YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Safari listings[edit]

I noticed that all safari listings were removed, with the explanation that because there are more then ten already, the activity would be easy to find and does not require a listing. I agree that companies that are not based here in Arusha should be removed, but those that are based here add value to our travellers and should be kept in the article, especially as Arusha is a destination for safari holidays. I´m going to check out the listings and put those based in Arusha back. If there are any objections let me know please. Adzas (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2014 (EST)

The vast majority of travellers passing through Arusha to go on Safari have pre-booked from outside of Arusha - often from their home countries. However I do agree that if you find that there are only 9 or less that have a physical, walk-up office in Arusha they should be listed. Contrariwise, in the same way we don't list cab firms in a locale when they get too numerous, if you find MORE than 9, then NONE should be listed. Either way, they need to be listed in abc order (or some other logical order) if the criteria for listing are met... --Ttcf (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2014 (EST)
Later: I've been trying to find the discussion that took place a few years ago about not listing services at all where they were so numerous that they are easily found, but failed so far. Our existing policy at Wikitravel:External_links#What_not_to_link_to does provide a hint, though: (Don't list) "Taxi, shuttles and rental car operators, in cities where they are common (six or more operating in the city)." --Ttcf (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2014 (EST)
Thanks for your input! I will go through the list and just re-add those that have their office in Arusha. I remember we had a discussion about taxi´s and rental cars yes, but if we apply the same rule to all type of listings then a lot of valuable information would have to be removed.
With regards to the abc order, we may have to discuss that separately again,as not long ago we agreed new listings could be added to the bottom of the list, I will try to find that discussion. Adzas (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2014 (EST)
It's horses for courses. I'm quite an inclusionist as you should know by now, but there is a limit when wads of listings that can not be split into differentiated lists become counter-productive. Just look at our India articles to see how bad things can get.
As for new listings being added at the bottom that is counter-productive for at least 2 reasons:
1) The listings editor is buggered and no technical support for new features has been available for many years - it continues to add any new listings at the top.
2) If editors can't be bothered to curate an abc or other logical order then, adding new listings at the top does at least give toutsmarketeers a perverse incentive to keep their prices, phone numbers, etc, up-to-date... --Ttcf (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2014 (EST)
I thought the listings editor adds new listings to the bottom. (see our discussion we had before). Better to continue there if needed. Adzas (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2014 (EST)
My mistake! The listings editor has not worked on any of the systems I use for many years now. Do a test for me would you, Adzas, and tell me whether it adds new listings at the top or the bottom please and tell me the result here,--Ttcf (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2014 (EST) please?
My memory is even worse than I thought - it's not the ADD a new listing feature that is buggered for me, it's the EDIT an existing one that always doesn't work. New listings are indeed added at the bottom. --Ttcf (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2014 (EST)
By the way, I see no consensus at Wikitravel_talk:Listings#Random_order_in_listings.3F that our longstanding policy should be changed so that new and manually created listings should be added to the bottom of the list rather than in a logical (usually abc) order. No new information came to light, no new arguments were advanced or old arguments countered for such a policy change. The only new thing was a suggestion that it was a relatively trivial programming task for competent technical staff to program the listings editor to automatically add new listings in abc order. --Ttcf (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2014 (EST)--Ttcf (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2014 (EST)