Talk:Socotra

Alternative banner for this article?

Banner currently used in this article

Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

While the first is interesting and unique, I feel like it's not very aesthetically pleasing, so prefer the second. James A ▪ talk 12:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the current banner, which I consider a better composition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the current banner, it has a more catching composition. Danapit (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Syced (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding Warningbox

Template:Warningbox for Socotra should be applied. The template is meant to be applied when there are travel advisories warning against travel, of which Socotra is not short of. There are non-obvious dangers, since travel influencers have recently been traveling to Socotra to market the destination as being "the safe untouched part of Yemen". However, serious complications exist with regard to its governance by the Southern Transitional Council. Per the US State Department, invalid visa arrangements are the norm for Socotra. There is no viable way to provide consular assistance, and when conflict has broken out in the surrounding region, maritime shipping and civil aviation has seriously affected Socotra - leaving tourists stranded. There is an ever-present risk of harm to visitors in Socotra in the event of the spread of armed conflict and due to the general lack of law enforcement infrastructure. Socotra is not an adventure tourism destination or an oasis of calm, even if tour packages are sold to Emiratis and adventurous Westerners. There are legitimate risks to travel to the region that tourists should consider before choosing to travel there. A possible way to move forward is to add the WarningBox back, but to revise it to include less alarmist language. However, moving it to Stay Safe isn't sufficient to make these dangers visibly clear to visitors. cc @Brycehughes Cyali (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If there are special circumstances for an island that are separate from those in the country in general, as you established above, they merit a separate warning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. State Department says it can't provide U.S. citizens with consular assistance in Socotra. I don't think this is a valid reason for a warning box. Do you have more links you can provide about the physical danger to tourists in Socotra? I saw that the only link that mentioned Socotra in your original warning was the U.S. State Department link – the other links did not mention it. Brycehughes (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm - the only thing that would satisfy you is evidence that there is immediate harm to going there? Template:Warningbox does mention non-obvious risk to life and limb, but gives a number of "obvious" or non-immediate dangers for its usage, including travel advisories, death penalty for drug possession, etc. At this point, I think your grievance is more with the wording on the Template itself. Perhaps this discussion should be tabled so you can propose these changes directly on the Template talk, especially since your changes stretch across many pages and the wording of the template is indeed ambiguous. Until the template usage is clarified, I'm not sure you'll ever be satisfied and it's clearly impacting our ability to work towards consensus. Cyali (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a grievance... we're discussing the content of a webpage on the internet. I'm saying to put a large warning box at the top of the article, we should have a better reason than a lack of consular assistance. Brycehughes (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There are other reasons given above, including "when conflict has broken out in the surrounding region, maritime shipping and civil aviation has seriously affected Socotra - leaving tourists stranded". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I get it, but I just don't see it, e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=tourists+stranded+in+socotra+-coronavirus+-covid. Brycehughes (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no view about safety in Socotra, but what I'd wonder is how safe shipping would be from Houthi piracy and missile strikes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonably recent report if it's of any interest. Brycehughes (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 to Brycehughes – I think a caution box would suffice better. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it more, I would be okay with a CautionBox under Stay Safe and Get In too. I do think these risks are legitimate but of course, I can only go off what is said in the UAE. Cyali (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're suggesting having two cautionboxes that say the same thing, I couldn't agree with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant one for the ambiguous visa situation for Get In, and another for the rest. It makes more sense to keep the visa situation outside of Stay Safe - since visa policies are typically covered under Get In. Cyali (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You could put the visa stuff in a caution box in the Get In section, and then add anything else that you're privy to as prose in the Stay Safe section – that's what the Stay Safe section is there for – we don't need to box everything. Brycehughes (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)