Talk:Antarctic Peninsula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Antarctica / Argentine Antarctica / British Antarctic Territory / Antarctic Chilean Territory (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Argentine Antarctica work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by British Antarctic Territory work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Antarctic Chilean Territory work group (marked as Top-importance).
 

Request[edit]

If you want to add content to this entry, please do not paste entire articles from other sources. Either post a link to the article, or summarize its content and add it to the existing text. Stebbins

Tourism[edit]

Isn't this the part of Antarctica which sees the most tourism? And has actually had some people born there?--MacRusgail 00:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be good to have information about tourism on the peninsula. As for people born there, it might be a little trivial (incidental to the article) however you might find some references that have reported it. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Touch south america?[edit]

It seems to be pointing at South America, did they ever fit together? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.10.42 (talkcontribs) 13:57, May 18, 2007

Yes it is possibly an extension of the same geological process that created the Andes. Someone needs to research that and add it to the article. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maps[edit]

I wonder if it would be useful to substitute (or add) the Antarctica map which heads up the main Antarctica article. (Should that be the Antarcticle?)

That map is very useful because it places the peninsula (and the continent) in a geographical context as part of the rest of the world, not in isolation.

You can see the peninsula's relation to the southern tip of South America, and the Geography comment about the extension of the Andes becomes more meaningful. The reader will also understand that the sea gap between the peninsula and Cape Horn is comparatively narrow, and that the peninsula extends into geographically familiar regions.

I don't want to interfere with a good article by doing it myself. Michael of Lucan (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest not because there are already two maps and a satellite image on the page. Anyone seeking greater context would only have to click on the first link in to the article, Antarctica to see a continent wide map. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
My two cents:
Adding the suggested map (as the third map down) wouldn't be bad.
If you do add it, throw one of those red square in.
You could inset the suggested image into the bottom right hand corner of the second image down (the one with the red square).
The main image as it is now is perfect.
I agree with Shiftchange that the addition of any map would make the article 'map-heavy'.
The article, although small, is looking pretty sweet as it is.
Replacing the iceberg article with something about the many ice shelves or something more topical might be good. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, it is a fine article, and my only desire is to make it even better.

I have a concern that many maps in Antarctica articles show the continent accurately but in isolation from the rest of the world. Standard "Mercator-type" maps of the world give only a meaningless distortion of the continent, and I suspect many readers won't know the peninsula is close to South America.

To clarify my thinking, I would suggest replacing the second map (Location of Antarctic Peninsula) with the map which heads up the main Antarctica article, but with a red square to highlight the peninsula, exactly as in the second map. In effect, just zooming the second map out slightly to show where the peninsula is in relation to the rest of the world, as well as its own continent. Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You might have something there. Not a bad idea. Sure, it took me 15 minutes to put the red square in the first map, but hey, that's Wikipedia for ya. The reason I put that map in was because I thought it important to know where the peninsula is relative to the rest of the continent. That orientation should supersede an indication of proximity to South America. I still think the inset idea or a third map might be best. Comments?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave this to you to decide, and I am sorry if I'm adding to your workload. Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Heck, not at all. Why not download the second image and the one you suggest and inlay the latter in the bottom left corner. I just started doing it but gave up because I'm watching MASH and Radar just got rabies. Also, getting the little red rectangle at the proper angle is fenickity work.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)