Talk:Antarctica

There are too many images in the lead. Quoting MOS:PERTINENCE, too many can be distracting: usually, less is more. I'm not sure how and why three images are needed for a representation of the article nor how File:Antarctica 6400px from Blue Marble.jpg and File:Bedmap3-2025.png are appropriate representations of the topic (according to MOS:LEADIMAGE) compared to File:Antarctica (orthographic projection).svg. I don't care what happens to the other images as long as they comply with MOS:IMG. Pinging involved user @Constant314. ZergTwo (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems nearly plausible to move the historical speculative map to the § History of exploration section? Remsense 🌈 论 05:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The infobox by itself should be all that's needed. Pity poor mobile users. CMD (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I also see that some of these things should be somewhere, though I'm not quite comfortable pruning myself. Remsense 🌈 论 05:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Both belong in Geography or its main article, although scrolling through it seems a bit disproportionate how small Geography is compared to some other sections. CMD (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving them elsewhere in the article. The blue marble image is a very crisp image. The bedrock image gives unique information. Constant314 (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Which of the body images should they replace? CMD (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion appears that File:Antarctica 6400px from Blue Marble.jpg and File:Bedmap3-2025.png should not be in the lead section. I could not find any sections that can house either image without causing MOS:IMG problems, so I removed both of them. I do not object to anyone moving them to related articles like Geography of Antarctica as long as they comply with MOS:IMG. ZergTwo (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the overall article again, it does seem Geography perhaps could use some expansion, alongside trims in a couple of the History sections and Demographics. That might balance the space a bit more. CMD (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What part of MOS:IMG do you feel has been violated? Constant314 (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@ZergTwo: Kindly say what part of MOS:IMG was violated by File:Antarctica 6400px from Blue Marble.jpg and File:Bedmap3-2025.png.Constant314 (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is the part that says, "Variate your images." There is no image of Antarctica in its winter, where there are stars and the aurora australis. Please provide them so as to make the description more accurate. MewXacata81 (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'll change grammar imperfections and spelling errors. Kendele110713 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Mellk (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this

Currently this page is a dead end in a nearly complete set.

2405:6E00:623:F942:6008:2983:CC46:595E (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done No legitimate reason to add such navbox. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have added a short section under "Conservation and environmental protection" summarizing scholarly discussion of Rights of Nature frameworks as applied to Antarctica. The section emphasizes academic debate regarding the legal recognition of ecosystems and its potential implications for conservation, without suggesting policy changes or endorsing any organization.

All statements are supported by independent, peer-reviewed sources and by coverage of the 2025 Shackleton Medal awarded to Cormac Cullinan for contributions to polar environmental protection. The text is concise (≈150 words) and intended to provide context for emerging legal and philosophical perspectives relevant to environmental protection in Antarctica.

Feedback is welcome if the section requires further refinement. --MinkiPool (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Is a separate subdivision 7.5.1 justified or should your addition be added to "7.5 Conservation and environmental protection"? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It could reasonably be included as part of 7.5 “Conservation and environmental protection” rather than as a separate subdivision. It was not intended to suggest formal policy or organizational endorsement, but rather to give a concise, neutral overview of academic debate and legal frameworks related to conservation and environmental protection.

I am happy to merge it directly into 7.5 if the consensus is that it improves article flow and maintains proportionality.

--MinkiPool (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Incorporated section directly into "7.5 Conservation and environmental protection" --MinkiPool (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Discussions by scholars and academics is not notable for the article. Treaty changes as a result of such discussions would be notable. Constant314 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  Could you recommend a more appropriate place for this? MinkiPool (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, nothing comes to mind. WP is not a place for primary research. Constant314 (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I get the concern about avoiding primary research on WP. The sources I used were secondary academic reviews, but I agree the material probably isn’t strong enough for the main Antarctica page. MinkiPool (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)