Talk:Matagi Island

To merge or not to merge

I don't think this question has an obvious answer. Articles about privately-owned islands are legitimate, in my opinion, and they are certainly precedented on this site. I think we should see how this article develops before rushing to merge it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing discussion around privately owned islands before, although surely the island is getting rather close to being a standalone business? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes a difficult one. It is a location, a very nice one it appears, wit somewhere to stay. But difficult to see how this can develop without becoming just an advert for the resort. The resort should have an entry but maybe as listing on the main island. But I agree, give it a few day see how it develops. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it be a reasonable question to ask if you can visit the physical island (not just the resort) without permission? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am torn on this. On the one hand, Wikivoyage should not be a place for and about every single business in the travel industry. On the other hand, we do cover places where you have to be member in a special club or book a tour through a special agency if you want to realistically visit. Unless of course you have some super duper special business exception. Yes I know, the "special club" is a religion and the "special agency" is a sovereign state (or something which does a good job looking like one) but that does not really make a difference in terms of us not endorsing any religion government creed or anything of the sorts. So you could say there is tenuous precedent of sorts, though I can also see the slippery slope argument of us not having articles on every last time share in Peru and even if it happens to be an island off the seacoast of Bohemia. I think we should formulate some sort of policy or guidelines lest we get into this same problem again. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On that basis it could be argued that North Korea is in effect a much larger version of this island (i.e. the entire country is a 'resort' with entry fees and restrictions). Also Walt_Disney_World is ultimately no different to this island, although many would advocate that it should be an exception owing to its prominence as a tourist destination. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Hence I think it is not a bad idea to spell out our policy on private islands resorts and the likes. Maybe we should start a discussion in the Pub? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note the article about Sveti Stefan, which I linked at the start of this page. In my opinion, this article is OK. It's sufficiently developed to be nearly Usable and has some nice historical background in "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally I think that we should try to avoid merging islands, as they are much more self contained than other destinations. It is quite easy to sleep in one village and eat in another 5km away. But unless there is a bridge, getting to another island 5m away may mean waiting for the daily ferry. AlasdairW (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)