Talk:Standing Rock

Where are the camps?

At least one & possibly several camps should be listed, with geo co-ordinates, at Standing_Rock#Other_destinations since these are the main places most visitors will want to find. However, the map at [1] fails to display for me & I have not found another.

Can someone please fix this? Pashley (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Photos

I have seen many photos online of heavily armed police or "security" personnel (riot gear, dogs, armored vehicles, etc.) deployed against these protests & I think the "Stay safe" section should have one to illustrate the dangers. However, I have looked on Commons without finding one & have little idea how to find one elsewhere or import it if I did. Can someone help? Pashley (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, can someone find a good banner image? Pashley (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The direction of this article

I had held off on expressing these concerns at first, because when I first noticed this issue the article was still under development and I wanted to wait and see what other information might ultimately be added. But it's been nearly eleven days since the last edit has been made and still there is essentially no useful information here that is not directly related to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests. This is problematic because the DAPL protests and associated standoff are an inherently temporary situation - it's going to end either when the DAPL begins construction or a firm decision is made not to begin construction. In what will most likely end up being a few short weeks' or months' time, what will be left in this article will be a whole bunch of outdated information and very little that's of any use to the post-DAPL visitor to Standing Rock.

Regardless of whether a particular place happens to be in the news currently, the foundation of any Wikivoyage destination article should be what there is to "See" and "Do", where to "Buy" things, "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep". There is none of that information here. In fact, from what I can gather from outside sources, it seems up for debate whether Standing Rock can sustain its own article per wiaa. I'm sensitive to the fact that this article is the work of one of our longest-standing contributors, which is why I didn't take this issue straight to vfd, but it seems clear to me per policy that this article needs to be completely reformatted using Template:Smallcity skeleton, and any DAPL-related information belongs in an infobox.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Yes, the article mainly covers the protests, but those are the main reason thousands of people have gone to the place. Moving the DAPL-related stuff to an infobox would, in my view, be amazingly silly. There is some more general info, such as stuff about highways in Get in; if someone can add more, that would be great.

In particular, there has been talk of some sort of multi-tribe meeting place and historical museum that is being or will be built on the site of one camp. I did not put it in because I do not have details & do not know when it might open. That would be worth adding if someone knows more.

As for the article mechanics, a city template is clearly wrong for a 9,000 sq km rural area. I made it an extra region since it spans two states; itinerary or travel topic might also work. Pashley (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me very unlikely to end "when the DAPL begins construction"; construction began some time ago & is well along, though currently delayed. If it resumes, I would expect protests to intensify rather than ending. Pashley (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

For this to be an extraregion, the cities under it (Fort Yates, Cannonball and McLaughlin) would need to be created - much like the Ambos Nogales extraregion is merely a wrapper bundling individual existing city articles for Nogales (Arizona) and Nogales (Sonora).

Using a city template for a large rural area is legit - Anticosti is one pop-250 village and a hundred miles of provincial parkland, for instance. Such an article would need something to see or do, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep, though. I have no objection to this article existing at city level, but we do need to find food and lodging to fill the standard sections. K7L (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I was mistaken in thinking that this article was already treated as a bottom-level destination, though if it's not, it should be, for the reasons K7L enumerated. (An even better example than Anticosti would be the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland, a "city" of nearly twice the land area of Standing Rock.) Pashley, you may end up being right about the duration of the protests, but that's ultimately beside the point: the fact remains that they're not going to last forever, and at Wikivoyage we don't really deal with protests or civil unrest in any way other than infoboxes (and we certainly don't make them the main thrust of an article). For similar reasons, converting Standing Rock to a travel topic would be problematic because Wikivoyage is not a news service, and we don't have the manpower here to make realtime updates to articles like this one to reflect a potentially rapidly changing situation on the ground. The question still remains of what this article has to offer the traveller in the post-DAPL-protest future who comes looking for normal travel information about Standing Rock - and the answer, again, is that there needs to be normal "See", "Do", "Eat", "Sleep" etc. information provided (and if there are no such places to list, then, protest or no protest, this is not a valid article.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought wikivoyage was supposed to be reasonably neutral on "politicaly" related topics, concentrating on what's of use to the traveller. I am therefore also concerned that this article is primarily focused on the protests. If there's an archeological site of traveller interest, that should be mentioned, but in a more neutral manner than at present. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

We're not an encyclopaedia and not under the same constraints to be w:WP:NEUTRAL, but we do try to be fair, If this tiny place has been the target of YUGE protests, we say so, but stop short of saying "the natives should protest" or "the natives should remain silent".

Technically, this is a real place. There's relatively little - a college and a couple of casinos - but it is a valid destination. K7L (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the whole situation is obviously still in flux, but it is conceivable whatever the outcome, this place will continue to be of touristic interest even after the protests end, are crushed or achieve some measure of success. Many of the sites of historical protests/uprisings/revolutions have become "pilgrimage sites" of sorts, after all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Breadcrumbs for this article

This bottom-level destination article is currently marked as being part of the Great Plains region. I think this makes sense as this is a destination straddling a border. However, previously there was a discussion on this here: Wikivoyage_talk:Geographical_hierarchy which arose from another bottom-level (park) article which straddles two regions: Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn. There it seemed that the current policy was that one of the regions the article straddles should be chosen in for the breadcrumbs. In this case this would probably be Badlands and Black Hills? Drat70 (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)