Talk:Galapagos Islands

Galapagos

Copied from User:Wrh2 Talk page - Galapagos

Hi Ryan,

I see that you've been to the Galapagos Islands quite a lot. I spent (only) a week there a couple of years ago. It would be good to have some really good articles, but I don't fancy doing it all on my own. Do you have some time next week to possibly help me start putting something more together? -- (WT-en) DanielC 17:11, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Hi Daniel,

I've been meaning to add more info on the Galapagos Islands, Antarctica, and Alaska, but keep getting sidetracked with national parks... that said, if you feel like starting some Galapagos articles I'd be happy to dive in and help make updates. Any thought as to how you're going to do it? I would assume that an article for each island would make sense, although most of the standard headings (Sleep, Eat, Drink, Buy, Get In, Get Out, Get Around) don't really apply since the only way of seeing places is on a boat tour. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 17:37, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Yep. I'd though of starting with a Galapagos Wildlife page, with sub-pages for birds, underwater (etc?), then articles for each of the uninhabited islands pointing out the permitted landing places and dive/snorkel spots, with the usual info for the inhabited (two?) islands. Any thoughts? -- (WT-en) DanielC 13:05, 10 Jun 2005 (EDT)

The Galapagos Wildlife page sounds like a good idea (sort of like African flora and fauna). Puerto Ayora probably needs its own article, but the lodging on Isabela Island, San Cristobal Island and Floreana Island can probably be worked into the island pages. I may have some time this weekend to get things started, otherwise go for it and I'll help out as I can. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:22, 11 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I've had a start. I think that it's more natural to call the island eg. Floreana, rather than Floreana Island - that's what I've done so far. What do you think?

I've had a start on a standrard layout format on the article for Espanola. Any comments? -- (WT-en) DanielC 11:44, 12 Jun 2005 (EDT)

The Galapagos Wildlife page is awesome -- I'll try and add to it as time permits, although I've suddenly gotten a bit busy. Dropping the "Island" from the article names seems fine, too. I took a stab at making some updates to the Galapagos article, but feel free to revert any of my changes; mostly I was just trying to use the standard template format where it made sense.

And the format you're using for Espanola seems logical to me. Any preference on whether changing the headings to "Visitor sites" and "Underwater sites" might be simpler? Beyond that, I like the idea of making each island page be a description of the island (Understand) with a listing of land sites (Visitor sites) and snorkeling/diving sites (Underwater sites); there doesn't seem to be much else to add unless there is somewhere to sleep or a permanent research site, in which case a Sleep or Work section might be called for. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 03:23, 13 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I'm aware of the comment of Wrh2, but a I made separate page about Puerto Villamil and Isabela anyway. I'll do the same for San Cristobal. We'll see how it grows and can always merge it again. --- Ronald 19 dec 2005 (this spanish keyboard doesn't have a tilde)

What you've done looks fine to me. The original comment was made in the context of what (WT-en) DanielC and I could do, and I've spent less than a day in Puerto Villamil so couldn't write much about it. I don't think we want articles on individual visitor sites, but the present approach of creating articles for each island as well as any towns on the islands seems fine. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:06, 20 Dec 2005 (EST)

Hello - I actually don't know how to edit these things, but I just wanted to note that it appears to me that there has been some vandalism on this post. I do not think that the first rule of the Galapagos Islands is that everyone has to be naked. Otherwise, I might rethink my impending trip. I'd rather not see that many pasty naked middle-aged people at one time . . . —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 132.205.75.109 (talk • contribs)

You're seeing an older, cached version of the page - that edit was removed. We occasionally have software problems that cause older versions of the page to display, but the issues usually resolve themselves over time. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:00, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

Tower --> Genovesa

Originally I had listed Tower/Genovesa island as Tower since when I visited a few years ago it was the only island that was referred to by its English name. However, both of my friends that lead trips in the islands are now referring to it by its Spanish name, so I've updated the Galapagos Islands page to use Genovesa instead. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 14:21, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Get out

Do you think that it's worth adding a getting out section to the island articles, just telling you which are the nearest islands (not that you get a choice about whether you go there)? -- (WT-en) DanielC 15:56, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea for islands that are close enough to be seen in one day -- such as mentioning Rabida on the Santiago page, or North Seymour on the Bartolome page. For more remote islands like Genovesa or Espanola, it seems like Get out would primarily serve the purpose of describing where the island is located in relation to other islands, which is information that seems more suited to Understand. Thinking about it more though, I guess having to navigate back to the Galapagos Islands main article from each island article could be a bit awkward for someone wanting to read up on each island... I don't know. My first inclination is that it's a good idea for islands close enough to be seen in one day, and not as good of an idea for more remote islands. But I don't feel strongly enough that I'd disagree with either implementation. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 16:28, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Spelling of Galapagos

Isn't the correct spelling Galápagos Islands (with an accent on the second A) [1]? It seems to me that the page should be moved, shouldn't it? --(WT-en) Zvika 04:01, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Any Requests?

I am going to Galapagos diving in 2 weeks. I will be on the Deep Blue for 7 days including Darwin and Wolf, with some land trips too. I will be taking lots of pictures, mostly underwater, and will put them on the Commons. Any specific requests for info I can gather or pictures to take for this page? (WT-en) Jetlife2 19:12, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Happy to hear you'll be visiting Darwin & Wolf (since we don't have articles for them yet). Looking forward to see the pictures too. As far as info goes, some background info for the "understand" sections of the city articles would be great. Also, I'd really like to see an extensive flora/fauna section of "see," with info about individual species and how/where best to pay them a visit. For pictures, it would be great to try and illustrate individual articles with at least one image (could be a tough task though). It would be really cool if we could get the articles here up to snuff enough to nominate the collection of articles for Destination of the Month. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:04, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Since landings on Darwin and Wolf are all-but-impossible I'm not sure it would be possible to write articles about those islands, but getting more information about scuba in general, and Darwin and Wolf in particular, would be great - we could probably end up with a specific "Scuba diving in the Galapagos" article at some point. Things to note in such an article would be popular dive sites, costs, preparation, etc. In addition, if you can note prices during your trip it would help keep the article up-to-date as it seems like costs in the islands go up 10-15% every year. As to pictures, a few shots that illustrate what makes the Galapagos unique would be good - people walking through a boobie colony (but read Wikivoyage:Image policy#People_in_photos), swimming with sea lions, etc. Enjoy your trip! -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Tour Listings

I've pruned [2] a number of booking agencies from the list of Galapagos tour companies per the tour listing policy. For future editors trying to patrol this article, any company that offers passage on either the Galapagos Legend or M/V Explorer is a booking agent - these are 100 passenger boats on which passage is sold throughout Ecuador, and while it is theoretically possible to charter the entire ship, the companies that were listed in this article weren't doing that. Similarly, any company that lists tours on more than 4-6 boats is almost certainly a booking agent; most tour companies seem to pick one or two boat operators to work with. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:54, 31 January 2010 (EST)

Ryan- I don't understand your edits it is possible to charter the entire Galapagos Explorer and is done on a regular basis by groups like colleges, fraternal organizations and other groups. You are removing different companies and your reasoning seems to be one of personal choice rather than based on following a pattern.

And if you charter the entire Galapagos Explorer you do it through http://www.galapagosexplorer.com/, which is listed in the article. Anyone else is re-selling berths on that ship and thus should not be listed here per the Tour policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:34, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

Ryan stop deleting Galapagos Online they are an operator as well as representative. If you want to delete the companies that DO NOT OPERATE IN GALAPAGOS THEN DELETE: adventure life, Cheeseman, Galapagos Travel, Sun Wind, Galapagos Legend which is not the boat but a link to a travel agency in San Diego. Explain why you are keeping some agencies who are ONLY resalers and deleting companies which have operations? Movera

Please read Project:Edit war. In general it is easy to work out any disagreements on an article talk page, but continually re-adding listings when it has been pointed out that they seem to violate site policy is not the way to do so. I looked at your company web site and didn't see anything to indicate that you offer anything beyond what a traveler would get by booking directly with the boat operator and thus removed the listing with a pointer to the Tour policy. If you disagree then state why your company isn't just a re-seller, but note that edit warring is a very, very poor way to convince anyone to listen to you. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:53, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

The Tour listing policy is meant to help control spammy listings on Wikivoyage - literally dozens, if not hundreds of travel agencies try to list their tours on the Galapagos page, so the tour policy is the guideline that helps manage those listings. The relevant parts of that policy for the Galapagos are:

1. The company must not be a re-seller. It is OK if they completely charter the boat, sell all berths, and operate the tour, but if they are simply selling berths on someone else's tour then the company should not be listed.
2. If the company does not own the boat it is OK, as long as they run the tour.
3. The company does not need to be located in Ecuador, as long as they do have an actual office and someone from their company is running the tour.

Based on these criteria, Cheesemans, CNH, Galapagos Travel and others are OK to be listed - they charter the boats and send someone to the islands to act as a guide on the tour. If the link for the Galapagos Legend is wrong, please fix it, but that seems to be the company that operates the boat. Hopefully that explains the edits that have been made. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:57, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

External Link Policy - Galapagos

Moved from User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2:

I am going to try to be as diplomatic as possible on this argument. You have no additional "power" over the content of Wikivoyage as anyone else does, and by erasing my listing ALSO WITHOUT ANY NOTICE OR ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION also constitutes Edit warring which you so passionately frown upon. Before erasing a link, contact the person and get some INFORMATION ON YOUR DATA before going ahead and erasing a link. Travel Galapagos Islands is owned by a company in Ecuador who DOES OPERATE their own tours in Galapagos like Island Hopping, and DOES CHARTER cruises for its own operation. So here is a big FYY on your quality "purging" of Tour listings.

Nina and Athala Catamarans, [16]. Points to www.galapagosislands.com WHICH IS A BOOKING AGENT AND NOT THE OWNER OF NINA OR ATHALA.

Lets see...

Galapagos Travel (US), [18]. Offers a catalogue for more than 10 ships in the GAlapagos. NOT A RESELLER?

SunWind Travel, [21]. Offers a catalogue of more than 10 ships in the GALAPAGOS. NOT A RESELLER??

So you see Ryan, I am willing to take this to the travellers forums, I have made a download of the website to prove that your "purging" is totally mis-informed. So, please, in order not to engage in such time-consuming problem, I will upload the link again as soon as I get your reply. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Rafaec (talk • contribs)

If your company is the sole company chartering these trips and you are putting staff (NOT just the national park guide) on board then it is OK to list, but looking at [3] there are six boats listed and no indication that anyone from your company is on board. If some of the existing tours should similarly be removed please discuss on this page - in the past Galapagos Travel chartered the boat and put their own staff on board, but if that is no longer the case then removing them probably makes sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:44, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

Image gallery?

That's not normally part of the article templates. --EvanProdromou (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Should all islands have their own article?

It appears that every island in the Galapagos is listed as a sub article. Most are quite small and do not appear to have permanent populations, let alone pass the 'sleep test'.

See Genovesa and Pinzon as examples.

Should we merge all the uninhabited islands into one article? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ping? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinzon is a 1-sentence stub, so obviously not a real article. Genovesa looks like a viable article to me. I would suggest Pinta, another stub, as the most logical other candidate for merge/redirect. That said, if you like, create your proposed article in your userspace and link it here for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If the article is short and there probably isn't very much to say about a particular island anyway, just merge it. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the uninhabited islands are too different and dispersed to combine into a single article - as User:Ikan Kekek says, go ahead and create one as an example if you'd like, but I think it could easily become huge and unwieldy. It would probably be better to just write a few sentences of text about the islands that are closed to visitors in the main Galapagos Islands article, as User:Traveler100 did with Pinzon, and leave the islands that people can visit as they are. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to merge the 3 towns on 3 of the islands into their respective island articles. As there is little chance of many more settlements having their own page I think best to have all listing for an island on that island page. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)