Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Antarctica

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Antarctica: Adelie Land / Argentine Antarctica / Australian Antarctic Territory / Brazilian Antarctica / British Antarctic Territory / Antarctic Chilean Territory / Norwegian Antarctica / Ross Dependency This page 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.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica Associated task forces: /  This page is supported by Adelie Land work group. This page is supported by Argentine Antarctica work group. This page is supported by Australian Antarctic Territory work group. This page is supported by Brazilian Antarctica work group. This page is supported by British Antarctic Territory work group. This page is supported by Antarctic Chilean Territory work group. This page is supported by Norwegian Antarctica work group. This page is supported by Ross Dependency work group.

Hello, Please note that Transglobe Expedition, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team[reply]

Greetings, For Antartica WP I added progression, pie graph, rainbow; added wikilinks "Quality operations" and "Popular pages". JoeNMLC (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Not sure if this is the right place to ask but thought I'd give it a shot! I've been editing the page for the Agreed Measures and was looking for any help/advice to get this article upgraded from a stub to C-class! Any advice would be extremely appreciated! Thanks Bambixie (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I drafted two new navboxes for geographical articles on Antarctica, one for West Antarctica, the other for East Antarctica. I primarily used the information presented in the Geography of Antarctica article. I invite the members of the project to review them in my user space and comment here. I think it's a step up from the 2013 Geography of Antarctica navbox, which isn't very useful at this point, I think. If people think those new ones may be useful, I'll revise them and start to paste them on a few hundred pages...

Ideally, one such navbox should exist for each area to list mountains, glaciers and such, but that would be a herculean task. Robincantin (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A number of Antarctic exploration-related articles were created by Brianboulton back in 2019, who was a long-time contributor on this topic before they passed away. Many are quite high quality, for example Australasian Antarctic Expedition later became an FA. If anyone is interested, it might be good project to re-assess their quality status, and perhaps nominate them for GA or FA assessment if applicable. The most developed articles in this regard are:

• List of Antarctic exploration ships from the Heroic Age, 1897–1922
• Japanese Antarctic Expedition
  • Nobu Shirase
• Second German Antarctic Expedition
  • Deutschland (1905)
  • Felix König
  • Wilhelm Filchner
• Proposed Anglo-Swedish Antarctic Expedition 1915–20
• Joseph Foster Stackhouse

Best, CMD (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since 6 August, I am working Cleanup for Antarctica Orphan articles. At Queen Maud Land article, the "See also" section that was accumulating articles was reverted. Wondering if Ok to place these articles as a "Features" subsection under "Geography" heading?

I did similar at Marie Byrd Land Geography section. Because I've already updated hundreds of articles with "See also" section titles, it will be a major task to go back & rename all those SA to "Features" (which I am willing to do) and hoping to reach a concensus here first. Please let me know thoughts & opinions before I continue. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4ing: - Regarding recent reverts for "See also" / "Features" section of

• Palmer Archipelago
• Queen Maud Land

Please see question that I opened above. In order to "de-ophan" an artice, I have been adding wikilinks to Antartica locations mentioned in the orphan article. If I'm not allowed to do this, these articles will remain Orphan forever. I am open to any ideas/suggestions of where to place location wikilinks in an article so as to not be reverted. I appreciate an answer of how to solve this as I am not an expert and thought these updates are helping improve Antartica articles. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting See Alsos into an article section is not a good idea. Perhaps the best way to group features within a geographical area is a WP:NAVBOX. CMD (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - Thanks for the navbox suggestion. After reading up about Orphans, this may be the way to go. In my sandbox, I madeup a partial example at User:JoeNMLC/sandbox/Navbox and invite feedback here. JoeNMLC (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The navbox example is not a collection of significant/relevant articles, it is a collection of otherwise orphaned articles (normally features of low significance). To "unorphan" these articles, they should be linked from nearby features. - 4ing (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Lazarev Sea, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Law-Racoviță Station#Requested move 11 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some time-sensitive help is needed for Endurance (1912 ship) to get it ready for ITN given the discovery of the wreck. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copyediting Antarctica for the GOCE May drive and the article is inconsistent on whether it is capitalized or lowercase (and not just between the magnetic and geologic south pole). I'd like to be able to at least make it consistent?

I just checked and apparently the geologic South Pole is capitalized in its article, but not in Antarctica, and the opposite is for the magnetic.

Asparagusus (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Antarctic—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:AY and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 25#Wikipedia:AY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Antarctica/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus on which flag to use for Template:Country data Antarctica. Please discuss at Talk:Flag of Antarctica#RFC on main flag used in the country data template if interested. Federalwafer (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding the new articles I create to the appropriate section of the project page, but I've noticed I'm the only one who's added anything in the last 7 years. Am I using it incorrectly? I assume I'm not the only person who's created new Antarctica articles since 2015. Federalwafer (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, There a number of Antarctica articles up for deletion. For example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weidner Ridge, Robbins Hill, Savage Ridge, Thoreson Peak. Since they are all very short Stub, wondering if possible to combine into a new article, List of Antartica features or some such name? Into a wikitable. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any Antarctica article up for deletion should be checked using "Antarctica : an encyclopedia," vols. 1 and 2, 2nd ed. by John Stewart. Paul H. (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject Antarctica:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred mountain ranges in Antarctica, with several thousand peaks. Most of the peaks have a stub article copied from GNIS, which in turn copies from the public domain Alberts, Fred G., ed. (1995), Geographic Names of the Antarctic (PDF) (2 ed.).

There is a steady trickle of AfDs for these peaks, most of which are not particularly notable. They are just high points in a ridge or massif. But the stubs do give some information on the location, height, when it was explored, where the name came from. It seems worth preserving, if not as a stand-alone article then as a section in a parent like Gustav Bull Mountains. This is what WP:GEONATURAL suggests.

Would there be any point launching a project to make sure all articles on mountain ranges have sections on each of their component mountains, which can be added by a simple cut-and-paste job, and then somehow advertise that instead of starting more AfDs editors should just redirect stubs to the parent article section? Comments, Ideas? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ernest Shackleton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Antarctic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bird Island, South Georgia#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British people has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Vostok has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Island Glacier has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]