Talk:Antarctic Peninsula

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it wise to treat this as a "region"?[edit]

As this is one of the most sparsely populated areas on earth (although it is a metropolis for Antarctic circumstances) it may not be the best idea to treat this as a region... What should we do with it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it clearly is a region. It's definitely not a city, country or continent. From a breadcrumb point of view it makes total sense as there is a child-region and "city"-articles for the bases. Why would it not be the best idea to just treat is as a region? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well are the bases viable city articles? Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster Changed into a rural area article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm resuming this thread below, as to my mind the Peninsula is definitely a region. Grahamsands (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airstrips[edit]

The article says there are no airstrips on the peninsula. However Marambio base has one, in fact C-130 planes often land on it with scientists, journalists, equipment, and military personnel. I don't know if the article refers to airstrips used for commercial flights, in that case the information is correct. However, the peninsula is definitely reachable by plane for people working there. Many people going to Antarctica thinks of it as a work-and-travel scheme ;-) I'm not sure whether to change the article or not. --181.0.4.74 05:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your post. I've moved it to the bottom of the page, as is customary for new posts in every Wiki I know (probably all of them). My reply would be that I can't see any reason for you not to go ahead and make the relevant edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert to old Antarctic Peninsula[edit]

Selfie City: revert to older antarctic peninsula? is there something we need to retain from the new article and add to the old one? Also which one to revert to? 30th of May? Marathonian (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, if we're reverting we would do May 30, but the problem I see is that geocoordinates, etc. have been added since, meaning that a reversion would remove useful information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've checked back, though, and it's not as bad as I thought. I will revert. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also, I believe June 12 would be the one to revert to. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Done Where should we go next? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I added a nit. Next is what to do with the Antarctic Islands article? Is it fine as is? Or do you believe it needs to be mentions in the islands article or talked about more? Marathonian (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thought, that South Shetland Islands was pretty good. Can we bring it back? Marathonian (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please explain the reverts? Should this not have been an update edit? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Antarctica#Where_to_breadcrumb_islands_just_off_the_antarctic_peninsula We are reverting to the old regions of Antarctica as it is more helpful for travelers Marathonian (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest then changing ispartof in a new edit rather than revering other edits which were valid at the time. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: all the Antarctic pages were overhauled in 2020 / 21. The Peninsula is the most scenic, approachable and visited part of this continent. Those islands close inshore, and welded to the mainland by ice for much of the year, are described on this page. King George Island and similar are 120+ km further out with a different climate, and those are described as Antarctic islands. Grahamsands (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

While I like the current banner, given this is one of the more touristed areas of Antarctica, am wondering whether a banner of some hikers would be nice to feature. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banner 0
Banner 1
Banner 0, without the hikers, is nicer to look at. You can put yourself vicarious in the picture as the one who's seeing the view; it's not essential to put other people in the view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classifying the Peninsula[edit]

Two issues: what type of page, and where to breadcrumb?

Earlier it was switched from "Region" to "Rural area" as Hobbitschuster argued it had no cities. I don't see the relevance of that, a region might be very sparsely populated if it's mostly ice, mountain, ocean or desert. So I agree with JuliasTravels - and the Peninsula extends 2000 km north-south by 1000-ish km east-west, odd not to describe it as a region.

The breadcrumb of South Shetland Islands was to "Antarctic islands" but switched to "Antarctic Peninsula", it's unclear why. They're relatively close and might be toured together, but you could say the same of Spain and Portugal. My main reason for grouping SSI with "islands" was the distinct climate, as they're ice-free and approachable for much more of the year. Those islands classed as "Peninsula" are much closer in, and welded to the mainland by ice except at the height of summer. The breadcrumb as it stands is out of line with the text, so whatever the consensus on this one, the page content needs to be aligned. Grahamsands (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was discussed in Talk:Antarctica#Subantarctic islands and Antarctic islands.
The bottom line is, pages like Antarctic islands or islands of the Indian Ocean should only be for places that cannot be breadcrumbed anywhere that's suitable within the hierarchy (e.g., Crozet Islands). The South Shetland Islands are only 150 km from the Peninsula and makes more sense from a travel perspective. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I somehow snoozed through that whole discussion but accept the outcome. The text has therefore been re-aligned. The argument about proximity to the Peninsula is weak, and lots of destinations use an out-of-page airport for access. A stronger argument is that SSI are so remote from the other Antarctic Islands. They're united only by lying so far south and have no more in common than do the Canadian and Russian Arctic islands.
However I still don't buy the notion that this can't be a region. I've taken this argument to the Antarctica page as it also affects East A. Grahamsands (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Talk:Antarctica#Region or rural area (9–28 Dec 2022). The Antarctic Peninsula was classified back to region article after that discussion (with few participants). SHB2000 now put back the rural area classification. It seems this is a mess. However, I think there is one hard difference between the two: rural area articles are bottom level articles, with no other articles breadcrumbed to them, while regions should be subdivided.
This article now has several articles breadcrumbed to it, but no valid subdivision. If we want it to follow Wikivoyage's geographic hierarchy principles, then this needs to be solved. With this a region, Antarctica had a valid subregion division. If this shall stay a rural area, it must be breadcrumbed to West Antarctica, as must all articles now breadcrumbed to here – unless we decide that Antarctica shall be an exception to all our hierarchy rules, or we merge all those articles into this.
I have not seen any discussion with strong arguments or a consensus to make this a rural area. There are no cities, of course, but the bases are indeed "cities" i Wikivoyage parlance. These "cities" are not a proper subdivision of the region, but that is common: many Wikivoyage regions contain areas without articles, with POIs described in the "nearest city article" or in the region article.
LPfi (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Antarctica will always remain an exception to our regionalisation norms, and that shouldn't come out as a surprise given there's no place like it (even Greenland isn't comparable), but even though I'm going against what I just said before, I like to think of this like Streymoy – it's a rural area article that covers every attraction outside the destinations we already have articles for. Maybe can we get some input from @Wrh2:, who has been here? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see how this could be regarded as a rural area. I don't see why it cannot be regarded as a region. The problem with this as a rural area, and Streymoy as of now, is that these break the rule that rural area articles are lowest-level articles in our hierarchy. For Streymoy that is easy to fix: just add a note that the capital isn't covered in this article and change the breadcrumb of Torshavn. Here that would mean listing Port Lockroy directly in Antarctica (or West Antarctica, if we breadcrumb also this there), which seems odd.
I note that I had the wrong impression of how many articles were breadcrumbed to here. It seems Port Lockroy is the only real offender; South Shetland Islands‎ and Esperanza Base are significant and big enough to be broken out. Still, if this is to be a rural area article, there should be significantly more content in See, Do etc. Now most is delegated to the upper and lower level articles, as is common in region articles, and to the descriptions in the "one-liners" of Bases and points of interest.
I think we could keep this as region and split out three or four rural area articles in addition to Esperanza Base and South Shetland Islands, with space for real listings for the sights in each.
LPfi (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a normal year there are 170,000 visitors to Antarctica, and numbers were rising pre-covid; there is now pent-up demand as tourism resumes. The great majority were on cruises to the Peninsula. For every one who visits, there must be a score who are interested but never book a trip. So two million plus is the potential readership that we could attract and assist, hence my pitch for full Dotm.
However the inherent limitation of this page is that much of the info is generic, such as penguin species. So these are described on the continent page and it wouldn’t be sensible to duplicate, but it leaves this page sparser than most. I think we can trust readers to click on the hyperlinks, so the two pages are read together.
I took the discussion on region v rural area to the continent page because it affects all of Antarctica, and potentially lots of thinly populated places. There seemed to be acceptance that its regions were indeed regions, and IMO it was not reasonable to unilaterally switch the Peninsula back to rural area. (The example given Stremoy looks a whole lot like a region: it contains the capital Torshavn and has a population of 24,700.) South Pole is rightly a rural area and I suggest so is Lockroy, it’s just a cabin in an icy bay. The regions of Antarctica are vast, are the next level down from the continent, and their labelling shouldn’t be affected by the number of sub-pages or POIs. Grahamsands (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]