Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behnam Nazemi islands?[edit]

Maybe I'm being dyslexic, but I saw a small group of three islands on mapping apps, off the SW coast. The apps label this small group Behnam Nazemi. I can find no Internet data for such islands so named in the Southern Ocean. If anyone knows if the correct name for these islands, adding a footnote why Internet mapping services use the Behnam Nazemi convention might help researchers uding one, or the other name, especially if it is true that maps show a name that no Internet verification seems to be out there.

Else, if I'm making a dumb mistake, feel free to tease me. Tesseract501 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just see your note after years! But to clarify for others who see this I should notice that that was a spam on Google Maps and at that time we reported it and Google removed that spam name. We have no real island with such name. نیکات (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@نیکات: I can now see the Behnam Nazemi islands appearing again, at least as of today, e.g. on Google Maps screenshot Google Maps link Kidburla (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kidburla: I saw your new message too late, but I reported this to Google and they fixed the name. Thanks for your notice. نیکات (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I just saw the message today. It was strange for me too and I tried to search But I could not find anything on the internet map. Instead, I was able to find a printed book in some old maps, but it was only with the name of Nazimi Island

Now I don't know if this article is important or not? 77.42.117.157 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Not covered by the Antarctic Treaty System"[edit]

@Roger 8 Roger: The reason for adding my comment was to clarify that, unlike the neighboring South Orkney Islands and South Shetland Islands, the British have not suspended their claim to these islands through the Antarctic Treaty System. Since these islands are all near each other, were formerly all part of the same territorial claim, and the latitude 60S is not visible on the maps, most readers won't have an intuitive grasp of which islands are international territory. Because Chile or Argentina also claim all of these islands, I think we should clarify the situation so that readers like me don't need to hunt through this article for this quite basic information. Yes, 'they are not many other things too', as you put it, but most of the things they're not are not relevant to an understanding of the topic. This is. Maybe not in the lead, but somewhere accessible, such as the government sections. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The British have not in any way suspended or frozen or renounced any part of any claim as part of the Antarctic Treaty. And nor has any of the other contracting parties. What they suspended was the principle of international law that requires that countries maintain and enforce their sovereignty claims against encroachment (potentially using military means). Also, Chile does not claim South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Nor, for that matter, the South Orkney Islands. Never has.
I also note that the South Orkney Islands and South Shetland Islands are only neighbours to SGSSI in a relative sense - they're hundreds of miles away.
I find it distinctly unlikely that readers will necessarily associate SGSSI with the British Antarctic Territory, or with the South Orkney or South Shetland Islands at this stage, given that the by this point in the article none of these places have yet been mentioned. Kahastok talk 20:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami:, The article is about the BOT, formed in 1985. I agree that the Antarctic Treaty has a connection with the BOT but only loosely. There might be a case for mentioning something in the history section but IMO that is about it. Your addition came across to me as putting something in the lead that you think is notable enough to warrant a mention, which is personal opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every judgement of what is notable is personal opinion. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Picture?[edit]

I want to propose the removal of the Southern Giant Petrel. The picture is rather graphic, showing a bird picking at the exposed carcass and intestines of a larger animal. I think this is a rather crude image to have on a Wikipedia article about a Geographical place, at the very least it's a little disturbing. 86.132.140.146 (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the photo under 'Ecology'?
I disagree; the photo - in the "Ecology" section - seems to be illustrative of what life is like there. As long as it's accurate (and was really taken on South Georgia island), it should remain. PatricKiwi (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: I created a new article at South Sandwich Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), since the information about the archipelago was scattered in various articles about SGSSI and not found at a single coherent place. The article was assembled from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and does not contain any new material.

In the near future I intend to:

Thanks, I agree with your observations. It is common in WP to use a geographical area with an administrative area if the names are shared. One reason for doing that is to stop repetition of detail but there are really two distinct subjects. I don't think there are any wiki-wide guidelines on what to do it such a situation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Note: closed by nominator. Cheers, Dan the Animator 00:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Languages of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. While both articles already have a decent amount of content, the Languages article doesn't cite any sources and honestly better fits into South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) in a section called "Culture" or "Society." The current SGSSI article currently barely covers the livelihoods and identities of the islanders, with the History, Economy, and Government section providing the sole information about them. This merge would improve the coverage and comprehensiveness of the main article and replace the old article with a redirect to SGSSI. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MacRusgail, Corvus13, JoeNMLC, PatLurcock, SG Unicorn, Roger 8 Roger, DuncanHill, NJRobbie, Sprucecopse, Megrogers, Ealdgyth, Jay D. Easy, Ssbbplayer, Rodney Baggins, Kwamikagami, Thryduulf, Hairy Dude, DocWatson42, Wee Curry Monster, Ryan shell, Kgrad, Maias, Apcbg, BuaidhQuite vivid blur, Nurg, DavidKingston, Pigsonthewing, PatLurcock, Citylover, and Ratzer: Pinging involved editors. Best, Dan the Animator 02:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't merge anything unsourced into here, which is that entire article. The article appears easily summarised as "Norwegians spoke Norwegian, Russians spoke Russian, Argentines spoke Spanish", which probably doesn't need to be said. There's some interesting notes about place names, but they are unsourced. CMD (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CMD. Also, all I did was some relatively minor cleanup six years ago on the latter (this) article. I don't have much of an interest or investment in either article, but thank you for letting me know. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for commenting DocWatson42 and apologies for the bother: this was my first merger proposal so I wasn't sure who'd to ping (I tried to add editors with multiple edits or large edits but I likely might've put in additional editors accidentally).
Thanks CMD for the comment: I'll try searching for some sourcing for the settlement naming if I get the chance but I agree, most of the article content isn't very insightful. I was thinking when I saw it that the language content could be mostly condensed into a paragraph or two under a broader culture/society section in the main territory article which discusses the "culture" of the resident/native islanders (so a sentence about the various nationalities of the whalers and when they got introduced and/or disappeared from the islands, a few sentences about settlements named in the different languages, and other things named after each language). In any case, I'll start searching for some sources and try to condense the content within the current article.
Best, Dan the Animator 05:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never even knew that article existed. I would suggest deletion as unsourced and clear WP:OR plus it doesn't appear to be linked to any other ie it is unused. WCMemail 07:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, deletion would work for me too. As a sidenote, I'll add some of the more useful content (settlement naming & some basic historic info) into my sandbox while I search for sources but in any case, the language article can be deleted. I'll keep the discussion open a bit longer so other editors can comment if they like and to see if there's a greater consensus to close this and AfD the original but feel free to close it yourself too if you think it's time. Best, Dan the Animator 07:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you WP:PROD it after moving any material you think is relevant - be wary of the unsourced stuff. For example, Grytviken is Norwegian but I've seen Swedes adamantly assert it is Swedish. WCMemail 10:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you spend a bit of time sourcing what you can. When you've done as much of that as you reasonably can, merge the sourced stuff into the main article and then just redirect the languages article to the relevant section of the main one. There's no need for prod or AfD and it leaves the content available to find if someone else wants to try sourcing it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take out anything notable, possibly the Scandinavian place names, source it and add it to the main article before deleting this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WCM, Thryduulf and Roger 8 Roger for the comments! I've completely redone the article with nearly complete sourcing so feel free to take a look. I've left the content on the original article for now given it is a bit lengthy and it would be easier to look over and edit on the other article for now. Now that you mention it Thryduulf, I agree a PROD probably won't be necessary and a redirect would be adequate here. In any case, let me know y'all's thoughts on the newly rewritten content and whether its suitable for inclusion on this article. Best, Dan the Animator 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's some impressive work. I wouldn't use the term "islanders" given everyone everyone is transient, and the sentence "Many locations have alternative names in Spanish, such as Vindication Island, which is also known as "Isla Vindicación" is a bit of an odd one, but in principle I don't see why it wouldn't fit on this page somewhere if you want to merge it. CMD (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CMD!!! For the edits, I replaced "islanders" with "residents" and removed the "Vindication Island" sentence since it doesn't really add much. I'll leave it as a separate article for a few more days in case there's any other feedback but feel free to merge it if you feel its ready. Best, Dan the Animator 19:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.