Talk:Naturism

Nude beaches near New York City

This page was deleted per vfd, but the discussion is copied here for reference:

So this doesn't seem to be an article (Project:What is an article?) or really much of a travel topic. The more general Naturism does make sense to me as a travel topic. So here's what I think should happen:

• each beach should be part of some article. A short commentary about whether nudity is permissible is appropriate. The beaches should not be segregated into a single article. Failing to do this is a slippery slope (e.g. Nude beaches near Miami etc.).
• the Naturism article should probably be more general like discussing particular getaways such as pointers to Naturist resorts in particular countries or generally state that some beaches in the US permit nudity either by explicit permission or by tolerance of discrete nudity.

Any other opinions on how to handle this? -- (WT-en) Colin 15:04, 2 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I agree but am also not sure of how to handle this. It's not really much of an itinerary either... (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:02, 2 Jun 2005 (EDT)

When I copyedited this page I felt that most of the article move to articles about Fire island and the other beaches that are mentioned. However, I do not know enough about this part of New York to really do it justice, yet. Atleast with the informationall sitting here it is in one place, ready to be split up. Perhaps list as an article needing attention? Or make it a disambiguation page? -- (WT-en) Huttite 09:53, 7 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Doesn't this article kind of fall under itineraries in Project:Other ways of seeing travel? -- bh 13:20, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Naturism does, But not mere lists of places. I'd rather not segregate the beaches into article lists but rather incorporate them into their usual articles. It's kinda like Traveling with families. It's good to have an article that suggests you look at city parks as places to expunge childrens energy during travel. It's even helpful to comment on where you might generally find such parks in various countries. Individual location articles might mention the exact location of a city park and how good it is. But a list of Child friendly parks near New York City is a bad idea. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:56, 9 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I do not think this article is another way of seeing travel. Unlike Big things in Australia, which crosslinks a whole lot of small places with big things in them for people to see; or an itinery, which orders a lot of destinations in a travelling route; this article contains a mishmash of destinations with advice about each. These destinations each need to be created as a stub article. Take out the specific information and you are left with a little list of place-names that could move to a New York article regional about beaches and a legal note that could move to Naturism under New York nudity laws. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:46, 10 Jun 2005 (EDT)

this was my first contribution to wikivoyage. it's unfortunate how negative the response was. encouragement would be nice. of course it should be changed/merged whatever but there is so little info here to merge it with. why not let articles grow organically a bit before killing them (WT-en) Bhny 01:20, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Thanks for your contributions! I really do think there is a place here for some of the info, just not as a region-specifc categorical list. It's not that we don't appreciate the effort, but rather that it's a slippery slope which leads to all kinds of possible "lists of X in region", and rather than "let things grow" we like to fix broken windows. So here's my constructive suggestions for you -- pehaps some of them would interest you:

• Enhance Naturism with more info about the topic, worldwide attitudes, good places for travel, and so forth.
• Include information about NY nudity laws in New York (state)
• Perhaps write an Itinerary through somewhere that is Naturism-focused. For example, include popular beaches or locales, but also include historic beaches or places where events took place. Sort of a learn-more-through-travel approach.

I understand your frustration -- I really wish there were room for more info about city parks for kids when travelling. But I've come to realize that, much though I want it, it's not really within the focus of Wikivoyage.

-- (WT-en) Colin 01:57, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Redirect Nudism

I hope someone can arrange for "Nudism", which is a widely understood word, to redirect to the entry for Naturism.

A recent edit by Hobbitschuster

I'm afraid I don't understand this edit by User:Hobbitschuster. It seems like a restaurant at which one could dine nude would absolutely be of interest to naturist travelers. What am I missing? Powers ^(talk) 01:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for only responding right now. I think this whole article needs a lot of work and we might wish to agree whether it should contain individual listings (the thing in question should be a listing but has no link or anything). The way it was formulated made it not entirely clear what the restaurant's deal is and I may have jumped the gun thinking it is just a regular hotel tacked onto a swimming pool (the way "Therme" is used in German means its a glorified municipal swimming pool). If the website were linked we could check the situation... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a decision should be made about whether or not to include specific establishments, and this establishment in particular. It just seemed odd to remove one of the list of amenities. Would you consider adding it back in until we have those larger discussions? Powers ^(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently all I know about the place is what the website says. The way I read the website, the restaurant has nothing to do with naturism and is thus at best incidental to this article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much about the restaurant as it is about making it clear that the resort includes dining facilities. The ability to spend all of one's time at the resort and not have to go off-resort (clothed) to eat seems like vital information to me. Powers ^(talk) 20:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hodgepodge of spellings

Whatever the opinions held on WV:Spelling may be, can we please not willy-nilly switch the spelling within the same article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps changing things? If an EU or Commonwealth point has English spelling, it should be left that way. K7L (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The entire article should - safe for proper names - use one spelling consistently. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

We usually only do that for city articles (which don't cross international boundaries) and then only when trying to promote them to star level (ie: Singapore). Repeatedly (and pointlessly) changing Australian listings from English spelling to Americanisms for no good reason in travel topics isn't getting us any closer to making a travel guide and is not helpful. K7L (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Which travel topic do we have where spelling are intentionally inconsistent? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Links for Australia

@SHB2000, Nathan868: While there are links to all destinations for most countries (except for redundant links), there are none at all for Australia. Would somebody be able to add them? I suppose few beaches have articles of their own, but links to a city article where the beach (or whatever) in question is described would be needed. If we don't have articles on any nearby towns, we need a link to higher up in the hierarchy, where hopefully the place can be mentioned. Otherwise, either we should include at least some directions over here or delete the bullet. I suppose names like Sandy Bay or Long Beach aren't unique, so somebody doing a web search could end up in the wrong place. –LPfi (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of these places aren't official, but are extremely common. The one that I see the most are in Little Congwong. But FYI, people do go out for a nude run in the beaches in the South Coast, often attracting one visitor a day. And since 2017, Victoria has banned this, so hence my removal. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to tell about the nude on a remote beach thing, and perhaps other things about the common culture, cf the lead on Finland. The point in listing individual places is that a reader should be able to identify it, go there and know how to behave. Any listing that does not allow that is useless. –LPfi (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, Nathan868: The issue remains: out of 35 beaches, there are links for nine and descriptions for two. Could somebody please add the destination links, markers and descriptions. The intro says nudity is explicitly allowed on some of these beaches, but there is no hint on what beaches this applies to. And in absence of links, a non-regular just has to do a internet search for the name and location. They can end up in the wrong place (as many names are ambiguous), and won't know what beaches it is worthwhile to search for, other than if hey recognise the place name. –LPfi (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Now we got some links to an external site. They are against Wikivoyage:External links but better than nothing. Do we have anybody with an interest in the Australian list, who could check the listings, link them in some sensible way and remove the ones not useful for the traveller? –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The many links to the nudemap.com site definitely violate Wikivoyage:External links. Wikivoyage is a travel guide, and does not provide links to promote other travel guides. "External links should point to primary sources. For example: the official tourist office or government website for a destination...." Why should this article not follow the policy established by the Wikivoyage community?

In travel topic articles, detailed information on beaches should be in the destination articles, and the travel topic article should link to the Wikivoyage article for the destination. Linking to another guide is just a shortcut to avoid the work building a travel guide here in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

True. I did the work for one beach, using that source. But I am inclined to delete all of the list unless somebody is prepared to make the list useful. The external links would go at the same time, but until then I leave them, to provide info for somebody who wants to do the work. Feel free to delete them yourself though. –LPfi (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in working on this article. I am interested I making sure that Wikivoyage doesn't become a "link farm" for other sites. Thanks to User:Ibaman for doing the deletions. Ground Zero (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

transwiki?

d:6639690 only has Wikipedia sitelinks right now, but the English encyclopedia article has a tag at the top warning that this looks like a directory, which is out of scope for Wikipedia. Might Wikivoyage not be a better host for the content (while keeping in mind WV:EL as discussed above)? — Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Q6639690 is called "list of social nudity places in North America". I'd say Avoid long lists. I am not sure how to develop this article to avoid that. Or is it OK that this article is a long list? I think it is more or less impossible to keep a list striving to be more or less complete up to date (or manageable at all). Should the places be listed in the destination articles instead (or at region level) with the general information in country articles? At least beach destinations should have a sentence or two in Do/Beaches about clothing expectations, along information on fees, amenities etc. –LPfi (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)