Talk:Galápagos Islands

Old comments
THis page needs more information

Some information from this wiki were taken from www.darwinadventure.com

Is there any particular reason that the last section is "References" and not "External links"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Sampson (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 Septeber 2004


 * References were presumably used for information when writing the article - external links are just links to additional info of interest. Vsmith 04:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- This article needs a section on the geology and volcanology - maybe sometime ... :-) Vsmith 04:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- There also needs to be more on the current destruction of the ecosystem by fishermen, over-settlement, introduction of feral cats and goats, and lack of governmental & bureaucratic stability.

Why does the link to galapagos pinguin not work? Who can fix this please? Its OK, i have fixed it already!

Other topics
I think we need to mention other stuff like government, economy, political status, cities, demographics, transportation, etc. This article is almost entirely about animals, plants, and all the different islands. There's virtually no information on on the other topics that a typical article on an inhabited island mentions. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Galapagos, besides being an important ecological site are also a province of Ecuador. There needs to be much more information included about this aspect of the islands. Currently the issue of population increase has important repercussions both political and ecological. Government imposed limits on immigration for ecological reasons have helped to create high salaries in the islands based off of the tourist industry and intense demand of mainlanders to emigrate.

I think the page needs better pictures which I have from my trip to the Galapagos but I don't know how to submit them. Could someone tell me?

They don't have information on government and political status because there isn't enough people that live on the islands to hold a well established government as the United States has provided --Soccermormon95 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that sounds good and your information and pictures will be most welcome – I've left some info at User talk:Soccermormon95 . Don't hesitate to sign your posts on talk pages. ... dave souza, talk 04:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should merge the 2 topics together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckyd (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Accent mark
I've always been under the impression that the acute accent over the second a was the only proper spelling for "Galápagos". However, the article often simply uses "Galapagos". Is this acceptable? My guess is that editors have just found it simpler to type a than á. Unless somebody says otherwise, I'll go ahead a change everything to "Galápagos" when I get the chance. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was more correct without the accent, which should be removed. English Wikipedia should be using the  names of places, not the 'correct' Spanish or Vietnamese forms. That said, the discussion below does point down to major sources going out of their way to include it, even though the English default will never be to have the mark. —  Llywelyn II   15:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Title capitalisation
Is this correctly capitalised -or not?--Light current 13:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to G-alápagos I-slands? As far as I can remember, everything I've ever read about them has both words capitalized, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be. Imaginaryoctopus(talk) 19:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Governor of Galapagos during Darwin's visit
Just watched the BBC's 2nd episode in the series Galapagos. It said that the first governor was a chap named Captain Nicholas Lawson who 'pronounce with certainty from which island any tortoise had been brought' from the shape of its shell. It seems he was the acting guv'ner while Villamil was away.[| acting governor] Anon user 21:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Structure
This article has a different structure from another articles about inhabitated islands. See Canary Islands, whose section are: The structure of Hawaii is: I believe that we would have to make more emphasis in its population and its activities. --Gimferrer 11:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Etymology
 * History
 * Physical geography
 * Political geography
 * Economy
 * Geography
 * History
 * Demographics
 * Education
 * Economy
 * Transportation
 * Miscellaneous topics

The above should be merged into a section on political geography, due to the fact that it is not feasible to compare the Galapagos Islands with other archipelago's, because of their small number of people, relative lack of an economy, etc. --Pico del Teide 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin
Could someone please comment on the section about Darwin and mockingbirds from A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, ch. 25. I know this is not a scientific source, but according to it the following bit would be incorrect:

"Darwin noticed that mockingbirds differed between islands, and the governor of the prison colony on Charles Island told him that tortoises differed from island to island. Towards the end of the voyage Darwin speculated that these facts might 'undermine the stability of Species'".

At least this section should be confirmed by more sources than just one. --Eleassar my talk 11:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Entry Baltra (South Seymour)
All I was doing was correcting a redundant entry. Im sorry I didnt follow your perceived procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.39.254 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry. Not to deflect blame from myself, but in the future, if you describe what you're doing in the edit summary, people like me aren't as likely to make the mistake of interpreting it as vandalism.  I'll go remove the warning from your talk page. --barneca (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Population
I don't ever update pages, but this was changed:In 1959, approximately 1,000 to 2,000 people called the islands their home. In 1972 a census was done in the archipelago and a population of 3,488 was recorded. By the 1980s, this number had risen to more than 15,000 people, and 2006 estimates place the population around 30,000 people.

Five of the islands are inhabited: Baltra, Floreana, Isabela, San Cristobal and Santa Cruz.

Note the last phrase.. also note that I'm fairly sure Santa Cruz is populated! though I don't know whether the others are or not. Hope someone can change this who knows if the list is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.174.64 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The list is correct technically. There are 4 small towns on each Floreana, Isabela, San Cristobal and Santa Cruz. Baltra is a military base and has people stationed at it. obv (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nazca boobies
Is this vandalism or is there actually such a thing:


 * Gulls, sea lions, whales, marine turtles, Red-footed and Nazca boobies can be seen ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Nazca Booby. It's real.  --barneca (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! My vocabulary just got more enriched !! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pinta
Where is the section for Pinta island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.243 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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?Jetlife2 (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi how was the trip, 6 months already. Did you get wonderfull photos? Enjoy. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was great. Some of the dive pics are here Gallery Have not got around to putting them on the Commons yet...but it's on the to-do list. Got some great land pics too. Jetlife2 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of tortoises
There is contradiction between the statement "tortoise is a unique animal found only in the Galapagos Islands, yet there are no more than 200 in the 13 main islands" and the number at Galápagos tortoise (15,000). Avihu (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Species per Island
I think it would be a good idea to have a list showing which (sub)species are present on the different islands. It's probably not going to be a comprehensive list, but at least for birds it could be done... It could look like the table at Galapagos_tortoise or alternatively list all species that are present on an island. (first column: island) Maybe it could go into Wildlife of the Galápagos Islands What do you think?bamse (talk)

Lists of English and Spanish names
Since, as the Etymology section says, the older English names are still used, especially by people reading the quite extensive pre-1950 literature, why not have both names plus details in a tabular or list format? Surely many readers will expect this? See Hawaiian islands. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I love the galapagos turtles!!!!!!Meow121.7.76.101 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.117.109 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the map that shows at the top right of the page I can see that all the names are the Spanish names used in Ecuador, except for those of Darwin Island and Wolf Island, which are the Spanish names for Culpepper and Wenman. I think this must be changed so that there is coherence in this map (RPaez (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Removed text
In two edits, Digirami deleted a significant amount of material without an edit summary to indicate the fate of the removed text. I will ask at User talk:Digirami for comments here because if the removed text is pasted into another article, the edit summary on this article should have a link to the other article, and the other article must have an edit summary with a link to this article, in order to satisfy the WP:GFDL. In addition, people watching this page may want to know the plan. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the addition of the should indicate the fate of the moved text. Let's face it, there can be four articles related to the Galapagos: one on the islands itself, one on the province, one on the national park, and one on the marine biological reserve. It would be better off to have the latter three in separate articles before this article gets too large in size. In the case of the province, the article on the province existed before, but was unexplainably and unrightfully merged into this one. My edits are essentially a revert. Digirami (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ID needed
Could somebody please help ID this species? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

World Heritage List
The article, and related articles, may need to be updated due to removal from the World Heritage Site list. What is used instead of Infobox World Heritage Site? However, the Galápagos Islands are still listed at UNESCO:,. Should this article be removed from List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas?

Background: In these two edits Nonestadastra added that the World Heritage Committee has removed the Galápagos Islands from the World Heritage List (source). I reverted this edit by Thom977 because it left the page in a broken state. I have left a message at WT:WikiProject World Heritage Sites requesting help. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Ecuador - My Country(I was, live, have heard, will be in Ecuador) into the external links
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish you can analyze and accept my facebook page: Inappropriate external link removed

as part of the external links for the Galápagos Islands page.

The content of my facebook page has the vision to give one holistic image of the Ecuador through videos, photos, links, and Forums, and as well, to eliminate language barriers in global communication.

I appreciate your help

Best Regards, Francisco Villacís Administrator --Ecuadormycountry2010 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction about age of islands
Information in the article contradicts itself in terms of the age of the oldest island. It says both:

"The oldest island is thought to have formed between 5 million and 10 million years ago." AND "Española is the oldest island at around 3.5 million years"

I don't have the info necessary to correct this, but I thought I'd note it incase anyone does have the accurate age of the oldest island. 121.44.125.243 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I would say that it may be Espanola is currently the oldest island and the older islands are now submerged and covered by water, thus no longer islands.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this myself and did a little further reading; will update the article with information from http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/GalapagosWWW/GalapagosGeology.html Mbethke (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

External links cleanup
I removed several links to external sites promoting cruises or books; please see Links normally to be avoided for the reasons. --CliffC (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Galapagos Islands → Galápagos Islands – Making the move request since the page was just moved without discussion by Jimfbleak, since it's surprising there hasn't been a discussion of this before, and there ought to be a standard for all the related articles (Isabela Island (Galápagos), Galápagos tortoise, Galapagos Land Iguana, Galápagos Penguin, etc.). The version with the accent is very common in English usage, so is it name we should use per the relevant article naming policy? &mdash;innotata 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Accuracy is of prime importance. Some people deny that diacritics are part of the English language and are increasingly being used, and more widely so. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. The National Geographic spells it 'Galápagos Islands'. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even Encyclopedia Britannica, a source that uses diacritics in many of their articles, uses "Galapagos Islands". I think it would be better if the other Galapagos-related articles followed this usage as well. Jenks24 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as the proposed version is also widely used in English-language literature. - Darwinek (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The term has become common in English usage.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Most accurate and also commonly written this way in English. Rennell435 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Names of articles should not use accent marks as this is english wikipedia and as such we only have the standard letter "e" on our keyboards (see here). AnimatedZebra (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea what this is about. The section of Article titles you link to is about problematic "accent-like and quote-like" characters, and the section I gave above says that diacritics are sometimes used, when they are in English usage. I also don't get what you mean by "we only have the standard letter 'e' on our keyboards". What does this have to do with the English Wikipedia? And many—most?—people have most diacritics on their keyboards, as an optional feature for English keyboard settings. I'd say there's at least an argument against diacritics in most cases, and I'm not saying this page should go one way or another yet, but convenience of typing does not seem more important than accuracy and reflecting actual usage. &mdash;innotata 01:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Hmm, I believe I've made an error. The page states that you should "...provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters.", which basically means that when you type in "Galapagos", it should redirect to "Galápagos". Sorry for the error innotata but I guess you would be happy to know that I will now support your move! =D AnimatedZebra (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Question. Can one of the supporters please give some evidence to back their claim that "Galápagos" is the most commonly used title in English sources? Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually I'd like to see that too, evidence of the usages with and without diacritics (from those who think it should be at either title, since the page was moved without discussion from an established name) … that's what I was hoping to get from a requested move. Do I need to dig it out myself? A bit of a lame move request, even for one on the diacritics issue. &mdash;innotata 16:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably, if there isn't consensus, the page will stay at this name. But given how this page was moved there rather ought to be some good evidence from those who think this should the current name should be used. Would you like to look at it? &mdash;innotata 16:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume this last question was directed at me, but apologies if it wasn't. I would say that the Britannica reference is pretty compelling, seeing as Britannica is generally pro-diacritic (and indeed just looking through the Galapagos Islands article, I see a link to article that uses diacritics in the title). If you would like further examples, I'm willing to look for them (but I won't be able to get around to it until tomorrow). As to why the article was moved, you could ask, who moved the article, what his opinions are. I would, but seeing as it's pretty likely he'll have a similar view to mine, it would probably be canvassing. Jenks24 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was asking you. I think I get why Jimfbleak moved the page: he said it was because "this is the English, not the Spanish Wikipedia". I just don't agree: perhaps diacritics should be used, perhaps not, but certainly English sometimes uses them, so that's not enough of a reason. (I've informed him of this move request.) Also, I think this needs to be properly discussed to be decided, hence this move request. &mdash;innotata 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually come to think of it, maybe I jumped to Support too soon after my error above, as I'm not sure if I've ever seen that special character used in Galapagos before. All I know (according to wikipedia) is that it's a variant of the letter "a" in various languages, with spanish being one them as the islands are associated with spanish names or whatever. How do spanish-speakers pronounce the name I wonder? AnimatedZebra (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know whether the page ought to be Galapagos or Galápagos, or which is more common or correct in English, but I thought I'd add what the NGA GEOnet Names Server (GNS) says. Note the GNS database is only a semi-official place name list for the US federal government. In other words, it doesn't tell us what the "official" English name is or should be, just what the US federal government says should be used by US federal government employees. Still, it can be a useful guide. Anyway, I found it curious how for the islands it says "Galapagos Islands (Conventional)" and "Colón, Archipiélago de (Approved)", yet for Galápagos Province, "Galápagos, Provincia de (Approved)", "Galápagos (Short)", and several variants. I've found that they provide "conventional" names for "famous" places whose spellings are given special exception to the usual rule of calling places by the names they are called in the country in question. Things like Rome, Vienna, Ganges, etc. In this case it looks like they think the islands have a conventional name of this sort, but the province does not. It is also interesting how they seem to say that if one wanted to skip the conventional name of the islands, the approved name would be "Archipiélago de Colón". "Archipiélago de Galápagos" isn't even listed as a variant. Still, the NGA GNS is just one source among many and does not always agree with common usage, so take it with a grain of salt. Pfly (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Actually, I'll say I support this move for two reasons: I don't think there should have been a unilateral administrative move, from an established name, and that the page should remain at this name if the above is all the discussion there is. The version of the name with diacritics is very widely used, if not most widely, and is more accurate. However, if anybody shows that the version without diacritics is more widely used, I'll be easily convinced. &mdash;innotata 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The Spanish acute is relatively easy to retain, compared to some diacritical monstrosities. It is widely preserved in various literatures, and it is immediately and intuitively informative. No one seeing "Galápagos" written is going to stress it on the third syllable. Let readers of Wikipedia benefit from this simple expedient in Spanish orthography, which makes it one of the easiest languages to read with accurate stress. N oetica Tea? 07:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If I don't oppose, can we have this site as the on-line encyclopædia?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ? &mdash;innotata 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, I don't mind either way if we use diacritics for this group of articles or not.  I generally oppose diacritics for the following reasons:
 * in US common English anyway, many if not all diacritics are slowly going the way of the dinosaur, and many words with them are simply not used any more. I'm not sure of other English forms, but looking at the Wikipedia diacritic page, it appears other English forms are slowly losing their use as well.
 * Many other websites dealing with taxonomy, such as Birdlife International, Clements, Sibley and Monroe, Howard & Moore do not use them either.
 * It would begin to give us better consistency across all articles of wikipedia, and would eliminate confusion. For example look at all the articles with Galapagos in them.  Some use them, some don't.  Even in within bird articles themselves, we are inconsistent (Galapagos Hawk (without), Galápagos Penguin (with).
 * Eliminating diacritic use generally by having a consistent rule would begin to eliminate confusion. How will anyone know when to keep or use a diacritic, or when to eliminate/not use them in an article.  An example is Chiloe Wigeon.  Encyclopedia Britannica has the bird as Chiloé wigeon, we have it as Chilöe Wigeon.  Granted, Wikipedia has other main articles listed with the Chiloé spelling, but you see the problem.  Not only when to use them and when not to, but which ones to use where.  Even in a case where the case for diacritic use may be warranted, i.e. Réunion, we can get around the diacritics problem by moving the article to Reunion Island if need be.  We have many people in the United States whose last name is Fernandez.  I don't remember anywhere where I've see it printed with a diacritic as in the Juan Fernández Petrel, not in a phone book, not in a municipal voter list, not in a real estate listing.  I'd argue most english users of wikipedia hardly ever use them, if at all.
 * Since this is English Wikipedia and not some other languaged Wikipedia, we should follow English spelling rules and limit use of diacritics. We have other languaged Wikipedias, they can follow their own language rules.
 * There are no diacritic keys on an American sold computer. Snowman puts up a good argument regarding the difficulty of adding diacritics to English words.  As he states, many of these marks are difficult to type with an English keyboard. Pronunciation tips and the version of the species name with the foreign character could be provided at the head of the introduction in a very compact format.
 * Wikipedia is trying to make it easier for people to edit Wikipedia, not more difficult. Adding diacritics add an additional level of complexity.

I can live either way with Wikipedia using diacritics for the english language encyclopedia, as I think most readers can figure out the article pretty easily with or without them. It just seems like more work trying to maintain them and making sure articles remain consistent. Just my 2 cents........Pvmoutside (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I will support this for reasons of accuracy. The name is used this proposed way by and large. I am also a supporter of the ideal, and I accept it is an ideal, that if we English speakers are to borrow words from other languages then we should at least try to spell them right. I don't think this case is a difficult one to maintain and that we should try to be consistent across the broad spectrum of topics about the Galápagos. In saying this, however, I add the caveat that this is not a huge issue. Faendalimas  talk 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. While the online edition of Britannica indeed omits the accent mark, a number of other notable sources don't: Britannica Concise Encyclopædia, Columbia Encyclopedia, Oxford World Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia, National Geographic and UNESCO (despite the article's UNESCO infobox previously claiming otherwise). Prolog (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Definition of Main Island
Hello, I'm confused by the varying number of what are referred to as "main" islands. In the Physical Geography section of the article, it says there are 15 main islands. In the Main Islands section of the article, there are 14 main islands listed, and at the bottom of the page I count 18 islands listed next to the category "Main Islands." I understand that the 14 were chosen due to their size (more than 1km square) but how were the other numbers arrived at? Is this just an error? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.58.96 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign it Claradutton (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Popular references
Why was the popular references removed?

The Gallapagos feature in a number of movies, where the islands themselves form an integral part of the story - such as in Master and Commander, and Sailor of the King

Numerous other articles have a section where they have something appearing in popular culture

Montalban (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See my edit summary when I removed the section. There wer no sources provided and the list seemed quite trivial. There would need to be some indication of why the movies are notable to the islands. Obviously the Islands are important to the movies and I assume are so mentioned in the movie articles. If the movies had some impact on the islands and such can be supported by a WP:RS, and is not undue weight, then create a section covering the movie and explaining the connection and importance to the islands. Vsmith (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The nature of being 'trivial' is in fact what is allowed in other articles.

The 'sources' part is not exactly accurate either because I had, for instance, Master and Commander as a link to the film - it's another article here in Wiki

In that film for instance the islands become a key part of the plot where the Doctor is in dispute with the captain because he has a chance to examine the islands taken away from him, but is later returned to them and discovers the french ship they had been looking for.

The other film; Sailor of the King - they again play an important part because it is the shape of one island that allows the german ship to remain hidden whilst being repaired - but also this shape allows Signalman Andrew 'Canada' Brown to use his rifle to pick-off people on the ship, thus in effect pinning-down an entire warship. Montalban (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And of course in the third film "Creation" about Charles Darwin they play a central role too. It is these islands more than any other that gave Darwin the spurr to putting his theory together.


 * Generally the trivia section is titled "In popular culture" and appears in a great many articles
 * Montalban (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Vsmith covered the formalities, but there are many other issues. Quite a few popular references are added by editors who have little or no association with the encyclopedic, academic content. This creates an obvious mismatch, which is that those adding the popular reference have little idea in what way it represents the real situation. To such people, every popular reference might appear equally useful. Nor is there any uniform, straightforward way to distinguish. For example, fans of Carl Barks probably know that Barks drew heavily on "National Geographic" for inspiration, but what precisely he gleaned and what part he invented are poorly established. This is further confused by the work of Don Rosa, who emulated Barks, and elaborated on his stories, but has a greater concern for historical accuracy. Experts in a field should not be required to evaluate this kind of fandom, no matter how interesting to those involved popular media. And general readers should not be subjected to what amount to product plugs. 24.6.156.141 (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fabio Perierer of Portugal won the islands on a bet? That is what the second paragraph says.
Brazil's mid fielder won the Galapagos Islands? That is what the second paragraph says????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B278:1760:C474:700C:8CFD:E778 (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Distance from Ecuador
How far are the islands from Ecuador? The first paragraph says "906km west of continental Ecuador" but the Physical geography section says, in the space of two sentences, both "973km off the west coast of South America" and that the closest land mass "is Ecuador...926km to the east". Nerwal (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Distance between Darwin and Espanola Islands: A proposed correction
Your Galapagos article is great. However, I have found what looks to be an error.

Using your map scale of 5 centimeters per 100 kilometers, the distance between Darwin and Espanola Islands is not 220 kilometers, but approximately 4000 kilometers.

I hope that this helps.

Sincerely,

James McRae Ottawa, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.28.57 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Refimprove tag
I removed this tag, which was first placed in 2010. There are now many inline references. Lou Sander (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Galápagos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130123203107/http://www.new7wonders.com/nature/en/liveranking to http://www.new7wonders.com/nature/en/liveranking/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Galápagos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211190111/http://www.inec.gov.ec:80/estadisticas/ to http://www.inec.gov.ec/estadisticas/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.galapagos.to/TEXTS/LUNDH-3.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

ENGVAR
Spelling at the moment is a bit variable in this article ("colour" and "color", some "-ize" verb endings, some "-ise" changed recently). There are no obvious national ties, so we need to make a decision. Comments please. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Used as a hideout
European voyages, third paragraph: Until the early 19th century, the archipelago was often used as a hideout by mostly English pirates who pilfered Spanish galleons carrying gold and silver from South America to Spain. I can`t believe that. The archipelago is on the wrong side of America to pilfer Spanish galleons carrying gold and silver from South America to Spain.--koppchen (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Think how gold obtained from the pre-Hispanic Andean civilizations or mined in the Andes would have been shipped from ports like Lima to Europe. It certainly wasn't carried overland to the east coast of South America, especially not to Portuguese Brazil. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Is a ship sailing from Callao to Panama on its way from South America to Spain?--koppchen (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's not intending to leave the gold in Panama. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So how did the ship sail fom Panama to Spain?--koppchen (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I read the sentence as saying that the gold and silver is being carried from South America, not that the ship is going there, but if you prefer then change the sentence a bit, e.g. "Spanish galleons carrying gold and silver from South America bound for Spain". The source you added says "los barcos que llevaban los tesoros de Potosí, Callao y Guayaquil rumbo a Panamá y España." I would translate "rumbo a Panamá y España" as "en route to Panama and Spain" or "bound for Panama and Spain". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is o.k. as it is--koppchen (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion of Edits to Environmental Threats Section
Citations should be added after the first and second paragraphs of the "Environmental Threats" section. The nearest citation to these paragraphs doesn't seem to reflect the information provided in each paragraph.

This sentence occurs in the "Environmental Threats" section in the 4th paragraph,"This problem abounds in Cerro Azul volcano and Isabela, and in Santiago, pigs may be the cause of the disappearance of the land iguanas that were so abundant when Darwin visited." I would like to suggest that a citation be added after that sentence because the words "may be" lead me to believe that a conclusion may have been drawn without prior research.SummerBritton (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

suggestions
I suggest to add the area 27 km^2 for Baltra (taken from the spanish wiki) and place pinzon/pinta in the correct alphabetic order, pietro151.29.189.70 (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC) also the area 1.2 km^2 of Bartolome` island may be added (taken from the corresponding article of this wiki)

In addition, the area of Isabela is declared first 2250 sq.miles and then 1790. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.29.189.70 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Google Doodle
Regarding this edit summary, I don't really feel strongly about the inclusion of this information, but I want to point out that the sourcing is not the issue. The link provided is WP:PRIMARY, sure. But it also satisfies the criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF, meaning that it is acceptable in this case even though secondary sourcing is always preferable. And anyway, WP:PRIMARY itself says: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. I don't think there is an issue with using Google to say that Google published a Google Doodle. Armadillo pteryx  02:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not know of that detail in the rules – thanks for the explanation! To inform those who haven't looked at the page history, I removed a section that stated the Galapagos Islands were featured in a Google Doodle, because it felt way too trivial for the article. I welcome further discussion so we can get a consensus either way. ~EdGl   talk  03:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Galápagos Province
I propose to merge the Galápagos Province page with this page, in accordance with common practice established in Semi-duplicate. 93.44.196.46 (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment usually I would agree with suggestions of this kind, but the Galápagos Islands have such biogeographical rather than political interest that I think separating the two aspects is worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Peter coxhead I don't think this matters much, in fact precisely because the Galapagos are of little political interest rather than biogeographical it's not worth it to have a article that mostly repeats information and only lists the cantons of the province and ethnic groups as its only unique information. Other islands with significant biogeographical interest like the Canaries still have a single article for the islands and the body administering them. 93.32.191.170 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is whether the Ecuadorian government would ever set different boundaries for the political unit from the biogeographical unit. I suppose it's ok to merge them, but I would say that the Galápagos are much more scientifically interesting than the Canaries because of the connection with Darwin. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose One is a political article, another one is a physiographical article. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:818C:DD5C:BD91:1704 (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The two articles definitely need merging and restructuring in some fashion. Galápagos Province is a very poorly developed article, to the point that there is actually very little to merge here. A main article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE on the political unit is always a possibility, but that is not how Galápagos Province is currently set up. CMD (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed this merge proposal: The reason to merge articles is if they duplicate or overlap each other; that isn’t the case here, IMO. Galápagos Province covers political and social aspects (demography, political divisions, etc) and is on a par with the other articles we have on Ecuadorian provinces (in fact, at 12 Kb is already bigger than many of them). Galápagos Islands covers the unique aspects of the islands (climate, ecology, travel, environmental protection) and, at 93 Kb, is already at the point at which we would be considering splitting it down, not adding to it. And both are discrete subjects with their own notability. If there are problems with the Galapagos Province article, the remedy (I would suggest) is to discuss them there and fix them, not try and get rid of it. As for WP:Semi-duplicate, that is an essay, the opinions of which are debateable: So as for in accordance with common practice established in WP, that does rather beg the question, doesn’t it?. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An archipeligo (a landform) is very different from a province (an administrative unit), and the articles properly have different focuses. Libcub (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No they don't, this one is a full article with information spanning different topics surrounding the islands, whereas Galápagos Province poorly duplicates the History section and adds only in that it has a canton table. CMD (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest that it stays as it is. As somebody else said, one is a political artical and one is a geographical atricle and one person might read one while not being interested in the other. Squebbs the Pebbs (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. Both articles have both. CMD (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as above. CMD is wrong and any issues with the other article's scope should be handled by cleaning up the other article without blanking any content from Wikipedia as a whole. Inter alia, the other article badly needs a list of the islands' governors. Presumably the Spanish Wiki can help. — Llywelyn II   16:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify which point is wrong? No-one has proposed blanking any content from Wikipedia as a whole. CMD (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone already has. You're just ignoring them, apparently mostly out of a confusion of current content with.


 * It's been most of a year and there's a clear consensus here regardless of the current content. Could you wrap up the discussion and remove the banners from the pages? I think that'd be best to avoid any drama or rolling issues. — Llywelyn II   03:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If everyone has proposed blanking content from Wikipedia as a whole, then I haven't seen it. I certainly agree the discussion has been regardless of the current content, but it is not my discussion so I'm not sure why this request is directed to me. CMD (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's directed towards you since you're the only person who seems to want the merge. I'd remove the tags myself since the consensus is completely obvious, but I don't want you restoring them if I do. It's safer for you to realize everyone disagrees with you and have you do it. — Llywelyn II   11:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's a difference between an archipelago and an administrative unit. We can't merge them together. ThatRandomEditor101 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but we can put a link in the subsection 'Geography' in 'Galapagos Province' saying 'Main article: Galapagos Islands'. John Smith Ri (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Or split?
As mentioned above, this article is 93 Kb in length, which is at the point we should be considering splitting off subsidiary articles. One obvious candidate (I suggest) is the History section, which would make a good stand-alone article as "History of the Galapagos Islands". Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * History splits are usually sensible, although that wouldn't fix the current situation of having two articles on the same topic. CMD (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There could be a separate History of the Galápagos Islands/History of the Galapagos Islands article, sure, but an overview should be left. Most of the current bloat is in the discussion of the islands, which already have separate articles and should be trimmed, and the overlong treatment of the wildlife and conservation efforts, which already have 2+ separate articles. Start there. — Llywelyn II   16:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Aside from how the Spanish pronunciation is almost entirely irrelevant in English and pronunciation info belongs at the Wiktionary entry and not here (both of which are completely valid points), the current IPA seems to be completely wrong. The /general pronunciation/ should skip ⟨ɣ⟩ and just use ⟨g⟩ in the same way most English IPA entries use /r/ when they really mean [ɹ]. The [precise pronunciation], meanwhile, should note that islas ends with a ⟨z⟩ and not an ⟨s⟩. The current unsourced hybrid seems to be made up.

Meanwhile, if we are keeping it, we should get the distracting mess out of the lead sentence and into a #Name/Names section with the English pronunciation noted. Of course, it still needs a cite. — Llywelyn II   16:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead
Probably deserves something about being the first green airport in the world if that was honest and if someone can think of a way of discussing it without sounding like a shill. Similarly, the National Park staff's extensive activity and innovation, reintroducing reduced species, relocating colonies when they become so successful they begin to outstrip their resources, and using drones to completely exterminate rats from some of the islands. — Llywelyn II   17:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Table of Islands
One way to reduce the bloat of the page is to remove the mostly unhelpful minigrafs of the islands to the other sections (for anything important) or to their separate pages (for anything not already there).

This page for the islands as islands badly needs a clear and sortable table that quickly introduces of all the islands under their official names, gives their most recent populations (if any), and gives their total area... and nothing else (except maybe which canton each falls under, if the unpopulated islands are also sorted, and whether or not they fall within the Galapagos National Park, if that's more than 2 or 3 of them). — Llywelyn II   02:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)