Talk:Jervis Bay

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nartional parks[edit]

I'm removing the links to Jervis Bay National Park and to Jervis Bay Marine Park: they aren't destinations in the Wikivoyage sense because I'm fairly sure that you can't sleep in either of them. No camping allowed in the former, the latter is water only. (WT-en) Hypatia 00:50, 7 Dec 2005 (EST)

Split article up and north not covered as it's a military range[edit]

The name "Jervis Bay" is too broad and some bits are 80 km away from the other by road. This is too big, and it would be more helpful to have north, central and territory. Booderee National Park can redirect to the territory as well as the village and the other things.

The northern section is also poorly covered here. And it being combined will mean the traveller will almost look and go to the southern and central sections, and not the hidden secrets in the north. And while the north may mostly be a military range, it's still open to tourists and is only occasionally closed for military exercises. And before you go, "military ranges aren't safe", erm, I've been to plenty of military ranges, training areas and units and it's fine, as long as you listen to the warnings and staff.

I do also have their safety booklet which also has a bit of history and information about this place and while I've never done any training here, I've visited here multiple times now.

Also, not distinctly separating them sort of violates WV:Be fair. And this is not just a Wikivoyage problem, this naming problem is also a reason why the north isn't visited a lot, including non-military ranges and towns like Currarong.

Just a photo of how the front looks like

If we do split them, I'd like to keep this page as a disambg. page, and this hopefully should cover the north section better.

Please let me know about your opinions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of your criticisms, but couldn't the northern section just be added here?--LivelyRatification (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot in the northern section, the booklet's is 16 pages and it's taken me 3 trips down here, and I've still not finished my journey. It's also a similar reason why you'd not combine Stratford and Maffra despite their close proximity. And people mostly ignore the northern section. There's also Currarong as well but it's usually not a search term that's common. All call it Jervis Bay, even up there. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The common way to split up an article is to expand it until it is very long, then the argument to split is easy to make. I don't know the area, so I am willing to defer to whatever SHB2000 and LivelyRatification think is best. Ground Zero (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would 80km be considered long? It's short in Australian standards but it's long for a town. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the article length. We do have destination articles that cover vast areas (like Arnhem Land) where that is what serves the traveller best. Unlike stubby beer bottles, stubby articles don't serve travellers well. They just create the impression that Wikivoyage doesn't have much information. If you're going to create new articles with lots of information about the destinations, I doubt you'll see any complaints. Ground Zero (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If all of it is called Jervis Bay, I think you could do one of two things:
1) Add all the information to this page
2) Make this page a disambiguation page, possibly linking to Northern and Southern Jervis Bay? 14:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look to me like there's a need to split it. As GZ notes, we have plenty of wide geographical areas addressed in single articles. The current article looks to be in pretty good shape, and I don't see a need to make it two small ones. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is one of the biggest articles on the site, so it's probably fine as it is. 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just glancing over it, I would agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Destinations which span a wide area but don't have many listings as yet can be restructured into a rural article. See Wikivoyage:Rural area article template. Once the article gets long enough, it can be split into smaller city articles and the parent article can become a region. Likewise, if city articles become very long they can be split into smaller districts and the parent becomes a "huge city". Note that the amount of content is key. Some cities with very large populations are not huge cities while there are lesser populous cities that are huge. Even an island can be anything from a city, district, rural area, region, park or dive guide and it's often the type/amount of content that determines it rather than how the island is regarded in the real world. Gizza (roam) 23:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]