Talk:Felixstowe

Sealand
Sealand was recently merged to Felixstowe by User:Traveler100, but I'm not sure it was the right move. The listed reason for a merge was "no place to stay", but that's simply not true. Sealand is a place, where people sleep. Just because there are no commercial hotels doesn't mean it fails the "sleep there" test. Sealand is likely more well-known than Felixstowe, and in fact I'm not even sure why Felixstowe is even involved; is it the nearest settlement? It just seems odd to redirect a place that people might actually search for to a place most people have never heard of. Powers (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A merge is certainly not appropriate in this case. Furthermore, given how often the sleep test is misapplied, I think it may be time to look at making some edits to wiaa to really drive the point home that the lack of any hotels, etc. doesn't actually preclude a place from getting its own article. Frankly, I'd go so far as to ask whether the sleep test muddies the waters too much to be worthwhile and whether maybe we should look at other analogies for the dividing like between what kind of place does/does not get its own article.
 * --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * People sleep at my house and yours I would assume, but I see nothing on the Sealand web site to say members of the public and stay there or even visit the platform and no places to buy food. The web site just appears to be a fund raising and merchandising site so that the current occupiers can maintain it and live there. Did not appear to me to be a place for travellers to stay. Yes it deserves an article on Wikipedia, but on Wikivoyage is it more than a See attraction?
 * --Traveler100 (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to support dropping the sleep test or at least fixing wiaa. It only seems to create ambiguity as it stands.
 * Sealand is a unique destination, and not (in a simple sense) part of the British mainland and so should not have been merged. I'd say that it should be created again. The article is only as tenuous as the place itself.
 * Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would this not just open up the flood gates for articles on places such as Freistaat Flaschenhals (which does have places to stay and eat), and a number of forts and castles in Europe (which can be visited), as well as privately owned plots of land and islands around the world? I think these are better handled as See listings or mentioned in Other destinations in the appropriate region article.
 * --Traveler100 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Check out Bir Tawil, an interesting travel location with no infrastructure whatsoever :)
 * --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if you are intrepid enough, and not risk averse, you can camp in Bir Tawil. My point with Sealand is that it is just a structure with now (Bates dies in 2012) some private individuals trying to earn money from a website.
 * --Traveler100 (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sealand is a former offshore fort, similar to a small offshore oil platform. It was occupied in the 1960s, and has made claims of being a country, but this has not been seriously recognised by any other country or the UN (there are some claims of recognition). It appears that when the article was created, visits were possible (visits may have stopped before the article date), but the website now says that visas are not issued. I recently saw a report about it on TV, and they did allow a journalist to visit, but there appeared to be only one occupant, and there were clearly no facilities for visitors. I think that merging it was probably not a good idea, and either delete or leave as a "can't visit at the moment" outline.
 * AlasdairW (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

While there have been many changes in the royal family since the death of Sealand's founder, I think it's worth noting that unannounced visitors have been shot at in the past (due to hostile actions by outsiders previously and a general wish for isolation that led to the declaration of sovereignty in the first place), so not warning readers may be more than disappointing for travellers, but actually contrary to the stay safe guideline. Arlo Barnes (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So with respect to [wiaa], basically I would like to make a distinction between destinations that are better merged up to the nearest town to help the traveler (i.e. Hamlet X should be merged into nearby Town Y), and unique destinations such as Sealand that are obviously not general travel destinations and also do not fall under an obvious hierarchy. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Hamlet X. "To be or not to be, that is the question..." K7L (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I chuckled. Though this does seem to be a serious issue... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that we should not usually try to merge islands (which Sealand is ignoring the "country" issue). It is usually straightforward to sleep in Town Y and visit the sights in Hamlet X or vice versa. Unless there is a bridge between them staying in one island and visiting another can be difficult and require planning of ferry times, even if the two islands are yards apart. AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So what if we stumble across a thousand islands, do we write an article for each? Some of them are only reachable by cruising on small craft and quite a few hold little more than an individual cottage. Montréal or Manhattan, on the other hand... K7L (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is where the 'can you sleep there' test really helps. If you're going to stay there a few days, then you'd like an article on the island.  If you're going to stay in a nearby town, and just visit the islands, then we don't give them an article.  Sealand is a very special case.  There may be a good reason for doing away with the 'can you sleep there' test after all this time, but this shouldn't be it.  --Inas (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)