Talk:Vicente Pérez Rosales National Park

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chile Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I intend to rewrite this article, providing more substance. We would need to see the 1926 decree that created the Park to know why it was created and what were the aims. Does anybody know where one can consult that basic document? Anybody around to discuss? Conaf states a park area of 231.000 hectáreas - is there an error somewhere or did Conaf "disaffect" 22 000 ha? What is a "Reserva Nacional"? The "Reserva Nacional Llanquihue" is mentioned without link; I have not found any consistent data about it, except that it has 33 000 ha. I have deleted until we have something to say about it. There are 3 photos of the Petrohue river, as if this was all that is to see in the park. I'd leave only one of the river, preferably one that does not duplicate the one in the article on Petrohue Waterfalls, and insert other Park sights: Puntiagudo, Tronador, the catamaran or a hotel, Perez Rosales pass, Tronador glacier, ... The link to Sernatur

• (in Spanish) Parque Nacional Vicente Pérez Rosales

is dead. I deleted it and inserted a link to CONAF instead. The referenced article by Louis Lliboutry published by USGS is good but contains almost nothing specific to the Park. It could provide the meat for an article on "Glaciers of the Wet Andes". I have deleted the non-pertinent call from Nothofagus dombeyi to Lliboutry's paper. I finished deleting the citation of this paper for rainfall information, as that should come from other sources. In editing Flora I have deleted attempts to characterize this Park by what is NOT there: araucarias, roble, ... I stumble on, and resist, a trend to replace good indigenous names by not so good ladino names. For example, notro is widely used and designates only Embothrium coccineum; while ciruelillo, small plum tree, is a non-pertinent name for a species of the Proteaceae that does not even remotely look like a plum tree. Muermo designates only Eucryphia cordifolia, and this tree is definitely NOT in any way an elm tree, ulmo, etc. The encyclopedia should remain eminently usable but should also be serious and avoid promoting poor or frankly bad use of terms. --Lupo Manaro (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily finished the edit. The wiki spider has already assessed that there are no in-line citations. I'll look further into this matter but I am afraid quotable references are scant. --Lupo Manaro (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person who added the tag and I am not a bot. You must not remove the tags without addressing the issues. The reason for putting the tag is that little information in the article is verifiable in the references given. Jespinos (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit you are human and not a bot, which is a good thing, at least in principle. I was induced into error because I did not see any signature on the tag and I am sorry for that. I deleted the citation because I thought it odd that, to justify average data for one incidental raingauge, the user is led to retrieve from the United States Geological Service a paper on glaciology by a distinguished emeritus professor of Grenoble University addressing the entire southern Andes. I have meanwhile inserted a citation leading to the Meteorological Directorate of Chile - but unfortunately their blurb is mushy science and leaves the desire to get hold of actual data valid for the Park. In fact, actual rainfall data are few, and there are none for the mountains. Being strict could result in deleting any statement regarding park-wide rainfall. I intend to introduce more citations as I find credible sources. If this discussion forum (no discussion so far...) believes the USGS citation should stay, it's easy to restore. I intend to refer to Lliboutry's paper when adding a few sentences on the Tronador glaciers. --Lupo Manaro (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and it was the aim of my previous comment. Judging by your comments, you didn't read the page I suggested. The sources of the article are unclear and an inline citation more or less doesn't make much difference. See also Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. And please no make personal attacks. Jespinos (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]