Talk:Tierra del Fuego

Region Discussion
Ooh this is more complicated - it's divided between Argentina and Chile.

It's an archipelago separated from the mainland by the Strait of Magellan. The eastern part is Argentine, the western part is Chilean. (WT-en) Caroline 13:09, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)


 * I don't believe there is any good reason for us to slavishly follow political boundaries in writing Wikivoyage. If you think visitors to TdF are likely to visit both bits in the same visit, then my suggestion would be to have a single TdF article, and link it to both countries. Obviously we would need something in the article to make sure visitors realise there are two countries involved, but that could just be a para in Understand. -- (WT-en) Chris j wood 13:35, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)


 * I think the article should be at "Tierra del Fuego" and cover both parts of the archipelago. The Argentine province includes las Malvinas and part of Antarctica, which should be described elsewhere. Btw, most non-English languages translate the name, e.g. in Breton it's Douar an Tan. -(WT-en) phma 14:35, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)


 * Agree. Additionally, I think most visitors won't have big problems crossing the border. Either you need a visa for both countries or you need not (the latter is more probable for Western travellers). --(WT-en) EBB 14:29, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)

This is a tough one. We did something similar with Lake Tahoe. I think it makes sense in some cases to have a region that spans two countries. --(WT-en) Evan 14:52, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)

After adding new content, I renamed the page from "Tierra del Fuego (Argentina)" to "Tierra del Fuego" and changed all links to it. Hope this is OK... "(WT-en) Bexx 15:03, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)"

Create as extra-region with two articles
The legacy discussion above in 2005 seems to have left this region as the Argentinian province of 'Tierra del Fuego'.

However as it stands it doesn't acknowledge the existence of the corresponding 'Tierra del Fuego' in Chile : Tierra_del_Fuego_Province,_Chile.

I believe we should create two destination articles for fairness, and make this an extra-region. Any objections? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am looking to create articles from the following redirects:
 * Tierra del Fuego (Chile)
 * Tierra del Fuego (Argentina)
 * --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item is missing permission information and may be deleted: You can see the details at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Río Grande ciudad.jpg

Ushuaia and Río Grande
I noticed you changed the breadcrumbs of both these articles from Tierra del Fuego to Tierra del Fuego (Argentina), but the latter is a redirect to this page (which is categorised directly under South America. Where should we categorise these two articles (I am guessing this would involve the creation of a separate Argentine Tierra del Fuego article or a possible "Argentine Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego" article)? -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 09:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * IIRC, when I edited Tierra del Fuego (Argentina), I was following WV:Breadcrumb navigation,
 * "If there's a redirect as an isPartOf target, that redirect (and not just the other page to which it is redirected) must have 'isPartOf' to continue the trail."
 * in order to maintain the breadcrumb trail. Then an editor came along and removed the isPartOf in the redirect. I'm not sure if they removed it because I had misinterpreted the policy page and created an invalid breadcrumb trail or because it was simply an unusual situation that they assumed was invalid even though it was perfectly valid.
 * If I had interpreted it correctly, then I would say simply undo this edit to restore the trail.
 * If I had misinterpreted it, then 1) perhaps we should remove that line from the policy page (or rephrase it to make whatever its intention is clearer), and 2) well, I don't know... do you split an article for the sole purpose of making its categorisation easier? Seems like one should write an article covering a topic that makes sense from a traveller's perspective and then have the categorisation/breadcrumbs subservient to that, as opposed to having article topics subservient to categorisation. Brycehughes (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, we don't really use IsPartOf for redirects, which is likely why that user removed it. I'm not going to lie, I don't mind making this an exception to the rule for geographical reasons (and thus I agree with your last point). Or, if that isn't possible, I'd just move Patagonia (Argentina). SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But yeah, it is quite normal on this site to split things up if something is in two different countries. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming there are some cases where it would be nonsensical to split things up on a per country basis, I'd also assume we have historically had a workaround, and I thought the whole isPartOf-on-redirect was it. You said, "we don't really use IsPartOf for redirects" – why is that? Does it break something? Brycehughes (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why; it's just never been the case here. Unless it was used before my time here and I wasn't aware of it. -- SHB2000  (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta) 20:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)