Talk:Red Sea Coast Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Ceever, you reverted to put red-link destinations back onto this page. Are you intending to create pages for all of these? Some are very small, or part of a larger resort, and all are likely to remain covid-blighted for many months ahead, so I wonder what is realistically possible this year. Grahamsands (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, someone else could turn these red links into articles if the destinations are worth an article. I would recommend checking whether or not those articles are worth creating. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Marsa Alam is the strongest candidate, though now doesn't seem a good time. But would anyone lose motivation to develop a page just because that place wasn’t red-linked? So in the absence of a reason for red-links, I’ll revert the style to normal text. This coast has developed from north to south, so it’s natural to group its "cities" the same way, bringing clusters (eg resorts using the same airport) together. Grahamsands (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, no one is going to add one now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I do not agree with this approach, since it has an additional upside to have red links leading into nirvana (besides the fact that a reader might feel tempted to create the article), namely that it is automatically linked if someone creates the relevant site without taking note of the region article. Also, it is standard for many other articles that we rather keep the red ones, as far as I understand. Otherwise, please start a bigger discussion in the pub. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good suggestion, I've done that. Grahamsands (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(LATER) That was a helpful discussion in the pub. In the light of it, shall we consider some priorities for page development in this region? Those at the top definitely need developing soon, those at the bottom are “negative priority” because the place is insignificant, and any existing page is a candidate for merger / redirection. Those in between are dubious value especially just now, and perhaps simplest to leave alone until returning traveller reports indicate whether they have something worth recording.

My own ordering would be:

Marsa Alam top priority. It’s a major resort with an international airport and it’s the main entry to the south of this region. There’s a string of subsidiary resorts north up to Port Ghalib and south down to Hamata which might fold into Marsa Alam – most of their page content is generic Red Sea stuff.

Safaga deserves a page, it’s a substantial port for industry and pilgrimage. There’s a page for its beach strip Soma Bay – IMO we don’t need both, so that page should merge into Safaga. Both names are used in tourist literature.

Port Suez is a poor outline page that should be populated. It’s a big city but industrial and there’s little reason to visit. Done

Several other places have pages on WV-DE, but I wonder what is really there nowadays. You know what it’s like along that coast, a rash of speculative developments that rapidly decay into ghost towns – and that was before the impact of covid. Some in-between places are:

- Ras Gharib is just industrial, scant reason to visit.

- Sahl Hasheesh and Serenia could be mentioned within Hurghada.

- Makadi Bay likewise.

- Sharm el Naqa and Abu Soma are part of Safaga / Soma Bay.

- Coraya Bay is part of Port Ghalib.

- Hamata is only an hour or so south of Marsa Alam.

Bottom of the heap, and bottom of the map (not a coincidence):

- Berenice has antiquities but no accommodation. It doesn’t merit a page.

- Shalateen is on the edge of the mysterious triangle, which may only be entered by military permission. Nothing there. Visitors to these parts come by liveaboard boat and seldom venture ashore.

Does this approach and ordering seem reasonable? Grahamsands (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Grahamsands

Thanks for your efforts! I am a little confused about the summary above, so let me just point out what I believe is important:

1. So, you wanna break up the north to south listing again, not putting Port Suez at top? This is unfortunate. Also, Port Suez together with Suez is kind of the largest area in this region population wise. It would make sense for WV to have it atop. Maybe we can convert Port Suez to Suez with a slight focus on Port Suez to keep this large area on top.
2. Marsa Alam I don't know, it states "Hurghada is the largest and best-developed of the string of coastal tourist resorts", and Hurghada really is a big city with a lot of tourist. It might not be as fancy as Marsa Alam, but it is not really on us to decide where to put the focus.
3. I don't mind a listing/article for Safaga, however each article (like Soma Bay) existing under this region should get a proper listing inside of the region article, either under "Cities" if there are less then 9 or under "Other destination" especially if it is not a city or town. If it is a sight, one might even put it under "See" if there are too many listings under the former two subchapters.
4. Berenice states it has resorts ... but not accommodations?
5. "Bi'r Tawīl" should get a proper listing under "Other destination".

Does this help and make sense? Cheers Ceever (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the paragraph format for Bir Tawil and the Halaib Triangle as supported by Wikivoyage:Tone. I wonder if content here about Bir Tawil should be used in its respective article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moved the main information for Bir Tawil into the relevant article. Though, Bir Tawil should be kept a short and proper listing.

Otherwise, Wikivoyage:Tone does not indicate that there should be paragraphs/subchapters under "Other destination". I am fine with a subchapter for Halaib, but this really belongs into Understand or See.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, if that is what you want to do.

What about likewise moving the content about Halaib Triangle to its own article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you've all grabbed the wrong end of the stick. What I suggested above was priorities for page development in this region. It was nothing to do with how those cities are described on the region page. Marsa Alam is among the largest resorts in the region but has no page at all, yet there's good coverage on WV-DE - does that sound like a priority to remedy or not? (Hurghada is bigger but has a page, rated "outline" but going-on usable, so I didn't mention it, as I was referring to major work not the minor updating that all pages routinely need.) At the other end of the scale, Halayib Triangle is a barren area with next-to-no visitor attractions or facilities that may only be entered by military permission - does that sound like a work priority or not? Grahamsands (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I suggested the Halaib Triangle because content for the article is already included here at Red Sea Coast. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Port Suez has been fleshed out, so that one is sorted. The limitation was that in present circumstances, info couldn't be verified, but it seemed best just to add it regardless and check once normality returns. This should be less of a problem with Marsa Alam and Safaga / Soma Bay, as people were visiting right up to March so there are travelers' reports. Any volunteers for improving either of those? Grahamsands (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Aaahhh, now I understand. Though, I wouldn't be too keen to create these articles. If they are not there yet or maintained, there is probably a reason. For example, looking at Marsa Alam and Hurghada, I reckon Hurghada is just better maintained because people that go there are more interested in travel advice that can be found on WV. On the other hand, Marsa Alam is mostly for all-incl. tourists that have enough money to let their trips into the region be organised - they wouldn't bother about WV.

I understand that a lot more can be achieved if there would be structured initiative for articles on WV, but it is just not how WV works.

However, if you feel like something could be done, you could create a basic article and refer to the German version for translation. Maybe someone will pick up the work and move the information from German into English, at least for the articles where there is comprehensive information available.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is unclear to me how the attacks at sea affects safety at shore. Have there been attacks by that risk collateral damage there? (The US and UK attacks have been in Jemen, not in Egypt.) Also, this article is about the "Red Sea Coast" – how deep inland should one avoid? All of the region? –LPfi (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You might want to ask @Liuxinyu970226: who added the warning box (I trimmed it a little). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi So you think that visiting coastal cities are still safe despite sea warfares? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the situation, but all that I have heard is about attacks on ships at sea and attack on Yemen (oops, used Swedish spelling above). Some missile might of course go astray, but I assume Egypt is far enough that you can ignore the risk, unless ships in or near Egyptian harbours are targeted (or diving vessels are), or the fairway is close to the coast (which I believe it isn't). I would like to see some authoritative warning on the risk before adding a warningbox. –LPfi (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, it seems the Huthis would need capability of attack 1,000 km from their bases to reach Egypt, while the Red Sea is 50–300 km wide outside Yemen. If they have such missiles, I suppose targets in Saudi Arabia are much more likely. –LPfi (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I tried to look for how far they'd attack from the Houthi bases but w:en:Red Sea crisis has nothing about it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Still, missile capable of 80 km are quite different from those capable of 1,000 km. I see no reason anybody would have given the latter kind to the Huthis and I doubt they even have the capability to operate them. If somebody gives such a missile to the Huthis, it would be for some specific operation, which would be totally independent of the current ship bombardment. –LPfi (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi I was added such a warningbox to some Saudi Arabian city articles, but all reverted by @Ikan Kekek:, still, I would rather believe that at least Jeddah and Aqaba are more likely in dangerous status due to Houthi. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or more likely, Djibouti is in dangerous. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's your evidence for that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek [1]? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's about Saudi Arabia, not Djibouti. It would make sense to have a cautionbox in "Stay safe" for Asir and Hejaz, I guess. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And that cautionbox or warningbox should have relevant specific examples in it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply