Wikivoyage talk:Listings

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Andyrom75 in topic

Archived discussions

Hotels that are also attractions edit

There are hotels (like Taj Mahal Palace in Mumbai and The Raffles in Singapore) that are also attractions by themselves. Should those hotels be listed at "See", "Sleep" or both? Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

We should follow Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. If an attraction at a palace is likely to attract visitors who are not hotel guests, it could deserve a listing on its own. A regular hotel bar mostly frequented by hotel guests, would not merit a listing. /Yvwv (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Yvwv I think I should rephrase my question. If there are hotels that attract visitors other than hotel guests, should they be listed the in both "See" (for architecture, history etc.) and "Sleep" (for bookings, price etc.)? Basically, I want to avoid listing the same thing in both sections, especially the landmark hotels. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 05:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Edit: I have looked at the Riverside district of Singapore to see whether the city's landmark hotel, the Raffles, is listed at both "See" and "Sleep". Turns out, the Raffles is listed only at "Sleep", meaning dual listings are entirely discouraged. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 05:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Many of these, including both the TM Palace & Raffles are also listed at Grand old hotels; those two even have photos.
I'd be inclined to add a listing for the Long Bar at Raffles under Drink. Some travellers like the idea of having a Singapore Sling in the bar where it was invented.
In all but such exceptional cases, I'd say hotels should get only one listing, under Sleep. Some should also be mentioned under See, but that can be done in text rather than a listing. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree completely. Mention it as a sight, with a link to the Sleep section or the relevant subsection in Sleep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Or to the listing itself. The name parameter gets coded so that it can be linked ("[[#Grand Hotel|Grand Hotel]]"). That breaks if the name changes, which might be a problem (we should probably have a bot checking such breakage). I think the name needn't be changed when owners change, even if they want to call the hotel "Sleepwell Raffles" or whatever. If the owner change changes the hotel so that it's no more the same, then the See listing needs to be amended or deleted anyway ("Raffles, once an attraction, was bought by Sleepwell in 2093 and not to be recognised any more"). –LPfi (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Even better if we use Wikidata code (e.g. [[Singapore/Riverside#Q1538837|Raffles Hotel]] yields Raffles Hotel). Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Technically more failsafe, but obscure. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dealing with small food chains edit

Swept in from the pub

How should restaurants/fast food chains with a relatively small number of locations mostly within a small region (so they wouldn't be disqualified per WV:Boring) but spread out across multiple cities (e.g. Surf Taco, with most of its locations on the Jersey Shore) be treated? Should each location have a listing with essentially the same content? Should a general description of the brand be included in the article about the smallest region that contains the majority of its locations? JsfasdF252 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's totally fine to mention it, but my questions would be how good is the food and how many locations are there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
The example I mentioned has about 15 locations, and the food quality has seemed to be decreased since its inception, but it still seems to be more highly-rated than Taco Bell, especially the original location. JsfasdF252 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd say the original location of almost any fast food chain or chain restaurant is likely to deserve a full listing. The others seem like they might not be worthy of more than a mention at the beginning of the "Eat" section of the article for each town they're in. However, if they're a Jersey-only chain, they might merit a mention at New Jersey#Eat with a link to their website and a short description there that also mentions that most of the locations are on the Shore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I like mentioning local chains in regional or state-level articles, because you want people to know that this isn't something you can find anywhere.
Within individual cities, I'd consider the locations of a small restaurant chain (e.g., 10 locations) just like any other restaurant. If this is the best (or only) fast food in town, or has some other unique quality that would make me choose it if it weren't a chain, or if I didn't happen to know it was a chain, it should be listed individually despite being a chain. For a more medium-sized chain (e.g., 100 locations in the US), I'd probably lean slightly against adding individual listings, but I'd be open to them. For a large chain (e.g., 1,000 locations – for comparison, in the US, KFC has 4K locations, Wendy's has 6K, Taco Bell has 7K, McDonalds has 13K), I think they are all Wikivoyage:Boring unless and until proven otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Removed example edit

I removed this from Wikivoyage:Listings#Listings_outside_a_destination:

This listing for Joggins Fossil Cliffs is a good example of how it should look.

The link is to an old version of Amherst (Nova Scotia). The current version does not mention the cliffs, and we now have an article on Joggins which does.

Do we need an example here? If so, can someone please find one? Pashley (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the example in question is out of date and needs another replacement. Maybe Forteau#Nearby? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Around template edit

See also #Nearby listing type above, discussed in the Pub in December.LPfi (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since there's no template dedicated to nearby destinations/attractions (under the "Nearby" section in some cities), should we create Template:Around for such listings with {{listing|type=around}}? Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 08:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why do we need it? If there is a nearby do listing, then list it in Nearby as do. That will make it obvious it is nearby, not in the destination itself, for those seeing the listing. Those who see the marker on the map will notice that it is an outlier, and if they don't, what's the problem? –LPfi (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I want to have a dedicated template that will let people list nearby destinations separately from the See and Do listings and although the relative distance of the markers may show you which one is outlier, this is not always the case. I had previously discussed on the use of separate colour to identify nearby listings. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 13:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I assume that is in the thread I linked above. I still don't see the need. If a reader, looking at the map, doesn't see that a listing is "nearby" (as it is about as close to the city centre or the majority of markers as some non-nearby listings), what's the problem? Would it be solved by greying out the area outside the destinations (with a very light grey at "nearby" destinations)? –LPfi (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Commons link for listings? edit

Swept in from the pub

The listing template's Wikidata parameter enable links to the Wikidata item and the Wikipedia article (in English). What about adding a link to the Commons category?

There is a discussion on Commons on (Places to go subcategories for parks, and From Hill To Shore said that that's the role of Wikivoyage. However, we don't have an easy-to-use link to Commons. Wouldn't the listing link be the natural way to handle this? We still probably wouldn't list every lake and nice rest spot of the park, but at least "official" sights, campgrounds etc. would probably be worth listings in park articles.

LPfi (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

In theory, I like the idea, but I'm reluctant to add more icons to listings. The Commons Category should be available from the Wikidata page; is that sufficient? Powers (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the Wikidata page scares off most readers. Only technically minded and those used to Wikidata from before will scroll down to the link. Those who don't know Wikidata will not know that there are interesting links at the bottom of the page. Even if they do scroll down, they won't know that the link points to photos. –LPfi (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
This – plus, the only thing that indicates that there's a Commons gallery is if the user knows that galleries are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. This would be a great way to have image galleries without having image galleries directly (as per WV:IP). Otherwise, I agree with what you said. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support If we are bothered about clutter on the page, I would be happy if the Commons Icon was only shown when there isn't a Wikipedia page. Wikidata pages often have two links to commons: the "Commons category" one midway down the page, and a "Multilingual Sites" one at the bottom of the page - normally they point to the same page, but occasionally there is an actual Commons Gallery page which the bottom link points to. I think that we should use the bottom link, as this works better in the case of a much photographed building - 20 photos in a gallery is more useful than 2000 spread over a category and sub-categories. AlasdairW (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Does somebody oppose or should it soon be time to implement this? I think easy access to images of a point of interest would be a big bonus, I think this is true even if there is a Wikipedia article, and I suppose it is a bit simpler to implement a non-conditional link. If we think there would be too many icons, I think the Wikidata one is the least important one for most readers. It is important for editors, but you can find it by clicking "edit" (the Wikidata id is visible both in the wikitext and in the listing editor)). –LPfi (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Exceptions for rental listings edit

I wrote much of Dumaguete#Long-term_stays and consider having that section fully justified. Earlier in the article we have:

: According to the Philippine government Dumaguete is the most popular destination in the country for retiring abroad, and Forbes magazine included it in a list of the seven best places to retire worldwide.

About once a month I answer someone's question on Facebook with a link to this section.

However, that section obviously violates the rules as currently stated at Wikivoyage:Listings#Rental_listings, so it seems worth asking for other opinions or comments. My opinion is that if anything needs to change, it is the rule statement. Pashley (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

IP editors adding chain restaurants en masse edit

Swept in from the pub

Looks like IP users have been swamping articles such as Quezon City/Cubao with WV:BORING locations. It's an absolute nuisance having returned editing here after months save for posting about issue with mobile WV, and this could be a widespread problem Places that got little to no listing info are likely to suffer from this. Often the listings have little to no info. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

If a chain restaurant is the only one in town, maybe it should be listed, but not otherwise. Are there specific restaurant names we should look for? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The IP added a list of names -- no addresses, coordinates, descriptions, hours -- just "Taco Bell, Wendy's, KFC...." That sort of edit provides no useful information to travellers and should be reverted on sight. Ground Zero (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed – those listings are practically meaningless. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I notice in Quezon City#Districts that the description for Diliman and Katipunan says that it includes Commonwealth, but there is also a Commonwealth and Fairview district. Should Commonwealth be removed from the former? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Autogeneration of the 'see/do' sections in regions (prototype) edit

Swept in from the pub

Guys, I had the greatest idea........... :) I'm considering spawning some prototype code (as an alternative of the GPT approach), that would crawl region's sub-articles (i.e. mostly cities/parks/...) and find all the see/do listings there. Then it'd sort the listings acc. to the respective wikipedia article # of views, and could put the top 9 into the region. Even though for many regions (such as Jutland) this would IMO be very beneficial, I don't plan any immediate integration into WV. But if you see some better way to rank the listings (based on the data we can get from WP/WD - without crawling google etc.), please comment. We'll see what comes out of this... -- andree 07:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have two concerns: (1) It's really sometimes easiest to find listings in alphabetical order; (2) What happens when an article divides listings into different subsections by area within a city that doesn't need separate district articles? Interesting idea, though. I'll note that Siena#See already divides sights into three subsections, in order of prominence and importance, and then has informative 3rd-order subsections in the "Secondary sights" section. The sights on the Piazza del Campo are not listed in alphabetical order, but it would be absurd not to list the Palazzo Pubblico first, and the Fonte Gaia is not a building. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully even in this complex case, the most interesting listings would be the most viewed ones, no? The question is, if 'Piazza del Campo' could be put in the article as a (maybe somehow hidden) listing (Piazza del Campo==3991 views, Palazzo Pubblico==1723, Fonte Gaia==464 on WP) and then put into the region instead. As I said, right now I'd just try a prototype (with whatever reasonable 'metric' we can come up with) and we would see if it makes sense even, or garbage will come out of it :) -- andree 13:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
This would be a cool feature to trial, especially for region articles with completely empty sections (i.e. Wikivoyage:Featured collaboration#Current featured collaboration: improving region articles). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I think it would have a reasonable chance to find a few of the most important sights (or whatever). I wouldn't use 7+2, though, as probably some of the chosen ones have many views from irrelevant reasons – I am not convinced any metrics wouldn't miss some top ones (they may even be missing from the city and park articles) and include some strange choices. I am not sure whether I'd want a bit fewer, to encourage manual additions, or a bit more, to encourage manual removals, but I'm sure I'd want to encourage manual editing of the results. Still, for the worst regions articles, any addition is probably an improvement. –LPfi (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd definitely encourage you to try it, so we can see what it comes up with, though without causing it to automatically edit in articlespace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is an interesting idea. If it is possible, it would be good to use the number of views over a year or a longer period to avoid the ranking being skewed by places being in the news. If a celebrity is filmed touring a small museum then it may be the most viewed article in the region this week, but it probably won't make much difference over a year. AlasdairW (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, looks like there may be spikes sometimes :-) -- andree 06:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
It can happen when an article is featured, too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have now put together some code that did this, put the output into Jutland, North Jutland, Lolland-Falster and Siena (province) (ATM sorted by number of views, not alphabetically). If you have some other areas that you know well, that we could try this on, write it down - I can put the results e.g. into the respective Talk page, and we'll see if it works reasonably. On Jutland, it seems to have found approx. what I'd expect - in Siena province, most of the sights are in Siena, so not that useful. Would it make sense to only include first one/two sentence(s) of the 'source listings'? -- andree 17:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Andree, that looks good to me except that it has included the wikidata #, which puts the site on the map. This makes the map very crowded. Can the program leave out the wikidata #?
Our format for See and Do listings in region articles is to write in prose, rather than in bullet editing lists, but if this is a way of filling up the empty sections of region articles quickly, I think we can overlook that. Ground Zero (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Everything is possible :-) But TBH, the map is for me personally the most interesting part - without this, I had to use wanderlog + tripadvisor + google maps (e.g. search 'sights' in a map view) for all searching of POIs, when I was planning a roadtrip (around Denmark). Finding of the most interesting things would be so much easier with the above (basically it found the stuff I found via multi-hour research)... So for me personally at least, it'd be great - I understand the clutter objection, but IMO it's worth it. Maybe we could instead try to invent/suggest some improvements to kartographer to make it better (lower opacity of those markers, or something). -- andree 18:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
That would be a change in policy. Wikivoyage:Region article template says: "points of interest (such as those mentioned in "See" sections) should not usually have markers in region articles but should be linked to the bottom-level article where they have full listings." Unless this policy is changed after a consensus is reached, I am opposed to further use of an autogeneration program that violates this policy. Using the coding as-is means a lot of clean-up work to remove the Wikidata tags. Ground Zero (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ground Zero, A status quo solution to this would be to just put the code through ChatGPT and ask it to remove the markers (you might need to be specific in your input). I'm going to test this out on North Jutland. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here's what I got for North Jutland: For those exploring North Jutland, there are several remarkable attractions to discover. One such wonder is the Råbjerg Mile, which stands as one of Europe's largest migrating dunes, steadily advancing about 15 metres eastward each year, creating new habitats for plants and animals on its western side. Moving on, the Rubjerg Knude offers a captivating experience. This former lighthouse perches 60 metres above sea level within towering sand dunes. In 2019, it underwent a daring 70-metre inland relocation to escape the fate of buildings succumbing to sand pressure and cliff falls. If you're intrigued by history, don't miss Lindholm Hoeje, an ancient Viking graveyard, along with its accompanying museum.
For a unique geographical encounter, visit Grenen, the northernmost point in Denmark, where the Baltic Sea meets the North Sea in a breathtaking natural spectacle. Art and design enthusiasts will appreciate the Utzon Centre, a cultural hub in Aalborg showcasing art, architecture, and design. Additionally, it sheds light on the works of Jørgen Utzon and offers a delightful dining experience.
While in Aalborg, you can also explore the Budolfi Church, a prominent Lutheran cathedral. For a modern art fix, there's the KUNSTEN Museum of Modern Art Aalborg. Animal lovers will enjoy Aalborg Zoo with its diverse collection of zoo animals, including giraffes, elephants, and big cats. The zoo's highlight is the savanna enclosure where African animals roam freely. And if you're a nature enthusiast, venture to Lille Vildmose, the largest raised bog in Western Europe, known for its wildlife exhibition centre, small cafe, restaurant, and exceptional bird-watching opportunities. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
What was the query there? You entered the current POIs and asked GPT to generate a text around it? Sure, this looks nicer - but in the end, is it nicer to use? Without the map, you have to search the articles manually (to find where the POIs actually are), so for me - not really. But if that's the consensus and I'm the only 'opposed', no biggie, I'll think about another ways... If anyone wants some regions 'processed' in the meantime, ping me :) -- andree 05:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I entered "Can you remove the see listings from here and convert it to plain text in paragraph form? When I mean "in paragraph form", it should flow on to each other. Keep the attractions in bold and try to use British English (gave an example of Far West (New South Wales))." --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is not just removing the Wikidata tags, it is also adding links to relevant city articles for further details. I would prefer the autogenerated content was placed on the talk page and then used to create the normal format of region "See" section. AlasdairW (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The links area already there, actually... -- andree 05:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I hadn't noticed the links. I think it also needs to say in the text what city the listing is in, so that I can read the section and see that city A has four attractions, but city B only has one (and for the benefit of anybody read a printout). AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
It’s worth pausing for a moment to take in the importance of this experiment. We are on the verge of signing up our first AI contributor. Bots have long been used on WV for simple housekeeping but here is a dimension step. Even if this particular effort is judged a failure, there will be another and better, then another. My first impression is that this effort is already at the standard of a contributor who is gushy but possessed of a formidable work ethic that can churn out text 24 / 7. I suggest its contributions are live-posted with little delay, in need of “patrolling” and perhaps a warning similar to the “translate” box, and the rest of us weigh in as for any other page. Its User or Talk page could carry the meta-discussion about aspects it needs to improve on. (Already it's picked up the human vice of putting bold in every third sentence.) No doubt Wikipedia is at a similar stage of evolution and has experience to share.
North Jutland is a good test subject as its city pages are middling quality. Any of us could have built its region page given an hour or two, but we could only spare that time at the expense of some other equally deserving page. The present volume of contributions is not only insufficient to maintain WV as a viable relevant guide, it is too low by at least one order of magnitude. AI is therefore mission-critical. Page-building from scratch of places with scant content needs human input for the time being, lots of it, but AI can release us to do what we do best. We might even find time to travel. Grahamsands (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Here I expect that the AI just changed the formatting, which should not be too error-prone (and errors like putting information in the wrong place should be easy to spot). It is different from the AI finding the info from other Wikivoyage pages (where it might mix up what's where), and very different from it finding the info from arbitrary sources (where bogus POIs might be convincingly described). What I am most concerned about is some not-too-careful user adding massive amounts of stuff, some of which is bogus. –LPfi (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have converted North Jutland from the AI output to Wikivoyage style for region articles here (further improvements welcome ). It would be great if the AI could produce something closer to this, especially by not including the wikidata point. Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply edit

Swept in from the pub

Recently an user has added the above tour operator in few it:voy articles. I've seen that the same website is present on en:voy (added 9 years ago by an anonymous IP). I'd like to have a more extensive opinion to understand if it's good to keep it or not, according to Wikivoyage:Listings#Tour listings. Actually, according to my understanding, it has physical location in every Country it offers tours (i.e. allowed), but it also has a booking service and most likely resell the tours (i.e. not allowed) on the other side they sell activity available at a destination (i.e. allowed).

What's your opinion? Andyrom75 (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would remove those links per Wikivoyage:Don't tout and Wikivoyage:Listings#Tour listings. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
According to "they enable locals to offer authentic and unique activities" they should be removed as aggregator. We of course might want to do an exception as "a social enterprise, they work with many underprivileged people who either serve as hosts or facilitators", which means they might offer things that our readers want to do and which are hard to find in other ways. On the other hand, I would like to make sure that they indeed work in the way described and don't put too much money in their own pockets. Does anybody know? Also, we usually don't list one enterprise in many many city articles (nine as of now). Should they rather be in Aggregators or Responsible travel – if they indeed are responsible (see Volunteer travel for some caveats)? –LPfi (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ibaman, I've seen that in 2017 you rephrase their description in Yogyakarta article. What's your opinion about this tour operator? --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
LPfi, I would exclude "Volunteer travel" because as per my understanding a tourist go there to have an "experience" not to "help them" (e.g. building an hospital, teach English, etc.), but I agree with you that this tour operator is in the thin border of: "Aggregators & Responsible travel". --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
No, I didn't intend to include them in Volunteer travel, but some of the same caveats apply when a company talks about alleviating poverty by using their services. –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@LPfi, I think that every time we spend holidays in a poor area (eating, sleeping, visit,...), we "alleviate poverty", because in a way or another we bring and leave some money there. However, following the saying "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime", a Volunteer travel should be the one where we spend time to "teach them how to fish".
Maybe this tour operator use that description in a smart way and we are not able to state how our money will be divided between them; for sure it's not a no-profit organization. Andyrom75 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is called a "social enterprise". Shouldn't those be non-profit? If not, then we should really remove them (unless we get real evidence they are doing a change to the better). –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ohh, I wasn't aware of Social enterprises. Interesting concept. In this case I would say that we could classify it that way. Andyrom75 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
[edit conflict] I now see for Cebu (at their site):
"When you're in the Philippines and looking for things to do in Cebu and the surrounding islands then we've got it all. From serving up the best Lecon in Cebu, making amplified bamboo speaker, perfecting the Filipino martial arts of Eskrima to exploring street food vendors that only locals have access to. :) We guarantee that in addition to her magnificent beaches and churches, Cebuanos has so much more to offer to travelers so come and let's discover the magic of Cebu through the backstreets of this beautiful island."
This does sound like any general tour organiser. Why wouldn't I have access to street food vendors? What have beaches and churches to do with the unprivileged locals? If they indeed do what they promise in the article, why not tell up front? How can they still offer "it all"? Do you want an unprivileged guide to the church instead of one who studied history and theology? You might, but not always. The description at their main page does talk about alleviating poverty and conserving heritage, but I don't feel like trusting them.
LPfi (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ibaman, changes aside, do you think this tour operator has all the policy requirements to be listed here in Wikivoyage? Andyrom75 (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
well, how could I best put it in words, the very substance of its posting makes me suspicious, thinking of ulterior motives and shady intentions behind a glossy presentation. Maybe I'm too paranoid, but honestly, this is what I'm feeling about this. Ibaman (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
If I understood clearly each other position, SHB2000 is in favor to delete each occurrence, while me, LPfi and Ibaman are in doubt.
In case like this, where only one person take a clear decision what is wiser to do: remove the occurrences or keep the status quo (although reached without a consensus)? --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
From my quick glance, it's a for-profit middleman for booking tours with an added bonus of a translator/interpreter. The unsubstantiated claims of social impact are a nice gloss, but if these claims add up to enough to merit allowing an exception to existing policies, we need to be equally comfortable with Airbnb Experience (and others) listings with more verifiable social impacts. If that's a door we want to open, I think we need to consider a policy addressing "social enterprises". Gregsmi11 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Gregsmi11, I've checked "Airbnb Experience". Excluding very few exceptions, it's a huge collection of solo guides that offer their services for any kind of activity. If previously I was in doubt, now I'm more inclined to eliminate all the occurrences of "social enterprises" without changing the policy.
On the other hand, could be useful to have a specific page that explain what is a "social enterprise" and maybe few examples that worth to be quoted. Andyrom75 (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think we could have a paragraph (or a section) in Responsible travel, which also should refer to (or explain) the caveats. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, I don't see any evidence of an actual social impact, which should be significant for us to make an exception. What's more, it seems there web page seems not to be honest, nor in line with our descriptions. I think they should be deleted, unless we find a good page of theirs and reliable third-party reports that explain their business and show that using their services indeed is a good way of responsible travel. –LPfi (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Since there's almost a consensus on delete the occurrences, I can do it (on both en:voy & it:voy), while I'll let someone else to take care about for the description of the "social enterprise" in a page of the project. --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Done. Andyrom75 (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Return to the project page "Listings".