Talk:Colonization of Antarctica

message: * This page is completely unsourced. It may well be un-encyclopedic. Is it someones pet idea? If not, please source it... William M. Connolley 16:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Agreed.  Unless some sources are added, this article should be AfD'd or at least redirected to the main Antarctica article.--FRS 23:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information sources 

message: Is it true the population in Antarctica is currently 1000 scientists each year? CarDepot 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the infobox on the right side of Antarctica article.  (SEWilco 20:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: This article still appears to be poorly sourced, and potentially therefore could be considered as original research.  Expansion of the single tentative reference might be useful (depending on the reliability of the reference - note that a single reference is not sufficient to warrant an article).  See how to format references. As stated above, maybe this needs to be tested at AfD.  -- MightyWarrior 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source appears to be Aant Elzinga, "Antarctica: The Construction of a Continent by and For Science," in Elisabeth Crawford, Terry Shinn, and Sverker Sörlin, eds., Denationalizing Science: The Contexts of International Scientific Practice (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993): 73-106. See here.--Pharos 03:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Isn't it odd that this student-designed domed city from 1977 is also supposed to have a population of 40,000, the same as Frei Otto?  The student design I imagine is of borderline notability only, but I thought the other editors of this article would want to be aware of it.--Pharos 09:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student-designed domed city 

message: As this article expands further, the proper scope of the "colonization" topic will become an issue.  I propose we use "land-based permanent settlement and economic activity", excluding (1) scientific research and (2) tourism.  Is this a good definition for this context?--Pharos 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Currently the article reads:
Colonization of Antarctica refers to having a permanent human presence in the continent of Antarctica. Currently only some scientists live there temporarily. Antarctica is currently the only continent on Earth without a permanent human presence.
Perhaps this needs to be clarified. After all, Antarctica has had a permanent human presence for decades. At all times of the year there are at least 1000 people there.
Ordinary Person (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should use the expression "permanent residents", because though individuals stay for a time, noone actually lives there.--Pharos (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that any qualification about "permanent residents" should use standard legal definitions of what defines a resident of a given jurisdiction. These can range from as little as 30 days up to as long as 6 months. Given many people have spent as much as a year in Antarctica, some returning for as much as 20 years after annual vacations to visit family, holidays, etc, then there are some people who qualify legally as permanent residents for some amount of time in Antarctica.71.95.151.21 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I consider both the Chilean and Argentinian settlements as "colonies" in the original, common sense of the word. It's not grand or spectacular or particularly sustainable, but none of those are required in order to be a "colony." "colony: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state" ...and I consider the Chilean and Argentinian settlements as "colonies" but not others because the Chilean and Argentinian settlements were established explicitly in order to support territorial claims, while the other current bases are ostensibly about scientific research. --Robotbeat (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Permanent human presence

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Colonization of Antarctica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928025417/http://www.waltlockley.com/manhattandome/domeappendix.htm to http://www.waltlockley.com/manhattandome/domeappendix.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031107012510/http://freiotto.com/FreiOtto%20ordner/FreiOtto/FreiOttoPneumatischeKonstruktionenGross.htm to http://freiotto.com/FreiOtto%20ordner/FreiOtto/FreiOttoPneumatischeKonstruktionenGross.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As wikipedia style guide notes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked) we don't need to wikilink very common geographic terms that have no special connection to the article - in this case, the word "Earth". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-linking