YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Talk:Ross Sea

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search


To quote Wikitravel:Bodies of water "In general, we don't write a single destination guide article about a body of water. Information about bodies of water is more informative for travellers on other pages." Rather than Ross Sea shouldn't this be called the Ross Ice Shelf? Currently this name breaks the bodies of water convention. Note - this is why Ross Dependency is, perhaps, a better name. -- Huttite 18:51, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)

I think that this one is kind of like Lake Tahoe - the article itself is about the area around the Ross Sea, and not about the sea itself. Tourism to Antarctica is mostly by boat, and trips to this area focus on shore areas or areas immediately inland (and thus accessible by helicopter). I'm not sure that Ross Ice Shelf would be a better name, since that is a specific area within the Ross Sea and one that can't easily be visited. Any other ideas, or can we leave this as is? -- Ryan 20:36, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)
I disagree. There is a small industry in extreme tourism in Antarctica that involves people travelling inland (inice?). Many of these people are scientists as part of organised parties. However, a few privateers also manage to get off the boat or plane and travel independently. Shouldn't we also cater for these people? The only reason that many tour operators focus on the coastline is that they are operating boats. But what about the hundereds of visitors who go there each year as part of the scientific programmes? Are we forgetting these travelers by confining ourselves to the Ross Sea rather than the Ross Ice Shelf or Ross Dependency? -- Huttite 23:45, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)
Sorry if the tone of my earlier responses was at all confrontational, that wasn't intentional. I don't disagree that we should also include information about other areas of Antarctica, but from a tourism standpoint the Ross Sea and the Antarctic Peninsula are the two major tourist regions of the country. The inland areas are also valid regions and should also get their own (separate) articles, but it's not clear to me what the names of those regions should be and I think we can avoid future disputes by not naming them after territorial claims. My Antarctic experiences have been limited to what I've seen by boat, researched on the web, and heard about from researchers, and sadly those experiences only include the more accessible areas. -- Ryan 13:33, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)