Talk:Ashmore and Cartier Islands

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Ashmore and Cartier Islands/CIA World Factbook 2002 import -- (WT-en) Huttite 21:47, 27 Mar 2005 (EST)

This is neither a suitable destination or even possible stopping point in any sense apart from emergency... is the article template suitable for such a location? sats (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have other articles about locations accessible only to military personnel, like Diego Garcia. Are there ever any foreign military personnel at these islands, to your knowledge? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

Hi Ikan Kekek and Ground Zero, shall we delete this article? It's uninhabitable, you can't get there. It's only there as an extension of Australia's EEZ. It's not going to give a reader anything. TravelAroundOz (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a lot of articles for Next-to-impossible destinations. These articles are fun for armchair travelling. As long as the difficulty in getting there and restrictions on access are clearly identified, I think these articles are accepted in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol, I'd love to visit some of these places. TravelAroundOz (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. I'm surprised how much time I spent starting the article on Guadalupe Island, which I'm pretty sure I'll never get to. But it is fun to dream. Ground Zero (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge strongly objected to - as Ground Zero states they are excellent for next-to-impossible destinations, and politically, the reefs/sometimes above sea level rocks are an intriuging part of Australia's relationship with Indonesia, and the rest of the word when it comes to adjacent seas and international boundaries. I would never want to visit, but my personal preference is not above inclusion of a close to impossible place that is identified many times in complex issues to do with fishing rights, refugee and immigration issues in Australia. JarrahTree (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We might want to eliminate some of the usual sections from the article, though. I tried an edit, but I don't know if it's reasonable. Also, if you did get permission to visit, wouldn't you have to go by boat? Seems so, and if so, we shouldn't mention it in "Get in". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
without checking commonwealth government gazettals for specific proscriptions - from memory it is a prohibited area due to at risk wildlife - just like the french prohibitions of access of any sort to most of their possessions in the southern Indian Ocean - JarrahTree (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the english wikipedia article even suggests:
Access to Cartier Island is prohibited because of the risk of unexploded ordnances even more reason to not want to get there, as well as having no point to access (anchorage only) - and the friendly border force staff on the - who I am sure with 300 days a year next to the reefs might get stir crazy with their glocks... no thanks.. JarrahTree (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving article[edit]

Information from this travel pamphlet from the Australian government would make this article a lot more useful. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

utility is very odd for a place that should not be encouraged to go to - but the pdf is a good catch...JarrahTree (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not odd for a travel guide. The purpose of the article is to let people know how to get there, what they can/can't do, etc. We should neither encourage nor discourage people from visiting. We should provide the best information we can about, including risks/limitations/downsides, so that traveler's can decide for themselves. Withholding information is a disservice. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Park or rural area[edit]

@SHB2000: I don't understand the change to rural area. The latter is for "areas so sparsely populated that their individual villages aren't big enough for their own articles." The islands are uninhabited so there is little rural about them, no "individual villages". They may not be a park, but you'd prepare like if going to the backcountry of a large park. There is no Fees or permits section for the rural area, and no Landscape, Flora and fauna, which I suppose are key here. Also compare Get around, See, Buy, Eat, Drink and Stay safe in the article templates (the ones with explanations, the quick ones are more similar). –LPfi (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did the change based on Norfolk Island. This is not a park, and I don't know what to put here, but rural area suits better than "park". I'm also confused to why this article exists in the first place, and I asked this question a while back as well. It's uninhabited, and serves no purpose. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also impossible to get here, so I might be putting a vfd for this soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Compare with the rest of the Next-to-impossible destinations. Get in and around says "Visitors must arrive by boat, and those visiting must use visitor-designated moors." Doesn't look like you couldn't get there. As rural area the article lacks Fees and permits, which I think are absolutely essential for this destination. Get in and Get around should also be separate.
From Understand: "Ashmore Reef supports a rich and diverse avian and marine habitat" Isn't that enough that somebody might want to come here? So what purpose is it that the article wouldn't serve if it were better developed?
LPfi (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in my opinion, I think this article is better off in Wikivoyage:Joke articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think this sentence:

Noting the status of the water supply and low lying nature of the islands, it is best to keep away.

Would be enough to discourage a traveller. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] Why would you use Norfolk Island as a model? There are towns there, roads and people. What does make this article "not a park"? Utö isn't a city either, but that's the template that suites best. For usefulness, see Talk:Bouvet Island (which also should be transformed to a park). –LPfi (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine. I'll change it. You've convinced me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] The sentence on "best to keep away" is probably there because the author did write it as a joke article. This is not the only place without water supply; if there is no potable water, bring your own. If the low-lying natures poses a hazard, tell about it in Stay safe (you wouldn't expect a reef, beach or lagoon to be anything but low-laying, would you? –~~
Very true. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if you read the above discussions, you can see this article's tone was purposefully written to tell people both that they shouldn't and cannot visit. I was the one that looked it up and added the information that proved that wrong and added it to the article to make it an actual travel article. You can see above that the reaction was that it was "odd" for me to add real travel information because of a personal belief that people should not visit (which I find odd and against our mission). If you find remnants of that joke/activist mentality, please edit if you can to give it proper tone. This is a valid travel article and should read like one. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]