Talk:Antarctica

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CIA Factbook[edit]

For future reference the CIA World Factbook 2002 import is at Talk:Antarctica/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:56, 15 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Australian Antarctic Territory[edit]

Copied from Talk:Australian Antarctic Territory:

(WT-en) Cjensen suggests redirect to Antarctica, unless someone can define how a part of "Australian Antarctic" that is not within Antarctica.

I disagree. Australian Antarctic Territory is a region of Antarctica and Australia in a similar way the Ross Dependency is for New Zealand. Both countries claim these respective parts of the frozen continent, just as a number of other countries do. If we are going to permit the Ross Dependency have an article then there should be one each for the other Antarctic claims too, as each will be administered by a different country. Constitutionally, an Australian Territory is like a potential State, with its own laws, border controls and administration. So I see this article as a stub, rather than a redirect or a vote for deletion. -- (WT-en) Huttite 01:36, 27 Nov 2005 (EST)

I would very much like to avoid any further debates of the Taiwan / Palestinian Territories variety, and would very much oppose creating regions for Antarctica based on each country's claims (many of which overlap). If someone wants to divide Antarctica up into sensible regions based on tourism (Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Sea might be a good start) and then have territorial articles redirect to those regions it might make more sense, but creating regions based on territorial claims seems a recipe for disaster.
Also, to add a bit more, article 4 of the Antarctic treaty says that all countries with claims in Antarctica will ignore those claims while the Antartic Treaty is in force, so saying territorial claims are like "states" with their own laws and such is not entirely true at present. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:19, 27 Nov 2005 (EST)
I support removing the Ross Dependency also. Unless the claimant nation enforces actual control over the claimed region, I fail to see how the claim matters to the traveller. In the absence of an effect upon travel, I see no reason to bother with the claims. The state of things does bear mentioning in the Antarctica article because it provides both good education and entertainment. -- (WT-en) Colin 04:09, 27 Nov 2005 (EST)
While I appreciate the claimant nations are not enforcing their claims, as such, nevertheless obtaining permission to visit these various regions of Antarctica generally means at least advising the appropriate administration in the particular country concerned. As making travel arrangements for these various regions of Antarctica are likely to differ, making separate pages for each region seems sensible to me. I admit they are administrative regions. However, until there is a better and more logical breakdown of the continent, these claim regions are going to keep coming back. I think a breakdown by administrative region should remain, if only to prevent these articles being randomly regenerated. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:16, 28 Nov 2005 (EST)
That actually isn't entirely true -- visiting a base requires permission from the country that owns the base, but visiting (for example) the Antarctic Peninsula does not require informing any claimant nation. I was planning on cleaning up the Antarctica article after I visit again in January, but I'll try to take a stab at re-organizing things in the next couple of days just to try to add some order. The two main regions visited by tourists are the Antarctic Peninsula (claimed by several countries) and the Ross Sea area (also claimed by several countries), so I'd like to start with those regions and make any claimant articles redirect to the appropriate parent region. Let me know if that sounds unreasonable. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:17, 29 Nov 2005 (EST)
I've redirect Ross Dependency and Australian Antarctic Territory to Ross Sea, which is how the area is more commonly known for tourists. Antarctica now has three regions: South Pole, Ross Sea, and Antarctic Peninsula. That doesn't cover the entire continent, but it does cover the areas where the vast majority of tourists visit. Hopefully I've not ruffled too many feathers by making this change. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:49, 1 Dec 2005 (EST)
I think it is a easy convenient alternative way of labelling another region that isn't the Ross Sea, the South Pole or the Peninsula. Whether the claim is recognised or not there is a whole chunk of the continent that is, from an Australian perspective, the Australian Antarctic Territory. What do we call that big chunk directly below Australia that isn't the Ross Sea? East Antarctica? For example I've been to Commonwealth Bay and that would be easy to show as in the AA Territory (actually it may even be close to the French territory - I'll check that)- it's definitely not in the Ross Sea. The region also contains the French base Dumont D'urville. The Aussie bases Casey, Davis and Mawson also definitely no where near the Ross Sea, the South Pole or the Peninsula and are spread out across that region (all 6 million square kilometres of it).I think we need some designation whether it is the Australian Antarctic Territory or East Antarctica (is it East Antarctica???) that takes in the region that is essentially the Australian Antarctic Territory (for the want of another label). What do you think? --(WT-en) Shane 05:00, 20 Mar 2006 (EST)
I've pushed back the indent slightly to make the conversation easier to read - hope that's OK. Anyhow, political names are a bit of a problem since they arouse passions and are not usually what travelers use. In addition, looking at a map of claims it appears that the Australian claim is bisected by a French claim, so it's probably not a great region description since it's actually two separate areas. After looking at various tour companies and at the IAATO Tourism Page, it appears that the most commonly used name is East Antarctica, so I like that better. It avoids any political connotations, is fairly straightforward, and covers the entire eastern side of the continent including both Australian and French claims. Would that be acceptable, and we can then have Australian Antarctic Territory redirect to East Antarctica? -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:41, 19 March 2006 (EST)
The last couple of years has seen an increase in tourism to the region so East Antarctica is an appropriate designation for the region I think. So you can count me as in favour of a redirect of Australian Antarctic Territory to East Antarctica. --(WT-en) Shane 11:40, 20 Mar 2006 (AU EST)

Question[edit]

These facts are interesting to know but maybe you could answer my questions. When do tourists visit Antarctica? At what time of year do people generally visit?

You'll find this information in the article: the time to visit is in the summer, which in the southern hemisphere is roughly December thru March. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:18, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Tourists are really friendly people in Antarctica..except there are none..so have fun being a loner!!

Thanks! I assume by none you mean 35,000? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Under stay safe, it says that 'Every year numerous people die or are seriously injured during the crossing to and from the continent.' Are there statistics available that support this statement?

I think that the language could be cleaned up so that it isn't specific to just the crossing, but if you travel to the Antarctic every boat operator will have stories of people that broke bones, fell, or otherwise sustained injuries during trips to and around the Antarctic. It's an extreme environment, so accidents are bound to happen. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:01, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Photos[edit]

The COTW notes for Antarctica indicate that more photos may be needed - I'm willing to contribute just about any of the Antarctic photos from my collection (http://mountaininterval.org/photos.html). I've added a couple already, but if anyone sees anything that would help illustrate some facet of Antarctic travel let me know and I'll upload the image. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:27, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow! I had a lot of trouble picking between those photos—that looks like an incredible trip. I think it would be great to illustrate the Antarctic Peninsula page with photos 169, 188, and 191. Photo 177 would be a great "fauna" pic for the main article too. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:05, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks - the Antarctic is by far one of the world's most incredible places to visit. Time permitting I'll create versions of those images without the copyright notices on them and upload them tonight. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:42, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
Most of the photos I take end up with a number in the file name, and I thought I knew which photos you were referring to, but now I'm not 100% sure, so any clarification is appreciated. Also, to be clear, the trip started out in the Falklands and South Georgia, so not all photos are applicable to Antarctica. The Antarctic photos start with this one (actually that's the South Orkneys, but close enough). Some photos that might work well:
Does that seem reasonable? Alternatively let me know the URLs for any photos to upload and I'll do so. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:35, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Ah, the 177 picture is this one, of a leopard seal. And the affected solemn dignity of the penguin in this one cracks me up. I really like the M/V Polar Star and south orkneys iceberg photos you just linked too. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:36, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Images uploaded an added to articles. I didn't upload the gentoo penguin picture since from a photographic standpoint I'm still upset at myself for blowing the exposure - a silhouetted penguin would have made a great shot, but as-is he just looks underexposed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:57, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Cruise listings[edit]

The list of cruising options is getting a bit long and the individual entries are starting to look like ads. Are there enough companies that we can just list a bunch with their websites and let the reader sort them out? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:53, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

It probably makes sense to move them to Antarctic Peninsula and Ross Sea since those are the two places that boats generally go, with rare exceptions. -- (WT-en) wrh2 11:23, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
I'm not sure I'd want to see so many ad-like listings in both of those articles, either. I daresay that might even be worse than having them here. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:00, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Immigration procedure?[edit]

Are there any legal procedures required to enter Antarctica? /Yvwv (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be aware of any (remember that you usually can't just "book a flight" and most cruises start from points with their own immigration issues. But I'd presume that each base/claimed territory has its own rules. Of course most people actually only do cruises, which are treated differently from a migration standpoint in many territories. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Antarctic redirects[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So there have been a lot of redirects for the likes of "x's claim in Antarctica". Should we have them? After all they overlap and "de facto control" is pretty murky down there... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the Wikipedia article on w:Territorial claims in Antarctica. But (unless I'm missing something) none of the redirects are in the format "x's claim in Antarctica". They're what you'll find in the Wikipedia article: Ross Dependency, Australian Antarctic Territory, etc.
I created a lot of those redirects today, but a lot of them were already there. And I don't see a problem with them. Yes, a lot of the claims overlap. But they all redirect to the appropriate Antarctic region article, and they are nominally "countries" (in the same way that Hong Kong and Porto Rico are countries). If we were talking about articles, it'd be a different question; I don't think they deserve articles. But I think redirects are appropriate. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Come to think of it: A benefit of redirects like these is that they discourage the creation of articles. And we probably don't want an article for the Australian Antarctic Territory, East Antarctica can cover that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What in the world is "~Mount Terror!~"?[edit]

It's shown in the description for the Mount Erebus listing under "Destinations". Frankly, I'm surprised nobody's brought it up earlier. --75.139.126.10 18:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

See w:Mount Terror (Antarctica). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was a fictional place at H. P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness before reading up the WP link Ikan provided above. Vidimian (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Reorganizing the region articles[edit]

The lower-level region on this article are poorly organized at best. Here's some examples of this:

  • Antarctic Peninsula: a region article with two lower-level destinations, South Shetland Islands and Villa Las Estrellas. To add to the oddities of this, Las Estrellas is categorized under the South Shetland Islands, meaning that there is a region article with one region article below it and one city article below that.
  • East Antarctica: a region with nothing categorized under it as a lower-level destination (which I'm okay with, really)
  • Ross Sea: a region article, despite our general rule about bodies of water articles, with one region article underneath it, Macquarie Island
  • South Pole: listed as a "region" on the Antarctica page, but South Pole is actually a city article with no lower-level destinations underneath it
  • West Antarctica: a region article with Antarctic Peninsula listed as a subregion of it.

Let me make this clear: it's pathetic. And I understand why: Antarctica isn't exactly thriving with tourist destinations. But here's how this could be reorganized to seem less like a Berkshire Hathaway's company organization and more like a useful travel guide. Here's my idea for a reorganization of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic regions:

This may seem complicated, but I'll assure you that will make sense once it is completed. There will be plenty of information in each article and the format will be fairly logical. The lack of good content on the Antarctic mainland is unfortunate, but this would be the best way to deal with it. Selfie City (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to get to work on this in the near future (probably next couple days), but contact me here or on my user page if you think this isn't what should be done. Selfie City (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Best to wait a couple of days for a consensus on a proposal of this nature. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I will. Selfie City (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands belong in South America. I don't know about the rest of the proposal, but it seems reasonable. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

ThunderingTyphoons!: I made the change. Selfie City (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
You made what change? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you mean now. Thanks. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the South Pole should be shown on the map. I am not sure a "cities" section makes much sense. I do however think that the Antarctic Peninsula as the "mildest" and the only part of the continent anybody seriously claims to be inhabited by "normal civilians" (and the one place where the - less people than went to the moon - were born "on Antarctica") is a distinct region and there should be room to write about it as such. Most of the "business travelers" to Antarctica won't need our help, I guess and those who travel for pleasure will likely only visit the Peninsula anyway. Or am I much mistaken here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you are mistaken. In general terms, I'm not overly confident of Wikivoyage's ability to offer a decent travel guide to Antarctica, since it's such a unique destination. Pretty much every tourist that goes there is part of a guided group. People who go for other reasons will have everything they need to know from the organisation they work for. The only way I can see this group of articles being more than superficially useful is if we somehow find one or two Antarctic travel experts, who would be willing to edit here. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons! and Hobbitschuster: instead of "cities" we could use "settlements". I think an Antarctica travel guide (like the one here) is useful for those going by cruise; it can give you an idea of the geography of the island, along with information about the scenery, etc., and it might help a tourist decide whether to go to Antarctica on a cruise or not. I think I could add to the article, but my knowledge on Antarctica is of course limited. I think, though, the best we can do with the Antarctica article is slim down the number of articles and merge content instead of making a complex article hierarchy with almost nothing in it. Selfie City (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Maybe "research stations" works better? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No, Villa Las Estrellas is on Antarctica but isn't a research station. Selfie City (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean if we humor the Chilean (or was it Argentinian?) claim that the people who live there are "normal civilians" and doing "normal civilian stuff" rather than being researchers at a research station, sure. On the other hand it seems to me, a layperson, doubtful much useful research is going on at research stations that are staffed year round when the temperatures dip below even "freezer" and the sun disappears. But "research stations" they are, even in winter. And no, politics has nothing to do with any of those claims. Not at all. Not in the slightest. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the political reasons, they are at least trying to be proper settlements, so I think that's the best collective term for them and the actual research stations. Either term is better than "Cities", of course. Apparently Chile has even gone as far to fly in pregnant women so the babies are born native Antarcticans (or is it a cynical attempt to gain British citizenship? Answer: almost certainly. Those pesky immugruntz are willing to try anything to sneak over the battlements of HMP Britannia)
I agree that pooling the content into a smaller number of articles is the right thing to do. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons!, is that consensus for the changes? Selfie City (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say so. Unless you're raring to go, you could always give it another 12 hours to allow more opinions to surface, though that doesn't seem very likely at this point. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
While the first native born Antarctican was indeed offered British citizenship (Wikipedia mentions him by name, but I think we should respect his privacy) the United Kingdom has since abolished ius soli citizenship. By the way, I have created an outline on Esperanza Base based mostly upon old aunti Wi. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, that's another place under "Settlements", or "Bases", or whatever we want to call it. I'll get to work on this in the near future, whatever that is. Selfie City (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the breadcrumbs for Esperanza Base are wrong see Talk:Esperanza Base for more. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Progress so far[edit]

I've gotten to work on the project, and I've created Subantarctic Islands and Antarctic Islands. I'm taking information out of Islands of the Southern Ocean. Selfie City (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ross Sea is now a redirect and a lot of its information has been moved to other places. Selfie City (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster, ThunderingTyphoons!: now I'm making the changes I think it would probably be better to make Antarctic Peninsula, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica lower-level regions underneath the Antarctic Mainland. This would make sense because we wouldn't have to change the Antarctica static map and we'd be able to keep three articles. However, the rest of the plan is going pretty well. Selfie City (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Good job. It sounds like your handling it well. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go ahead with this new plan. Selfie City (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You can correct me if I missed something, but I think the project's done! Thanks for your help on this. Selfie City (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
All credit goes to you, Selfie City. Thanks for your lightning-quick work :D I undertook a similar project reorganisations of France, and it took me 10 months! Our approaches were different of course. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but that was a much larger project. Selfie City (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Static map replacement[edit]

Although the current static map is OK, it would be excellent if a static mapmaker could create turn the blue, green, and salmon colors on the static map into one color for Antarctic Mainland. That way, I could turn Antarctic Mainland into a region on the list like Antarctic Islands and remove the two headings in that section. As the regions section is now, we're including subregions on the regions list, which is messy organization. I'm assuming this wouldn't be too hard. Thank. Selfie City (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I recommend checking out one of these guys: Wikivoyage:Regions_map_Expedition#Expedition_members. Good luck! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
And also, just wanted to mention that the color of the Antarctic Peninsula would need to be changed too. Just want this to be on the record. Selfie City (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
How would User:Saqib and User:LtPowers feel about doing this? It would really help with the reorganized Antarctica articles. Thanks. Selfie City (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I also want to bring out the statistics:

Current hierarchy[edit]

The higher-level destinations are listed as they are on the regionlist.

Antarctica regionlist[edit]

As things stand at the moment:

Offshore Antarctica[edit]

  Antarctic Islands
There are some islands around the Antarctica mainland that are south of sixty degrees latitude; north of them are the Subantarctic Islands

Mainland Antarctica[edit]

  Antarctic Peninsula
Antarctica's principal destination, nearest to Tierra del Fuego, with the impressive topography of the Antarctic Andes, island hot springs, and the continent's densest concentration of research stations
  East Antarctica
the Eastern Hemisphere's vast icy desert wasteland that makes up most of the continent is probably the least well known to tourists, but there are a few interesting destinations, including Mawson's Huts and the Southern Pole of Inaccessibility
  West Antarctica
With the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, West Antarctica is barren and empty, even of research stations (except for the Brunt Ice Shelf), but it does contain the continent's highest and lowest points, the former of which you can climb on a guided expedition

Notice how one region (Antarctic Mainland) with the same rank as another region (Antarctic Islands) is linked to as a heading, while the other one is formatted like a normal region. That's because the colors of East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and Antarctica Peninsula match the current map, which was created before the articles were reorganized. The problem is, however, that East, West Antarctica, and the Peninsula are actually a lower-level region than they appear to be on the map and the region list.

If map is redesigned:

If the map's redesigned, though, we could simplify the region list to only include the regions categorized right under Antarctica. The color of the second one is still a question mark and depends on the proposed map coloring.

  Antarctic Islands
Antarctica's principal destination, nearest to Tierra del Fuego, with the impressive topography of the Antarctic Andes, island hot springs, and the continent's densest concentration of research stations
  Antarctic Mainland
the Eastern Hemisphere's vast icy desert wasteland that makes up most of the continent is probably the least well known to tourists, but there are a few interesting destinations, including Mawson's Huts and the Southern Pole of Inaccessibility

Makes more sense, though, right? Now, only regions directly underneath Antarctica are listed. Selfie City (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

this makes no sense, why are you classifying them as if you're trying to explain antarctica geographically? Tourists do not want to "visit antarctic islands" they want to visit antarctica and would enter in through one of three options. No tour operator offers tours to a combination of antarctic islands but not antarctic peninsula or vice versa. This needs to be fixed. I've made a temporary change but in the end the islands should be contained in the respective three options, east, west, and antarctica via south america

South Korea banning travel to Antarctica[edit]

I read somewhere on WP that South Korea doesn't let its citizens into Antarctica. Can anybody confirm this? Apparently the reasons are some sort of environmental concerns. What are the consequences for e.g. a dual citizen traveling on a different passport and then going back to South Korea? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I searched on DuckDuckGo and, apart from WP, I couldn't find any info. I look at it this way: if the law really exists, South Koreans won't need a travel guide to tell them the law. Selfie City (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
They might. It might be a very obscure law. However, if it's so obscure that we can't find confirmation it exists, we definitely shouldn't include it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Right. Selfie City (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia offer a citation? If not, please tagg it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
But I'm not sure what article it is on WP. It's not w:South Korea or w:Antarctica. Selfie City (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe w:tourism in Antarctica? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, found it. It cited a page written in Korean. Selfie City (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have somebody who knows sufficient Korean to comment? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
There's translate; I think a lawyer might be more useful. Just kidding, I think WP might have actually gotten it wrong—I think it's only anti-environmental purposes that ban South Koreans from visiting Antarctica, according to what I read. Selfie City (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
There are serious concerns about the environmental impact of travel to Antarctica. I think it only takes eighth grade level chemistry knowledge to recognize that many pollutants - particularly excess organic compounds - take longer to decompose or otherwise lose their harmfulness in colder climates... So if a country bans its citizens on environmental grounds that would be a good place to segue into a discussion of the environmental pro and contra... I think that one HBO show with that British guy also did a bit on how people shouldn't travel to Antarctica. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, if we know exactly what the document means, we should explain it here. Otherwise, it's not necessary to include it here, although we do need to make the environmental issues clear in the article. Selfie City (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Antarctica is not mentioned in w:Visa_requirements_for_South_Korean_citizens#Access-restricted_countries, and if you scroll up a little bit, it says Antarctica can be visited with permits from the countries governing areas there.
User:-revi can perhaps help with the Korean text. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The assembly.go.kr link is "Antarctica activities and environmental protection law", prohibited actions are "conducting nuclear test, deploying military personnel, otherwise destructing environment". Visiting antarctica indeed does require permission from Minister of Foreign Ministry of Korea, and as long as you have permission, there’s nothing preventing SK people from visiting Antarctica. — Revi 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
How hard is it to get that permit? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea - but JoongAng Ilbo claims there's 10-20 SK tourists/year, stating cost for the travel (not the permit, +US$11000) as a reason. — Revi 01:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for individual bases[edit]

Like McMurdo, I think we could do well in creating more articles about research stations and bases. I don't think by any means we should write these about every research station and base, but some more would not only improve the status of the hierarchy on the Antarctic Mainland, but also be useful to the traveler if we could find out enough information.

Eco-Photo Tours has a really useful list of research stations. We probably shouldn't include the summer-only ones, but we could consider Palmer Station and Mawson Station. I don't know enough about these places to really create a useful article about them, but the coordinates and this map should be a help. Selfie City (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I just created an article for Port Lockroy. It needs work and expansion, though. Selfie City (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think McMurdo as by far the largest station, the two claimed "civilian settlements" and the South Pole (station) are the only obvious travel destinations in terms of bases. I am not sure a regular tourist could get to many of the others and I am not sure to what extent we want to or are able to cater to people there on business, if even "just" a car mechanic maintaining the diesel generators. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Do these meet the criteria for articles? Can a stay at these places as a visitor, tourist or business? What sights to see and places to eat? Maybe should just be listings in one or two articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The issue I have with Hobbitschuster's and Traveler100's arguments is that, for one, the whole point of going to Antarctica is that it's a remote place. If people are looking for hotels, they go to Shanghai, not the South Pole. In any place like Antarctica, there's probably often the camping option in summer — but if that doesn't count for an article, then we'd have to turn into redirects remote places like Guadalupe Island as well. It seems to me that, for really remote destinations, the sleep test isn't very relevant. Selfie City (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it is relatively safe to assume that those that work in Antarctica, especially those that overwinter, have most everything arranged through their employer (well, one would hope that at any rate). Now most bases are emphatically not for tourists as they would get in the way of the serious research done there. So why should we have articles on them? This notably doesn't mean we shouldn't have article on any bases, but we should decide on a case by case basis and hash out criteria. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've actually just brought up this discussion at the Travellers' pub. I would agree with the case-by-case basis, but I think you should read my argument at the pub as well. Selfie City (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Also, I don't support including "summer-only" bases; I just think we ought to include the important bases. Otherwise the hierarchy is region — region — region — and hardly any actual settlements. However, if you think we should make Artigas Base a redirect, that makes sense. I just don't like seeing a list of bases with no links to any actual articles. Selfie City (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by not including? Seasonal-only destinations are still valid; see Black Rock City, which has previously been featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think if a base doesn't allow visitors besides the people who work there, we probably shouldn't have an article for it. I just don't see how the article would be useful to anyone—tourists won't go there, and researchers and support staff will already have much better information than we can ever hope to provide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Should we delete articles like British Indian Ocean Territory? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No. As the article says, the outer islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory can be visited by independent yachters, and the article has information about how to obtain the relevant permits, etc. But I think we shouldn't split out a separate article about Diego Garcia, which is off-limits to tourists. Likewise, we should certainly have articles about Antarctica, but not about individual research stations that are off-limits to tourists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've been to several of these bases and would not suggest creating articles for them, just as an article would not be created for a visitor center or staff lodging area in a national park. For the purposes of a travel guide it makes sense to treat the regions of Antarctica like national parks, since travelers will visit them in much the same way as they would visit a place like Denali National Park. If an article like Antarctic Peninsula becomes too detailed then split it up as appropriate, but an article just for a tiny speck on the map within the peninsula like Port Lockroy seems way too granular. On a related note, Port Lockroy is on the Antarctic Peninsula and is not on one of the Antarctic Islands as it is currently tagged. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Port Lockroy is one of the main tourist destinations in Antarctica, so I think if we're including McMurdo, Villa Las Estrellas, and Esperanza Base, we should include Port Lockroy as well, but not any tiny stations or summer-only stations, I agree. Also, Port Lockroy is on Gouldier Island, so Antarctic Islands is the right place for it. Selfie City (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Should this article have a work section?[edit]

I think each of us is aware that we are not the experts on Antarctica, but for those wishing to do more than tourism, maybe it'd be helpful to point them into the right direction. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The article does have a Work section, which I think is a good thing. If someone has the knowledge, it might be good to expand the section with information about agencies that staff other countries' bases and maybe about opportunities working on cruise ships, etc. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to breadcrumb islands just off the antarctic peninsula[edit]

I think they should be breadcrumbed to the peninsula. Do you think they should be breadcrumbed to the grab all bag of "Antarctic islands"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing, because otherwise how do we decide which are Antarctic Islands and which are Antarctic Mainland? We've put McMurdo in Antarctic Islands previously for that reason, because it's on an island. Should we move that one to West Antarctica now? And where would Villa Las Estrellas go? If we started to breadcrumb them with the peninsula, there soon wouldn't be much left for the islands. Interesting thought, though. Selfie City (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Antarctic Peninsula is under Mainland Antarctica. It wouldn't make sense to include any islands (at all) underneath the Mainland Antarctica article. Selfie City (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What is an island in Antarctica? If one looks at those maps, it's basically all islands... (Of course these maps ignore possible glacial rebound and whatnot... I think the islands clearly just off the Antarctic peninsula are so similar to the peninsula itself that breadcrumbing them to a "catch all" category which has little in common with itself may be misleading and unhelpful... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, look at this map, which makes clear the outline of the Antarctic landmass. And keep in mind that the term "Antarctic Islands" means that they are close to Antarctica by definition — the ones that aren't so close are the Subantarctic Islands. Selfie City (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Plenty of those "islands" are connected to the "mainland" with ice in winter. The map you quote only looks "straightforward" because of all that ice. The "Peninsula" is an "island" under the ice only connected to the "mainland" by ice. Maybe we should not breadcrumb the peninsula to the mainland? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to get to technical about this. Bases on islands are categorized under Antarctic Islands and bases on the Peninsula are categorized under Antarctic Peninsula. It doesn't seem logical for a base on an island to not be categorized under Antarctic Islands. Selfie City (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
However, on second thoughts I think we should give mention to some bases, like Marambio, in the Antarctic Peninsula article under the "Go next" section. Would you agree to that? Selfie City (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Visitors to Antarctica basically go to one of three places: they leave from South America to visit the Antarctic Peninsula by boat, they leave from New Zealand for a boat trip in the Ross Sea, or they take a flight over/to the South Pole. Given that reality, regions should be organized based on how they are visited, since no one would ever visit McMurdo and Port Lockroy on the same trip. Putting McMurdo and an island on the peninsula in the same region because they are technically both on islands, rather than in the peninsula region and the Ross Sea region (or whatever it is now called) is a bit like putting Manhattan and Alcatraz in the same region - it doesn't make sense from a travel standpoint. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It doesn't seem that the reorganization is working out so well. In the case of McMurdo, we could always categorize it with West Antarctica. Selfie City (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I dislike uninspired catch all donuts. They may have their place as a stopgap. And it may well be useful to put islands not connected to the Peninsula in such a catch all donut, but I do not see the need to put the islands just off the peninsula into such a donut when there is a category they belong into much more... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

this makes no sense, why are you classifying them as if you're trying to explain antarctica geographically? Tourists do not want to "visit antarctic islands" they want to visit antarctica and would enter in through one of three options. No tour operator offers tours to a combination of antarctic islands but not antarctic peninsula or vice versa. This needs to be fixed. I've made a temporary change but in the end the islands should be contained in the respective three options, east, west, and antarctica via south america —The preceding comment was added by 181.75.205.237 (talkcontribs)

I know it's a little awkward that I'm saying this because I created the hierarchy structure, and sorry for being blunt, but a few things:
  • First, you just did this without consensus. You need some people to be okay with these kinds of changes first.
  • Second, "Antarctica via South America" cannot be region of Antarctica.
  • Third, sure, my reorganization may not have been perfect, but that doesn't mean it "makes no sense". What's so wrong with it that you have to suddenly burst in here, say you know better, and then change the article?
You may well be right, but make sure you have agreement to do so first. The preceding discussion took place months ago. Also remember to sign your comments on talk pages. I wouldn't mind if you came onto this site, made some good contributions; etc, and then raised some objections, but instead you burst in here and make the changes and say it makes no sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing that what the IP editor refers to as "antarctica via south america" is the region that we used to call "Antarctic Peninsula" before the reorganization. My impression is that the pre-2018 region structure made more sense than the current one, though I've never been to the continent and my knowledge is very limited. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Is the question about whether some or all the Antarctic islands should belong to the Antarctic Peninsula article? It seems logical that islands that are far from the peninsula and usually visited on tours not going to the mainland make up their own region. What to do with islands closer to "mainland" destinations (geographically or logistically) is more tricky. I suppose that should be up to case by case considerations. Having some islands treated as part of the mainland is no problem, especially if they are visited on the same tour. Only some of the islands off Norway's northern coast are considered Islands of the Arctic Ocean for our purposes: the Svalbard islands are, but not e.g. Karlsøy, Hammerfest, Nordkapp or Vardø. --LPfi (talk)
I'm fine to work case-by-case on this, but an IP address with no previous experience making edits without any considerations doesn't seem reasonable at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I made my queasiness with the breadcrumb change clear back when we first had the discussion. I'm not sure if anybody else did, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The new structure is confusing, I've visited Antarctica from the southern tip of South America for which you get to access the Antarctic Peninsula. As a traveller researching my trip to Antarctica I find the older structure more meaningful than the new one. The new structure implies that Antarctic islands are a destination of interest separate from the Antarctic Peninsula. The new structure should also include south pole as separate since they have tours to the south pole. I think a more relevant analogy would be dividing up NYC into two parts instead of the five boroughs. One could list them as Islands (off-shore New York) and the Bronx (as part of mainland), as a traveler this is a bit confusing even though it might be geographically sound. Selfie City let me know if I can help, I've spent 2 years researching my trip to Antarctica and I don't think we should give up on this article because "most people just let the cruises or guided tour companies organize everything" —The preceding comment was added by 2604:2000:c5c1:1a00:8592:5d18:479:4fc7 (talkcontribs)

Thanks a lot for participating! I just want to mention, parenthetically, that on talk pages, we "sign" our posts by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of each post. I've signed for you this time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to work on a reorganization. Perhaps it would be useful to create a travel topic article for "Antarctica via South America" or "Cruises to Antarctica". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally do not think it should be "Antarctica via South America" or "Cruises to Antarctica" (note that there are flights only options to Antarctica for tourists). I think the regions should reflect the regions to visit, for example, if I am thinking of going to Antarctica then the regions should be a classification of what options there are for me to take. Antarctic Peninsula along with its many islands is a major destination, flights and cruises exist. Next would be West Antarctica, this is where Union Glacier Camp is located along with Mt Vinson (highest peak in Antarctica). This is a starting point for people climbing the highest peak of Antarctica, people running the annual marathon, or people planning a skiing trip to the south pole. Ross sea/ice shelf is also a big attraction, many cruises leave from New Zealand to get to this region, this is also where the largest Antarctic community is located (McMurdo station with ~1000 people during the summer). Finally, East Antarctica (which might be the least visited and least accessible), has cruises from South Africa to visit Queen Maud Land or NZ to visit East Antarctica's side that is closest to Ross Sea. As things currently stand, maybe something like this would make sense:

Antarctic Peninsula (include Antarctic Islands as a subtopic)
West Antarctica
East Antarctica (might not be correct but include Queen Maud Land and Victoria Land as subtopics)
Ross Sea and Ice Shelf
South Pole

I think I do see the point that Antarctic Islands shouldn't belong separately, this makes sense since you wouldn't have USA list Midwest, New England, West Coast, and "islands of USA." So maybe list Antarctic Islands as a link in respective regions where there are offshore islands? Travel-wise, the Antarctic Peninsula and their islands are seen as contiguous. Marathonian (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem with East/West Antarctica is the South Pole. I find it hard to call it a "region" because it is a point on the earth's surface. Seems like a destination article makes more sense. "Antarctic Mainland" can be changed to "Antarctic Plateau" and made an extraregion.
Just some thoughts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Why don't we just go back to the old regions? They match what Marathonian is proposing exactly, they were put together at least partly by experienced Antarctic traveler User:Wrh2, and the new structure is really confusing in how it treats islands. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with User:Mx. Granger. I think the South Pole is much more than just a dot on the earth's surface, it encompasses a research station and is a big tourist topic of discussion with multi-day luxury trips to that area. I think based on what you said, this is more of a reason to push Antarctic Islands under destinations since "Antarctic Islands" are really not a region and should not be placed under regions. I would remove Antarctic Islands and move it to destinations and then remove "Mainland Antarctica" headline. We can then discuss what to do with the South Pole. What do you guys think? Marathonian (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You folks should do whatever helps travelers most. I give you my blessings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I know someone who's at the South Pole right now. I just saw on Facebook that he rode a mountain bike around the ceremonial pole today. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Just made an edit, take a look please. Alternatively, we can move the antarctic islands link to regions and add it as a footnote
One thing we can do is move markers #7 and #21 from Antarctic Islands to Antarctic Peninsula because they are near the peninsula. Antarctic Islands is supposed to be parallel to Subantarctic Islands; perhaps restrict "Antarctic Islands" to South Shetland, South Orkney, and South Georgia Islands? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
South Shetland is seen as part of the Antarctic Peninsula. South Georgia is subantarctic and has different cruises going there (they depart from Ushuaia and head east rather than south). Orkney is a special case as it is usually traveled to for cruises that combine South Georgia with Antarctica. I'm fine moving some islands directly under Antarctic Peninsula but it should include South Shetland (specifically, King George Island) as it is the starting entry point or stopover for almost all tourists to the Antarctic Peninsula. It is also true politically as many nations use Shetland islands to solidify their territorial claims to the Antarctic peninsula and more. Marathonian (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
What if we merged some of the islands in Antarctic Islands with Antarctic Peninsula to create a new article titled "Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand what the problem is that you're trying to solve so I can better help, is it because the Antarctic Islands article feels orphaned at the moment? Or did you want to basically appropriate the islands to each respective region and get rid of that Antarctic Islands article itself? Marathonian (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, so far you've implied that you don't think the Antarctic Islands article should exist as it currently is, which is fair enough, since you seem to know a lot about the continent. However, we can't ignore the fact that there are islands off the coast of Antarctica, so it seems that by creating an article with a title like "Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands", we make clear that the article is both about the Antarctic Peninsula and the islands around it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your title change is logical to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds a bit redundant since the peninsula referred to as a region encompasses the islands but Antarctic Peninsula with or without "and nearby islands" both work. Marathonian (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Right, I understand, but remember that many of the people reading the article won't know anything about Antarctica yet. So it's important to be very clear about everything, and to not mislead anyone. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
"Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands" seems clunky and unnecessary to me. (For comparison, we don't have an article called "Upper Peninsula and nearby islands".) It's hard for me to see how the previous title could lead to any real confusion, though of course I'm happy to defer to the opinions of more knowledgeable people like Marathonian and Wrh2. I continue to think we should go back to the old regions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I think bring back Ross Sea article and add information about the islands (shetland, etc...) into the antarctic peninsula article. Still keep the antarctic islands article and reference it in islands. We've not heard from Wrh2 but I assume, based on logs, he's the one who previously organized all of this. Marathonian (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying this means we can't have a Ross Sea article, but take a look at WV:What is an article?. It says not to have articles about geographical regions, but that they're okay if they're regions sharing the name of geographical features.
Also, the reason I created the current hierarchy was largely because it felt that there were many region articles without "City" articles underneath them. I created the current structure so there would be at least a few stations for each region. Would that be the case with a Ross Sea article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
We can do without a ross sea article, since most of the important information I already listed under Ross Sea in this Antarctica article. My main concern right now is the antarctic peninsula article.. It has no detailed information about the nearby islands. Should we revert to the old Antarctic Peninsula article with all that information? Marathonian (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Makes sense. It sounds like there are, really, three main places in Antarctica where tourists go: the Antarctic Peninsula and the neighboring islands, the McMurdo area, and the South Pole. It makes it hard to organize. Perhaps the Antarctic Peninsula article (whether islands is in the title or not) could be a park article, the McMurdo article remain a city (as the closest thing to Ross Sea article), and then South Pole remain a city article. Perhaps, that's all we really need for Antarctica, and then East Antarctica, West Antarctica etc. could be merged into the main Antarctica article — since it seems that those are geographical regions, not tourist areas. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I support Marathonian's suggestions of bringing back the Ross Sea article and going back to the old Antarctic Peninsula article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
He says that we can do without it. Whether that means "get by" without it or that it's unnecessary, I'm not quite sure. Originally, I assumed the second one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
There is more than three main places, you're forgetting Union Glacier Camp in West Antarctica. Anyhow, the way it is presented right now is better than having the main article consume West/East Antarctica. By "we can do without the Ross Sea" article, I meant this is a minor thing and it's up to you guys whether to readd it or not. For me, the biggest issue from the perspective of a traveller is the antarctic peninsula article makes no detailed mention of what the nearby islands are and what's on them. A big chunk of tourist time/activities are spent around these nearby islands. Reverting to the old antarctic peninsula article would fix that. Marathonian (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I see. By the way, how far does Palmer Land extend? Does it go all the way to the end of the peninsula? Just wondering, in case it could be a name for the region. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It starts after Graham Land (kind of mid-way) until 80th line I think. Marathonian (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that wouldn't work so well. I think "Antarctic Peninsula" would be OK, but I just think that the title may not be clear to those who are going through region structures, but don't know much about Antarctica. I'd say "Antarctic Peninsula and nearby islands", while an accurate description of the region, is too long.
What if we just called the region "Peninsula and Islands"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
That region is bigger than Spain, you wouldn't say "Spain and nearby islands" or "Spain and islands." Really, it's not confusing for first time Antarctica tourists and packages to Antarctica refer to it as "Antarctic Peninsula" as a whole (including its islands). Once they click on Antarctic Peninsula there is enough information for them to see that the peninsula includes numerous islands where landings can be made. Marathonian (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, okay. Maybe we look at these terms differently; when I think of a peninsula, I think of a physical feature, on land. I think of a peninsula more like #1-2 listed here, so the idea that a peninsula would include islands doesn't seem to make sense to me. Of course, it's not really a peninsula at all — it's an island, but that's beside point for these purposes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, geographically, a peninsula is not land with a group of islands and I understand why it's confusing from your perspective. However, from the perspective of tours and travel, the "antarctic peninsula" is the name for the region not just the peninsula. You can see this if you look at tour packages or cruises, they almost certainly would visit the islands and some cruises would only visit the islands but the trip is listed as or under "antarctic peninsula" category. What makes this even more important is the fact that travel in Antarctica is highly weather-dependent, so some trips will never have landings on the peninsula itself so it's hard for them to classify exactly what the cruise tours.. They just lump everything together under Antarctica Peninsula as a region. Marathonian (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
And in their Antarctica guidebook, Lonely Planet includes not only the peninsula and the surrounding islands but coastline to the east and west in their definition of "Antarctic Peninsula". ϒψιλον (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It's OK to call a region including islands "peninsula", as long as the fact that the region includes the islands is explained right away in the article, probably in the lede, but otherwise, definitely at the beginning of "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if "islands" is not in the title, an explanation should be provided in the lede and/or "understand" section. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

What to do with the South Pole[edit]

The discussion is whether to add the South Pole to regions or keep it in destinations. South Pole is a big topic of discussion for tourists going to Antarctica. On the other hand, I can see Selfie City's point that the South Pole is still a single point or destination. And that might open a can of worms, if we add the South Pole then why not Mount Vinson (highest peak where summit climbers land nearby), Port Lockroy (UK's post office in Antarctica), etc... Just leaving this here as a point of discussion. —The preceding comment was added by Marathonian (talkcontribs)

Yes, under list of destinations is fine; it's not far down the page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble conceptualizing the South Pole as a region. Isn't it too small a point on the globe to be a region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that's why the user moved it to the destinations section. Perhaps the lack of a signature in the first comment is confusing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Regardless if it's listed as a destination or region, I think we should keep it breadcrumbed directly under Antarctica. ϒψιλον (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Cruise ship/Boat versus Expedition ship[edit]

I think using "boat" to refer to the vessel is wrong. Boats refer to smaller ships. Using "cruise ship" I think is also wrong and very misleading to many potential travelers, a lot of the Antarctic ships are research vessels repurposed for tourism. Cruise ship gives the impression that it's similar to one of those Caribbean type cruise ships that is heavily geared towards comfort, recreational facilities (swimming pool, casino, cinema), etc... We should be using "expedition ships" because that's what they really are. This is what they look like for most of these ships: (cannot post external link just google search images for "expedition ship room") Marathonian (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change; it sounds sensible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The word expedition is something a shipping company's marketing director would love to call it, and yet they don't. They actually market this as cruises, which they are - cruises for people with too much money and even more time on their hands. The same thing you can say about cruises in the Caribbean. An expedition in my humble opinion is where you get paid to travel, since your unique set of skills might aid science, even when your skills are peeling potatoes and doing the dishes. I think that any expedition, that fits my understanding of them, will drown in the vast number of cruise lines that are listed under "expedition ships". Just my two cents. Philaweb (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So why do we not just call the section "By ship"? In the lead of the section we could explain the cruise/expedition issues. The standard section name is "By boat" (or "By ferry"), but I think having "By sailboat" separately makes sense. To my understanding, even the smallest of the cruise/expedition ships are still a lot bigger, are built in another way and do not let passengers take part of handling the ship. --LPfi (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we should expand on what to look out for when choosing an operator. I have understood most offer quite some education on board, some possibly with experts in relevant fields, which is not mentioned, and I cannot tell from the descriptions what companies offer adequate such programme on the way out.
The comments on ice breaking capabilities probably also need expansion: in many listings ice-strengthening is mentioned, but wouldn't it be quite odd to go to Antarctica without an ice-strengthened hull? One listing talked about a small ship with the highest ice class ranking. How is a small vessel capable of "year-round operation in all polar waters" (polar class 1)? Even the Finnish icebreaker Polaris, built in 2016 and intended to be used in polar waters when not needed in the Baltic, is only polar class 4 according to WP:Polar Class. According to the same article there are yet no vessels of polar class 1 (2017).
--LPfi (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I certainly agree on just calling it "By ship". Many of the operators have websites where you need to do some snooping around to find out the name of the actual ship. And you are right, some of them does not look like they are certified for ice. Anyway, they do the cruises in summer, and how many of the potential customers know about Polar Class ships? Philaweb (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed with using the standard Wikivoyage heading of 'By ship'. That's how it should be for every article, IMO.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mostly unchanged by humans?[edit]

From the article:

Antarctica is the only continent to be mostly unchanged by humans

Untrue. Human-caused global warming is causing Antarctica to lose ice sheets and more generally warm and melt at an alarming rate. I think the point that this oversimplified text is trying to make is that very little change on the continent is caused by actions taken by humans at the site, though there may be a better way to state this. However, the current text is unacceptably inaccurate, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Until today, the article said "untouched", which I think sounds better and is more accurate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"Largely untouched" is literally true but also seems a bit misleading, unless it's clearly stated that global warming has been rapidly changing Antarctica in the 21st century. If that's added to "Understand", I'll be happier, and I do think it's directly relevant to travelers because, for example, if they want to visit an ice sheet, some of it might not be there next year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that the effects of global warming are (so far) much less perceptible in the Antarctic than in the Arctic, because of the way ocean currents distribute heat or something like that. But to the extent that they affect travelers now and in the near future, we should certainly discuss them.
In my mind the important thing conveyed by a word like "untouched" is that a traveler can see vast nature with no visible signs of human activity. If it's still icy wilderness without roads, wires, buildings, trash, etc., then I think the word "untouched" gives the right impression, though I can understand others might disagree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the clarification you just gave would be useful to add to the article. As for my other point, here's an article about the melting of Antactic ice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
And this one may be more specifically relevant to travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)