Talk:Patagonia

message: Opposite to the Spanish or the German Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia fixes the borders the northern limit of Chilean Patagonia at Reloncaví Estuary and the Northern Patagonia (spanish Norpatagonia) isn't mentioned at all. This is very important as the termonoligy is well-spread and it's widely used by several companies, corporations and government agencies (just google it). Moreover almost everyone living in the Northern Patagonia would rather describe himself as inhabitant of the Patagonia. 188.103.107.39 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Patagonia

message: I wont sign in for personal reasons, but, come on... keep it to facts, keep out the "my country is so much better, thus Patagonia MUST belong to ours." bias already.
Besides, good faith in no way means "my granny told me so", last but not least, when someone states something correct, finding a dust old encyclopedia and changing it with the "proof" something from the 1700`s may mention, is not even nationalism its just plain old vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.106 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Chile vs Argentina fight?

message: This article needs a much better source than "from an old encyclopedia". Otherwise, the copyright status isn't certain.
:It's from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I think at one point people had the idea that they couldn't mention it by name, and almost all references to an "old encyclopedia" mean that one. Easy to check, just go to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ and compare the wording. Stan 16:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dok. Thanks for looking it up, and for the tip. -- Ilya 16:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Apparently, there is also a semi-formal lobbying group of southern Argentine provinces called Patagonia, which includes the province of La Pampa, even though it is not Patagonian in the natural or [probably] cultural sense (possibly a corner of its panhandle extends into that region, I don't know). Should the article mention this also? --Big Adamsky 14:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of it. I would say it's worth mentioning... Mariano(t/c) 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have seen La Pampa province included in contexts that deal with statistics, economy and local/regional domestic politics. //Big Adamsky 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: La Pampa's membership in the interprovincial grouping "Patagonia"

message: Where does Chilean Patagonia begin? I have seen Los Lagos mentioned as its northern border zone. I also recall seeing the Bío-Bío and Río Negro as forming historical borders to the Patagonian frontier region. //Big Adamsky 16:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see usually two definitions of Chilean patagonia. In Chile "Chilean Patagonia" refer to Magallanes Region + Aysen Region + Palena Province (all Chile south of Chacao Channel with the excaeption of Chiloe Island). In the context of tourism, many times all Chile south of Bio-Bio River is considered part of Patagonia. Dentren | Talk 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The northern border (zone)

message: would be nice to see the outline of its area in SA for those less knowledgeable of SA's geography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkc842 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 April 2006.
I was just going to make the same recommendation. We need a map. I can't find any definitive map on the net. Is it the entire area Pacific to Atlantic? and where is the northern border?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight Risk (talk • contribs) 02:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsensical. Are you saying that the boundaries of Patagonia are to be defined by a XIXth century map? Or maybe from the territories supposedly roamed by Tehuelches? (not now, of course, but 15k years ago, when it would be impossible to talk about tehuelches properly)??? Oh, come on. Please, bring on reliable sources and serious data to contrast. --IANVS (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: The Afrikaners
I was surprised to see no mention of the Afrikaners? After the Boer War, the Afrikaner had an option to remain in South Africa by signing allegiance to the British crown or being deported free of charge to any country of their choice. 300 families chose to go to South America and settled in Argentina in an area known as Patagonia, a harsh inhospitable region. They have now expanded to well over 4,000 descendants and the Argentinian State Institute of Agriculture  have praised the Boer farming efficiency and they have become the most prosperous farmers of the region. All are bi-lingual in Afrikaans and Spanish. They have their own newspaper, chaurch and schools - but Spanish is slowly replacing Afrikaans in these institutions. The more educated also speak English as their third language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampers (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I don't know much about this, but I am aware that there is a small, but strong Patagonian community who speak Welsh,, and ergo obviously there is a strong Welsh-Patagonian link.  Anyone know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishystick (talk • contribs) 
::See Welsh settlement in Argentina. Mariano(t/c) 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales and Patagonia 

message: The Patagonne giants, while not 9-10 footers, probably were a tribe of Teheleuche Indians who were more populas during magellan's days, and by the time of Cook they may have been substantially reduced by disease and warfare. That the tallest of them was 6ft6 (by James Cook's time) seems to suggest their population was much decreased, and there were fewer tall men than when Megallon and Pigafetti first encountered.
There were still some tribes in Brazil, as late as the 1960's, whose average stature was nearly 6 1/2 ft in stature (The Kran hacore? Indians of Mato Graso), and some seven foot tall men have been documented. I feel that a Seven foot Indian could easily translate to 9 feet if the spaniards themselves only averaged 5'4, and they would have indeed only reached the underchest of a 7 ft man.
Did they simply not appear bigger because of all the clothes (animal skins whatever) they kept around their feet which simply started the rumors about them being giants because of the enormous imprints they made when they moved around? I mean not even cavemen where as big as the rumors regarding Patagonian people. Besides the colonists could have seen a fairy tall man, and their imagination and following stories could gradually have made these "giants" seem larger and larger.
I suggest we keep it clear as to see what is rumors/stories etc, and what the true facts are, there must be ways to clarify this, we can tell the age of dinosaurs by looking at their bones, there is sure to have been found gigantic skeletons over there if they truly where as big
_not signing in, not today_  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.106 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patagonian Giants 

message: It was reported by Reuters today that a lake in the Magellanes region of Patagonia simply disappeared.  I'm not familiar with editing and don't want to mess anything up, but I wanted to point this out and provide a link to anyone interested.
http://africa.reuters.com/odd/news/usnN20287754.html
HRPuffinStuff 00:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, neither was the lake Large (as the text suggest) nor important; it didn't even have a name. It doesn't sound like a very important thing.
Simply disappearing wont work, we need a better reason than that, and if no one has it, we should simply leave it as it is.
_you block me for not signing in, I take away you`re mod privileges ;)_  --Mariano(t/c) 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The occurence of glacial lake outburst floods in Patagonia are of relevance for hydroelectric power plants such as those planed by HidroAysén. Not only this lake have emptied in recent yeas but also lake Catchet 2 in Aysén Region. Dentren | Talk 13:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing Lake 

message: What of the Silurian and Jurassic deposits of Patagonia? These are not mentioned at all! Smith609 Talk 11:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: Can't comment much on the paleontological aspects of the article, but the physical/tectonic information provided here seems HOPELESSLY out of date at best. My best guess is that much of this is based on turn of the century material. I started to edit some of this information but I think a complete rewrite is in order.  
(update)A bit of research confirmed my suspicions... much of this has been copied piecemeal but verbatim from an 1899 article by Perito Moreno. No a bad source for information on the state of thinking for 1900, but not really what a Wikipedia article should be based on. A lot has happened in geological information, thinking, and interpretation in the last 110 years. If you are curious about the original source, here it is:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bxsDAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA241&dq
I strongly agree. Someone really needs to re-write this section ... PLEASE! 
Wikipedia should stoop to recycling obscure 18th century, first-pass reconnaissance descriptions, for such an important and large area of the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.235.45 (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly looks like a typo, but what does it mean? Why hasn't someone corrected it? It doesn't make sense as is. Ed8r (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical/Tectonic Geology 

message: A researcher at Montana State University has discovered a fungus in Patagonia which produces diesel fuel!
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=6417
69.212.37.24 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic should be better dicussed in the article Valdivian temperate rainforest, since the forests where the fungus were found also exist north of Patagonia.  Dentren | Talk 08:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fuel-producing fungus discovered 

message: The first two pictures in the article, belong to one country.
I suggest adding one picture of Argentina and one of the "other" country. Two continued pictures in a row of the same country in the top of the article, is not the best option we can have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.84.243 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these "rows of pictures" should be removed, they are cutting the text and giving it less continuity. Dentren | Talk 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures on top of Article 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:"Patagonie, Terre du Feu et Iles Malouines" from Historia de la Patagonia (1841).gif Nominated for Deletion

message: Can anybody write an overview of the flora of Patagonia, please? 94.116.112.197 (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora 

message: Climate section has one particular paragraph that spans an entire page. It needs to be broken up into several paragraphs, as it is a mess. Stopde (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate section 

message: The article says Argentine P's "covered with an enormous bed of shingle almost bare of vegetation." If so, I'd like to see that in one or two of the photos ... if shingle's really that characteristic of the region -- because the photos now look more like Switzerland. Twang (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article has a huge bias towards tourism (reflected in choise of picture) and towards nationalism causing a much of the article be unnesesarily divided between Chilean and Argentine Patagonia while from a natural perspective such division does no make much sence. Dentren | Talk 16:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: More characteristic photos ??

message: Suggest that alternate views of human-megafauna interaction be incorporated.  See http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2016/06/17/climate-big-player-patagonian-ice-age-mammal-extinction-12000-years-ago. (Humans killed off megafauna but only after climate change made it easier.)  See, also, Harari, Sapiens (2105), asserting generically that megafauna were eradicated by mankind.
Fitzaubrey (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megafauna 

message: If anybody has a photo of any markers showing the 45th parallel (halfway between pole and equator), the 45th parallel south could use it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  45th parallel