It's difficult too for any book learning to help with a relatively minor aspect of nautical practice, beyond living memory of the point system's use. I first came across fractional points reading CS Forester's Hornblower novels and Patrick O'Brien and other period nautical fiction has them too. I've sailed in a replica vessel and taken tricks on the helm with a compass rose and course orders using the old-style point system. My captain never used fractional points but crew members talked of other captains who did. I suspect it came down to captains' personalities and would have been more common in naval as opposed to merchant ships.--Jaa101 (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I read some of the Hornblower novels, but its more than 50 years ago so I don't remember the details. Thanks for the information. Dbfirs 11:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Lack of history

The article is generally lacking in the historical department. E.g. it isn't adequately explained how the transition from the old names to the new names went. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

32 cardinal points on Commons

At Commons Category:32 cardinal points are arrow icons for the 32 cardinal points, if you need them for map making or whatever. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

NNW

What is "North by Northwest"? --Gbleem 23:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a classic 1959 movie by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, James Mason, and others. See all about it here. JackofOz 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

According to North by Northwest, the title comes from Hamlet: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly / I know a hawk from a handsaw." (Act II, Scene ii). So "north-northwest", which makes sense as a compass point, apparently got changed to "north by northwest" which does not. Not sure whether this is worth mentioning even if I did get it right, though. Kingdon 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The point of the line in Hamlet is that the direction North by Northwest doesn't exist; it is the direction of madness. Hamlet is pretending to be mad. When he's not mad ("when the wind is Southerly"), he knows the difference between a hawk and a heron (handsaw is an alternative name for a heron); i.e. there is a method to Hamlet's madness. The Hitchcock film refers to this quote as its plot involves first putting a "normal" person in a "mad" situation, and then having this person be co-opted to work for a spy agency -- i.e. the method in the madness.Contributor tom (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea, but Hamlet says "north-north-west", which is a real direction. 2.24.117.101 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it could make sense as a compass point between NbW and N, that is, 354.375 degrees. --76.184.164.189 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph reads like a debate, and doesn't seem particularly relevant. I'd recommend cutting it. --Thomas B♘talk 04:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Contributor tom (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hawk/Handsaw goes deeper. "to tell a hawk from a handsaw" is to be able to distinguish between a plasterer's tool and a carpenter's tool. A hawk is a bit like a bricklayer's mortar board. The plasterer holds the wet plaster on the hawk and applies it in smaller amounts with another tool called a float. Geofpick (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Decimal angles in table

I've noticed that an unregistered user changed the angles in the 32 points table from decimals to fractions on 22 July, with edit summary "Aligning numbers in tables and formatting fractions correctly". For the entire 15-year history of this article, that table has used decimal numbers and no-one has ever challenged it, so I don't see why it should suddenly be changed to fractions now. There's absolutely no reason why angles can't be shown in decimal format and apart from anything it looks a lot neater if they are shown in decimal format. Fractions make the table look awfully cluttered. Any other comments/opinions would be welcome, but in the meantime I've reverted it back to the way it was before, using 3 decimal places to ensure exact values. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. These are not my refs. They apply to the 128 compass points? section above.