Talk:Patagonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography.

If you would like to participate, you can improve Patagonia, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Chile Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Chile; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Top This article has been rated as a Top priority article


Contents

[edit] References

This article needs a mush fuck off who do you think you look at me like that i'll do your fuckin car

Never heard of it. I would say it's worth mentioning... Mariano(t/c) 15:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The including of La Pampa province in the patagonian region is something that I've started to see one or two years ago. Geographically, there is not many coincidences between Chubut or Rio Negro with La Pampa. Perhaps their southern part seems more "patagonian", but I think this new inclussion is just only for comercial reasons. Being a part of the Patagonia atracts more tourism. The Colorado River always were taken as limit of Patagonia in the argentinian part. The people who worked in this article about Patagonia have made a very good job. Greetings!!

--200.123.88.125 01:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Hernan Ferguson

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)

I need info about patagonia!

[edit] Map?

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.


[edit] Clarification

Could we get some clarification for the average reader as to what this means: The geological constitution is in accordance with the orographic physiognomy. That is going to mean nothing to the average reader, and only cause confusion. EnochHenderson (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wales and Patagonia

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)

[edit] Patagonian Giants

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.

[edit] Disappearing Lake

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)

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. --Mariano(t/c) 13:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geology

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