Talk:Puerto Williams

Chile High‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

I think Puerto Toro (could be written with Torro) is the southernmost continuously inhabitted spot, despite of common misconceptions. It is a small town shown on Chilean maps a bit south of Puerto Williams.

Puerto Toro is indeed the southernmost continuously inhabiabited area in the world. (map:http://www.turistel.cl/mapas_ruteros/rut_k_1.htm). It is a very small town made up of about 50 fishermen and their families.

Puerto Toro is a hamlet (caserio), not a "town" (pueblo), according to the INE with a population of 36 in the 2002 census.--JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Williams

Puerto Williams is located on Navarino Island, not in Tierra del Fuego. 200.104.59.54 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-But Navarino Island is condered to be in Tierra del Fuego archipelago. (Tierra del fuego = Tierra del Fuego Island + Tierra del Fuego Archipelago). Dentren | ^Talk 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tierra del Fuego is the name of the archipelago (or the name of a Chilean province, but we talk about islands here). The main island is called Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. Navarino is one of the islands of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago.--Ratzer (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Town and Population

Is another town with politic administration, city hall and publics offices southern than Puerto Williams? no, doesn't. Then, Puerto Williams is The Southern Town in The World and this condition must to be included in the first block. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.120.188.172 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It was already included in the third paragraph, that's why undid the addition of that information to the very first paragraph of the article.Kilroytech 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a commercial dispute between Puerto Williams and Ushuaia which is the southernmost settlement or town or city in the world (PW is further south, but is arguably little more than a naval base despite attempts to dignify it). Wikipedia either should not get involved in this or should report it in a balanced and impartial way. I have removed references. Deipnosophista (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute anymore... it was resolved by the governments of Chile and Argentina, and it was accepted, that Puerto Williams is officially recognized as southernmost city. You can check the link in the article, which will lead you to an even argentinian source, which confirms the chilean option as southermost city. Regards --194.203.215.254 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the article is talks about a old agremment from the 1990s i dont think it has been ratified/agreed, why should ushuaia or the argentien government agree? Is there any other source that talks about this agreement? I could be false.. Dentren | ^Talk 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link we are talking about, is not from 1990, but 1998, but anyway this wouldn't be a point to invalidate the argument. It mentions, that a comitee of oficial representants of both countries has formed and decided, that Puerto Williams would be recognized as southernmost city. I see no reason to negate or discredit this source, as it is coming from Argentina's most important newspaper El Clarin . --194.203.215.254 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the talk page of Ushuaia you will see that this suposed agreement was rejected by the Argentine congress see and http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=101904 Dentren | ^Talk 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC). I have not found other source that states that such agreement have take place, and Ushuaia continues to promote tourism with the southernmost city slogan. Dentren | ^Talk 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist info

Wikipedia is not a touris guide, so any mention of specific facilities (private businesses), should be reserved to those which have some special value or reason to be famous. (example the Hotel Antumalal, in Pucon, hosted Queen Elizabeth in a visit during the 1960's would be worthy of note.) JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakutaia can be the world's most southern hotel. Jespinos 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jespinos is quite right, should we add it back and state that's the reason it's included in the article? There are no other hotels in the Puerto Williams (just a few hostels), nor in Navarino Island, and the ones in Ushuaia are about 15 kms due North, so considering that, Lakutaia is indeed the world's southernmost hotel. Comments appreciated. Kilroytech 03:23, 4 April 2007

(UTC)

Unless it can be certified and shown that the hotel has received recognition as being the most southern, by having been published in some recognized, reputable publication, this information might be easily challenged as being "Original Research" which is not acceptable in Wiki. It seems a bit picky, and some information I feel should be included but those are the rules and even a massive vote to include this kind of information won't mean a thing as long as this rule holds.--JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certification is a too strong term I think. Nowadays almost every computer has Google Earth on it, if you activate the grid display, you could easily check there's no way another hotel could be more south than Lakutaia, knowing that there are no other settlements capable of hosting a hotel in other islands due south, there's nothing else but sea on other continents and, Antarctica cannot "host" commercial buildings due to the Antartic Treaty. Pretty unchallengeable information I guess.- Even though, I'll try to find out some publication about the "certification", I've even sent an email to Lakutaia, asking them for info. Kilroytech 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if the Antarctic Treaty prohibits 'commercial buildings'; as a matter of fact I have stayed at a Chilean hotel in the Frei base on King George Island, there are banks, post offices etc. in certain settlements. Apcbg 10:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Kilroytech says but we still have to live within the policy of wiki about No Original Research. If you haven't done so, you may find it useful to check the link I included above. I'm not excited about this, but we have to accept it if we wish to do work here. If we don't like it we can try (good luck) in getting the policy changed, or take our efforts to some other place where the policy is more to our liking. JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my point: The hotel discussed here cannot claim to be the southernmost hotel in the world because it is not; there are hotels situated well south of it. I have been to such a hotel, which has even a (German) Wiki article. Apcbg 15:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that user Jaxhere considers your stay at that hotel as original research?--Ratzer (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a City by Republic of Chile

This should settle this ongoing controversy of whether or not Puerto Williams is a City or just a Town:

Entidad Urbana. Conjunto de viviendas concentradas con más de 2.000 habitantes, o entre 1.001 y 2.000 habitantes, con el 50% o más de su población económicamente activa, dedicada a actividades secundarias y/o terciarias. Excepcionalmente, los centros que cumplen funciones de turismo y recreación con más de 250 viviendas concentradas y que no alcanzan el requisito de población se consideran urbanos. Ciudad (Cd). Entidad urbana que posee más de 5.000 habitantes. Pueblo (Pb). Entidad urbana con una población que fluctúa entre 2.001 y 5.000 habitantes, o entre 1.001 y 2.000 habitantes, con el 50% o más de su población económicamente activa dedicada a actividades secundarias y/o terciarias. Excepcionalmente se asimilan a pueblo los centros poblados, que cumplen funciones de turismo y recreación con más de 250 viviendas concentradas y que no alcancen el requisito de población.

This is copied direct from http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/territorio/division_politico_administrativa/pdf/dpa2001.pdf (hope copyright isn't an issue here?)

From the above it is clear that Puerto Williams is only just considered an 'urban entity' with its 2500 odd residents. Ushuaia passes this threshold by some 60.000 odd residents.

Note that the 2007 report also follows this rule by calling Pica, with 2642 people, a Town ie Pueblo Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re from 2002 census:

COMUNA CUT Entidad Urbana Categoría Superficie Urbana Censal ( Km²) Población Viviendas Punta Arenas 12101 Punta Arenas Cd 39,03 116.005 35.389 Cabo de Hornos 12201 Puerto Williams Pb 1,19 1.952 561 Porvenir 12301 Porvenir Pb 2,63 4.734 1.377 Natales 12401 Puerto Natales Cd 5,57 16.978 5.763

Obviously Pb is Pueblo or Town, Cd is Ciudad or City.

This should settle this argument for good, maybe?? Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a contradiction between INE's stadarts and PW claims.Dentren | ^Talk 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be, but note that throughout this last debate the definition of city was never considered from the countries' point of view. Ushuaia has 20 times the population of Puerto Williams but this hasn't discouraged the proponents of Punta Arenas. 201.255.237.47 (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But all we can do here in wikipedia is present what others state to avoid personal research and hold a NPOV etc So all we have is what the countries say to define what a city is, in this case, specifically what Chile and what Argentina consider a City and what they consider a Town (its pointless to use the Sweedish definition obviously). Hence for that slogan Ushuaia is 'the southernmost city' while puerto williams is the 'southernmost town', because the other settlements further south aren't considered 'poplation urbana' etc Chuckarg33 (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

both the INE and the municipality of Chile are official govermental bodies in Chile and they have contradicting statements. And I recall what has been already said by 201.255.237.47 that definition of city was never considered from the countries' point of view. . The fact that INE does not recognise Pw as city is of course an argument against PW claims, but does not decide what a city is or not.

Somewhat tired of this arguing over a slogan

Because I'm getting tired of this arguing to and fro over this slogan, is there consensus to say that in the respective articles:

A)(here) Puerto Williams is sometimes considered the Southernmost City in the world

b)Ushuaia is sometimes considered the Southernmost City in the world

c)Punta Arenas is sometimes considered the Southernmost City in the world

and then make a separate WP article called 'The Southernmost City in the world

is there any consensus for this? Actually I'll start that article and hope the sections on southernmost city can be all sent there. Chuckarg33 (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all points you have mentioned, but I dont see why there should be such article. Each "city" article where the settlement is claiming to be the southernmost city have explantions. I dont see why the discussion should be aponened again (in that article). The subject seems more interesting to wikipedians than others because I still havent found any source on internet that adresses these claims comparing the cities. Dentren | ^Talk 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed trees in this area. The page seems to dismiss that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.27.156 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]