Talk:Exclusion zones

Why is this a travel topic all of a sudden

I mean it was a disambugation beforehand. And it is rather doubtful, how places where you shouldn't sleep and the whole point of their existence is making it hard to get in will ever deserve enough content on sections such as these for them to be a featured or star travel topic... Besides what is there to eat in a barren volcanic wasteland? should I drink the water in the Fukushima "ground zero" area? We already have the "next to impossible places" article for places you can go to but only barely. We have an article on space and the moon because if we didn't there would be a horde of joke articles and besides they kinda sorta are legitimate destinations reachable by just spending one trillion dollars. But for places where you can't get in? And yes I know that's not true for Chernobyl anymore, as there are now even guided tours, but than maybe we should list that one on the "next to" impossible, not the "impossible" destinations. Also if you can physically enter a place but can't legally our illegal activities policy should apply, shouldn't it? Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No idea. If this can't be expanded to be "usable", making it a topic just gets it deleted after a year. K7L (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought this rule only existed for itineraries Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)