Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Wikitravel:Travellers' pub

From Wikitravel
(Redirected from Wikitravel:Travelers' pub)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Travellers' pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. Please check the FAQ and Help page before asking a question, though, since that may save your time and others'.

Please add new questions at the bottom of the page and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~) to it, but otherwise plunge forward!

  • If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, try using talk pages to keep the discussion specific to that article.

Please sweep the pub Keeping the Pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it will get too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. dormant for a month or more) that could or should be moved to another page, please do so, and note there that it has been swept in from the pub.

  • A question regarding a destination article should be swept to that article's discussion page
  • A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to that policy or expedition discussion page
  • A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
  • A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is two months old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.

Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Wikitravel:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, leave it alone—it's better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.

Contents

Need help[edit]

Hi there I am comfusing about to leave some information on wikitravel. I want to put it in Sangkhlaburi travel guide page. (external links removed) —The preceding comment was added by Muddy (talkcontribs)

Hi, thanks for your question. On wikitravel we don´t add links to secondary sources and to general tour booking sites, so your links would not be allowed. If you are knowledgeable about Sangkhlaburi please share your knowledge in the article (original content). If any further questions, please let us know. We are looking forward to your edits. Thanks! Adzas (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

Sea Beach Rampueng[edit]

Hi! I have just added this page to Wikitravel, but there is nowhere in it where I can add hotels. Also the country up top did not appear. Did I screw up something? Please make this possible.

Also, this place, which is quite an increasingly popular destination for Farangs wanting to escape the bargirl scene of Pattaya, is known by several names

1) Sea Beach Rampueng

2) Mae Ram Pueng Beach

3) Mae Rampueng Beach

4) Had Mae Rampueng

5) Sea Beach Rampueng

Can you please make it redirectable from just any enquiry containing "Rampueng" please? —The preceding comment was added by Avemario (talkcontribs)

Hello Avemario, thanks for your message and the creation of the Sea Beach Rampueng article. As you created a region article, there is no sleep section, as accommodation listings would need to be mentioned in the respective location articles. Which city does the beach belong to? Are there actually shops, hotels and other things to see here or is it just a beach? I believe it is close by Rayong and Ban Phe, where the beach is also mentioned already, so I´m not sure if this beach should have its own article. I don´t know the region, so please advise so we can decide what to do. Thanks again for your great work! Adzas (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2014 (EDT)

OK, I see the problem. It is really a "town" in its own right. It is the same as Ban Phe is to Rayong City. There are numerous hotels and shops here. So what is the best option? Delete it and I rewrite it as a town? —The preceding comment was added by Avemario (talkcontribs)

Hi, no need to delete the article, I will change the template to a small city template so you can add your information ok? Thanks again! Adzas (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2014 (EDT)

Wikitravel statistics page? To check page views etc.?[edit]

Hi, I'm new. I was looking for a feature that shows individual page views / counts for single Wikitravel guides, sorted by dates or time spans. Something like this or this for Wikimedia projects. Any idea? All I could find is this static page. Thank you and all the best, Oibalos (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2014 (EDT)

Hello and welcome to Wikitravel! I don't think we have anything like that set up on here. Interesting, are those stats native to those wikimedia projects or are they third -party data? Best, IBcaldera (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2014 (EDT)

Addresses with or without city?[edit]

The address format specified in Wikitravel:Accommodation listings states Don't repeat the city name unless the "city" is different, other listings guidelines have very similar rules. However, this was not enforced for a long time and there are now many articles not following this format, showing city names (and ZIP codes) in their listings just as you would in postal addresses. (Regarding the ZIP codes, very few or possibly none of the city articles mention them.) The big question therefore is: what are we gonna do with that? STENSOFT (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2014 (EDT)

Hello there! Well, my opinion is that we should adhere to the guidelines and avoid useless repetitions (and ZIP codes, I'm not sure they can be useful here on Wikitravel). What do you think? Regards, GiulioC (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2014 (EDT)
Yesterday I undid a change by STENSOFT for this very reason. Apologies! I agree, from now on we should go with the guidelines(just as you both said) and correct all other listings as we come across them. I don't think there's a feature to change all existing listings at once and there are many, many listings with city and zip. Any other ideas?

Korat[edit]

Hi - I updated the Korat hotel here and it somehow entangled itself with the Splurge hotel section.

Also, On updating Mahasarakham, I tried to put in the correct way to pronounce it, and it did something funny.

Please check and advise. Regards Avemario

Hi Avemario, thank you for adding valuable information. The hotel entangled with the following section because its entry was missing “>” after “checkout”. I have fixed that. Regarding Mahasarakham, you have also added link to an example media file, I have removed it. STENSOFT (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2014 (EDT)

Lat Krabang.

I note that the closest district to the Bangkok airport, Suvarnabhumi, is Ramkamhaeng. This is about halfway to central BKK! There are many hotels and cheap eats in the Lat Krabang area close to the airport, and all of the hotels there have transfer service to and from the airport. Personally, I know the area backwards and there are many hotels, and Westerners who come here for an overnight/short time rest before their next flight, as well as people like myself who like the budget hotels and the easy access to the Airport Link station. Perhaps this is a district in BKK City worth adding now that Suvarnabhumi is the main international airport. It wasn't the main airport when I first went to Thailand 8 years ago so maybe we need to update. Please advise and I will oblige as needed.

LAT KRABANG[edit]

Lat Krabang.

I note that the closest district to the Bangkok airport, Suvarnabhumi, is Ramkamhaeng. This is about halfway to central BKK! There are many hotels and cheap eats in the Lat Krabang area close to the airport, and all of the hotels there have transfer service to and from the airport. Personally, I know the area backwards and there are many hotels, and Westerners who come here for an overnight/short time rest before their next flight, as well as people like myself who like the budget hotels and the easy access to the Airport Link station. Perhaps this is a district in BKK City worth adding now that Suvarnabhumi is the main international airport. It wasn't the main airport when I first went to Thailand 8 years ago so maybe we need to update. Please advise and I will oblige as needed.

Lat Krabang[edit]

Hi! I put an enquiry about this a week ago, but still no reply. Are we interested? Avemario Avemario (talk)

Hi, I just noticed your comment. I think we should start first with creating an article for Lat Krabang (as it is one of the 50 districts use the district article template). Are you ok to start that? Let me know, otherwise I can set up the empty article later and you can add your information. Thanks for your input! Adzas (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
I second Adzas apology! Please let us know if you need anything in setting up the new article, otherwise it's free game. Seriously, writing from a local in invaluable to this travel guide. Invaluable. IBcaldera (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2014 (EDT)

OK, I would prefer if you put in the template as I have been known to screw up things on occasion. You put it in and I will fill it out. Avemario

Cool - here it is! Lat Krabang. I've also added it to the main Bangkok article so we may need to revise the area's map

Thanx for the speed! Before I actually get started, I note there are 9 hotels in the Ramkamhaeng page of which 8 are on Lat Krabang Road, and one inside the airport. Two of these hotels I have actually stayed at, so can update them. However, is it possible that you can remove them from Ramkamhaeng to the Lat Krabang page? If not, I will copy them. Avemario.

Hi Avemario! My turn to thank you for your soooo valuable help! If indeed you spotted misplaced listings, feel free to cut & paste them to the proper page, so they no longer appear on the wrong page. (Nothing worst for a traveller than looking for something that is isn't here, right?) The best is to click on "edit" on the wrong page and cut the listing with the markup, and just paste it in the proper section of the relevant page. Or, you just give us the names, and we move them! Thanks a lot! PierrB (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2014 (EDT)

New discussion on listings in multiple places[edit]

Hi Wikitravel admins, I run a social enterprise travel web platform called backstreetacademy.com We allow anyone in developing countries to create a tour experience and list it on our platform to sell it to tourists. We focus on the underprivileged and disadvantaged in creating these experiences. We have physical offices in Kathmandu, Pokhara, Phnom Penh, Siem Reap & Luang Prabang.

We have posted our listings on these citys' wikitravel pages, some of the earlier ones are even posted by our guests, but they have all since been removed very consistently and judicously. I subsequently got in touch with one of the admins, username: IBcaldera or Jose and discussed this issue and it boils down to a general rule that wikitravel does not allow multiple listings in different city pages. After our discussion, we believe that there can be exceptions to the rule, and that this rule is preventing the flow of important information to the users and reducing the value of the wikitravel page. Here are the reasons why:

1) While websites like ours can be seen as a chain and compared to 'worldwide airlines' and 'hotel chains', i'm sure you can see that while posting the same chains has no value to a user because they already know it to be there and will not be looking for it, they are not aware of this very local business and the information will be of value to them.

2) The information we post in each city is different and customized to each city, and the products we offer in each city is also very different, making every post a customized post with again valuable information about activities travelers can do in the city, without which they will not know about on wikitravel, again reducing the value to the users

3) Choosing one destination to highlight, i guess a common solution prescribed to chains, is not very practical for this as every city is very different, and people who are searching for things to do in Siem Reap for example would obviously not look at the Kathmandu page and would thus miss out on this information.

4) We do have physical locations in each of these cities, not like a virtual website which is just based in one country and selling tours in 100 different cities. In that case they are just replicating listings already on the wikitravel page. All our experiences are however unique and sold exclusively through our website, thus preventing replication of listings and again providing value to users of wikitravel.

5) All the hosts on our platform are people living near the poverty line and would benefit from the support of socially responsible communities such as this, and this exposure would be very helpful for them. A blanket implementation of the rule would really be unnecessarily unfair to them given their non-existent ability to market their services.

I'm sure there are better ways to implement this rule than to simply delete the listings, thus if there are any recommendations, we will be happy to engage and implement them in our writing. I'm sure the addition of this listing would be beneficial to users, which is the end goal of wikitravel, and we would do anything we can to help make it so. If there are any other concerns, feel free to discuss, i'm sure we can get to a consensus for the good of all wikitravel users. Thanks and looking forward! Jamon919 (talk)04:56, 19 September 2014(EDT)

Touting and multiple listings We have policies in place about multiple listings and also touting a good/service/business, etc. because as you pointed out, it is generally the case that a large company or even outright spam will invade and descend upon a free travel guide, thus defeating the purpose of it in the first place. From what you've posted above, your organization is not like that. I feel like this tour would actually be of substantial value to travelers and he comes first in decisions on this site. Although it would be a big change to how this operates, I'm not opposed to it as such. Koavf (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
Touting and multiple listings. As Koavf rightfully pointed out we do have policies to specifically prevent this kind of behavior. Even though Jamon919 did make a great point about being eligible for an exception, I, for one, am sorry to say I find this exception a bit of hard to accept. For one thing it's not allowed by our policies, and also I think the benefit to the users by this (kind of) exception is exaggerated and the potential difficult situation such an exception will put Wikitravel in is neglected in Jamon919's argument. It's possible, that we will have many other well-intended business owners/marketers who believe the information about their branches in different cities will benefit Wikitravel users a great deal and post listings here in many different articles, which will enssentially make Wikitravel an advertisement platform. So, even though I find Jamon919's argument very strong and convincing, I'm still inclined that we stick to the rules. I will also be looking forward to other opinions about this discussion. --Binbin (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
Thanks for bringing this up Jamon919 (talk). A very tricky subject I think, as not only do you want your listing in multiple articles, the site also offers general tour planning options, which in general we also don´t allow in our articles. However, looking at the site, if I would be traveling in any of those locations, I would love to try some of the activities you offer, so I feel the information could definitely benefit the traveler. I would rather see a listing like yours, then all those chain hotel and taxi listings. I rather see places mentioned that are "hidden gems" and would make a stay extra special, then the same standard listings that a traveler can easily find on his own. But if we allow your link, many other companies will follow, so this would require clear instructions in our policies and guidelines. It already says in these guidelines that if you feel an exception is warranted, to discuss it on the discussion page of the article. So the listing can only be added to the article after a consensus is reached. If not discussed first, the listing should not be allowed. In your case I would probably vote yes to allow the exception. Again, it is a tricky one, as there are various other listings that I have removed in the past that would probably want their listings added back again, so let´s see what others (and also non-admins) have to say about this. Thanks for your input! Adzas (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2014 (EDT)


I think an important way to discuss this issue isn't to classify it as 'enforce the rules vs making an exception' case. I think that is not the issue here. More importantly at the start of every discussion should be the 'user value test': 'Does this information provide value to a traveler who is traveling to this place?' I think it's clear that a wikitravel user would want to know this option, and by preventing it from being listed, no matter the reason, is a form of censorship which places a cost on the user who is deprived of this information. Why should we be depriving the user of this information? I would believe there is a more urgent need to revisit the interpretation of the rules rather than simply enforcing it. There are many practical usage of a multiple listing, and here are 3 examples i take with reference from the Phnom Penh & Siem Reap pages.
1) Handicraft Shop ' Friends & Stuff'
This handicraft shop is listed in both Siem Reap & Phnom Penh. They have physical shops in both places, they are one brand, one company, selling possibly 90% the same products. Should they be classified as multiple listings? There is obvious value for travelers to both cities we cannot assume travelers in one city will definitely travel to the other. And if one listing is deleted, we are depriving the users of that city from knowing about this fabulous shop.
2) Restaurants 'The FCC'
The FCC is both present in Siem Reap and Phnom Penh. Its glaringly obvious that both listings should be present, because they are both star attractions in each city, and each FCC is very different from the other, and even after visiting the one in Phnom Penh, as a traveler i would still want to visit the one in Siem Reap, in fact even more as he must have had a great experience at the FCC Phnom Penh. finding out from wikitravel that there is a FCC in Siem Reap is of great value then for the traveler. Similarly, for Backstreet Academy, each location is quite different from the other, as you might see from the courses offered in each city.
3) Guesthouses
There are many examples of guesthouses having branches in both Siem Reap and Phnom Penh: Frangipani villas, Velkommen guesthouse etc. Frangipani itself has a number of listings just inside Phnom Penh, and for good reason as each hotel has a slightly different theme to it. Again it's not useful to delete hotel listings for this reason. Each listing has its own value.
From the above examples, i am sure that a flat enforcement of the rules would mean cleaning up all those as well, and how much value would be wiped off wikitravel if that was to happen. Thus its obvious its not a 'enforce the rules vs making an exception' case. It's more of how do we interpret the rules in every case? And in interpreting the rules, the most important consideration would be to consider the value to the users. Since the above examples make sense, i'm pretty sure the backstreet academy example makes sense too, as will many other business listings.Jamon919 (talk)


Hey guys, thanks for your input so far! Not trying to step on anyone's toes, but both sides are correct. In fact there is no right or wrong here, only a "how do we approach this." As Binbin said we can't allow Wikitravel to become an advertising platform that's certain. It's simply not what we do. Sites like TripAdvisor have cornered the business-oriented travel site space and they do it well. I like to think of Wikitravel in the following manner, "If I were to be planning a trip to a new destination what would I like to know?" Having this in mind, Back Street Academy's services would be an asset, but it has to be handled carefully. Yes, some business have managed to sneak past our eyes onto multiple articles, but with such a popular Wiki, it's difficult to catch every single instance. It's not that we let them through, it's that we didn't catch it. I suggest we try to come up with a new solution in which businesses can list themselves only if the content is catered to that specific location while at the same time observing our current policies on the number of listings per section.
I'm going to step back from my role as admin for a moment and speak as a traveler now. I don't come to wikitravel.com to find out the best hotel in Paris or the best tour service or the best restaurant. I go to TripAdvisor, Yelp, or any similar site for that kind of information because I can find first person reviews. I come to Wikitravel because it will show me multiple ways to get to Paris, points of interest in the city, local activities, general travel info and regulations that I should keep in mind. The businesses are icing, but they are not why I'm here.
I'm proposing an addition to business listing policy - if you can't successfully state how your business is relevant to that destination in your listing, "so long". Under this addendum, Backstreet Academy(and any other business) would be allowed on Wikitravel as long as the business made an expressed interest in proving their relevancy in their listings. Yes there are holes to my idea, holes that we can work together to solve. In the long term, we would cleanse Wikitravel of posts that are spammy and for lack of a better phrase - not up to standard. Thoughts? IBcaldera (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
Let's begin by citing the regulation that prohibits multiple listings for a business on multiple destination pages; the rule cited above prohibits multiple mentions on a SINGLE page (i.e. if a particular hotel also has a bar that's "famous" and could be listed on its own). Next, if a change is proposed, it must be in the form of a regulation that can be applied evenly by all editors. Saying the business must make a case for whether it is "relevant" will only lead to everyone saying they are relevant because they are located in that destination, and it turns the decision into a subjective one; i.e. this is "worthy" and that is not. I don't see that as helping, and I don't see how it keeps the Hilton from being able to add listings for every hotel they own in the world, which we do not want. IBobi (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2014 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages

other sites