text:
Wikivoyage talk:Activity listings

Tours policy?
While patrolling, I was looking at this edit and realized that I'm not sure what our policy is regarding tour agencies. My general feeling is that we should not list them—Wikivoyage is the "tour guide" and the only reason why someone would need anything else would be that a particular article is incomplete. But then again, we really should list the London Walks—they are excellent and it wouldn't really be possible (or desirable) to duplicate their information here. Have I just not found our policy yet? Can anyone point me towards a discussion? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:52, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Ideally, over time, we should be adding our own walking tours. London is a particularly fine example for a London Walking Tours article (and I would be happy to contribute something for Regent's Park-Primrose Hill-Regent's Canal or even for the Heath. It would be far better for wikivoyage to have well described walking tours that the traveler can print and follow than to recommend a particular walking tour. I think the current policy on external links is quite good and we should try not to subvert it - to put it another way, my walking tour company is better than your walking tour company :-).--(WT-en) Wandering 21:56, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
 * When I say recommend a particular walking tour, I of course mean a particular tour company that organizes walking tours.--(WT-en) Wandering 21:57, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I like our external links policy as well, but I bring this up because nothing is said in that policy regarding links to tour agencies (as opposed to other tour guides). London Walks is a good recommendation because the company employs excellent guides for the walking tours, but perhaps linking to them is a slippery slope in that it would open the doors for all sorts of useless tour agency listings? Ultimately, if no policy deals with this directly, we should change that—I see similar listings often and am not sure what to do with them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Me too... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Me three. My feeling is that they should not be allowed except in cases where doing it without a tour guide would be dangerous or certain to get you lost, i.e. hiking in the Amazon, etc. Otherwise I think we should be concentrating on making a guide that would allow you to do it yourself. (WT-en) Texugo 19:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Could we benefit from a policy stating that tour companies/guides should not be listed without first achieving consensus on the appropriate talk page regarding an exceptional situation? This would be a bit more cumbersome than "No tour agency listings," but would allow us the flexibility to include Himalayan climbing outfits, Amazon tours, or other tours that really deserve a mention in any city guide. In any rate, if we totally ban tours listings, that would be a disadvantage for Wikivoyage vis-a-vis printed guides, which regularly point out tour agencies that deserve mention (like London Walks). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd agree to that. Should this discussion be moved to Project:External links? (WT-en) Texugo 21:42, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
 * A policy for making exceptions could apply to any kind of external link (restaurant listings, nightlife). This discussion should definitely be moved to Project:External links. I hated this no external link policy at first, and was miffed when seat61.com was removed from the Myanmar page, but quite like it now. That way, there are no gray areas. For tours, I really feel that wikivoyage contributers should write their own walking tours.--(WT-en) Wandering 21:54, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, I haven't been quite clear enough. What I have been talking about is not whether to list external links to tour agencies, it is whether to list tour agencies (in the Do section). So this really should not have any impact on our Project:External links policy—it still would only allow official links to primary sources for listings without exception. So again, this is just a question of whether to list tour agencies and I think our answer so far is tour agencies should not be listed, unless a specific agency is determined an exceptional case by consensus on the talk page. I'm not sure exactly where this discussion should be moved. To Project:Where you can stick it? Or to Project:Activity listings? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:09, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree that this is not an External links issue, but I think that we should allow tours on our guides. Wikivoyage is never going to take me on a bus around San Francisco, but the tour company did (I forget which, unfortunately). I agree that it is a crummy way to see a city, but if you have just one day, crummy is better than nothing. I think tours should be listed under See or Do. If they get too long, we should keep a few good ones, just as we do with restaurants. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:24, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah, yeah, I understood what you were saying- I just didn't wasn't thinking when I suggested Project:External links. I think it should go here :Project:Attraction listings since this issue will almost always be a See or Do thing.
 * With respect to what Ravikiran said, I disagree. Wikivoyage can take you on a bus trip around San Francisco, given the proper itinerary article. Actually though, I don't really think a tourist bus is necessarily what we're concerned about here. A lot of cities have a tourist bus service, sometimes run by the city itself. Typically a city never has dozens and dozens of competing tourist bus services, whereas some places have lots of small companies and individuals offering to be personal tourist guides. Another point is that often the companies that offer these services are the same kind of tourist agent that offer hotel and ticket finder services, something which is already banned here. (WT-en) Texugo 02:42, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I guess the real problem I am still having with this issue is that I recognize tours listings that don't belong, like these two, but then there are a lot of tours that I recognize as belonging in our guides, like the London Walks or this commercial art gallery tour that User:(WT-en) Gorilla Jones just added. What I can't figure out, though, is how a policy would distinguish the "right" kind of tours from the "wrong" ones.

 * As an example, London Walks is worth listing for two reasons. First, it employs excellent native Londoner guides, with whom it is a pleasure to chat. Second, their tours are a good way to meet Londoners and other travelers. Third, they offer really good, in-depth tours of their subjects. Now we could say that Wikivoyage could provide at least the third of these positives by creating hundreds of excellent itineraries for London, but that's not being very realistic, at least in the short term.

 * I guess the reason why the two on the Rome page appear to not belong is that they are tour agencies that aim to replace our guides entirely, rather than supplement them—someone on this sort of tour would have no reason to bring a WT print out. Perhaps a tour agency needs a specific "angle" to be included? So a tour agency offering "tours of London" would not be allowable, but a tour agency offering "guided walks to discuss the history of London neighborhoods" would be fine? Or as Texugo suggested, we could exclude tour agencies that find accommodation for travelers. Sorry for this stream of consciousness—I'm just trying to wrap my head around this issue ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:13, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Continuing the restaurant analogy, when a city article has no restaurant listing at all, we're okay with someone listing a McDonalds or a Dominos or a boring Chinese joint. But when it has too many listings, someone who has decided that it is now time to make this a real guide will decide that only a few good ones will be kept. He will gather a consensus and cull out the repetitive and boring ones. I think that the same things can happen with tour guides too. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 03:27, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree with Ravi -- a blanket ban on all tour companies is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (For example, the only way to visit some places like Panmunjeom or Kumgangsan is with a tour company.)  It's a slippery slope to be sure, but we'll just have to deal with it. One criterion I'd like to establish, though, is that any tour company on WT has to be the primary service provider, not just a reseller. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:34, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I see where you're coming from. Listing a tour company is, I suppose, not the same as listing a consolidated restaurant site. I do have two caveats though,
 * How do you define a consensus? In the case of (WT-en) Peter's walking tour company, if he is the only wikivoyage writer who has used the company, does that mean we have a consensus? I've lived in London but, if presented with a choice of two companies that offer London Walks, would be unable to evaluate either. I am new to this site but it does seem to me that there are very few people actually writing stuff in articles and many more people acting as editors, which means that finding enough people that have used a particular tour company won't be easy. My guess is you'll be hard pressed to get a meaningful consensus.
 * Unlike a regular travel guide, wikivoyage does not have a Tony Wheeler or a Tom Masters that the user relies on to have done the legwork in evaluating listings. The weakness of wikivoyage is that there are no 'experts'. However, in my opinion, its strength lies in codifying the collective knowledge of many, something a Lonely Planet cannot hope to do. That's why, frequent travelers like me are also frequent readers and posters on Thorn Tree. Over time, this collective knowledge can lead to itineraries and walking tours that are far better than anything London Walks can offer (albeit without the personal touch). You gotta think long term.
 * All that said, I agree that not having a link the double decker tours of New York would be a bit silly. Of course, we'd have to link to Grayline, New York Double Decker Tours, and anybody else that provides the service. In the same spirit, I suggest we list all walking tours of London rather than a fuzzily defined consensus one. --(WT-en) Wandering 10:23, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Consensus is for policies; for articles, the basic principle is "assume good faith". So if somebody adds a tour company, and they aren't obvious sleaze, then IMHO it can stick until somebody else has a reasonable complaint. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I don't agree that there are no 'experts' in Wikivoyage. Take a look at Peter's articles for the South Side of Chicago, or Singapore and other Jpatokal fiefdoms. We have experts, they just work for free. In the case that you describe, if you know London Walks to be notably good because you've taken some of their tours - or you've heard from several trusted sources that they're notably good - then add it. If you know nothing of them other than their name, then you don't have grounds to recommend them, so don't add a listing for them if one doesn't already exist. We wouldn't have to link to every New York double decker service because we're not encyclopedic, we're not Wikipedia, and we're not objective - we're biased in favor of what's good. In the case of London, it's big enough that the number of users here who've been to (or live in) London acts as a de facto check on rubbish listings.

 * I'd welcome any possible clarification on this policy, though, and I'm glad to see this discussion. I'm often not sure whether a certain tour agency should be added under the extlinks policy, but I basically trust that someone else will smack me upside the head if necessary. In each case, I've been asking myself whether the traveler needs a guide's help to make this decision - e.g. Hanoi is chock full of men, women, children and parrots begging you to book your Ha Long Bay trip through them, and the simple way to sift through the masses is that if you pay more, you're more likely to get a better boat. And anyone can get screwed by a travel agent on Khao San Road - they don't need our help finding a specific screwer. But in the case of London Walks, that is an exceptional service (I've done one) and they are worth seeking out. New Orleans is similar case where walking tours are a standard part of the experience of the city and are done both well and poorly. If we didn't include at least one, we're offering an incomplete guide. Not that we need to take all of our cues from the print guides, but they give advice in that regard, so why shouldn't we? (And that doesn't stop them from developing their own walking tours, as we should continue to do.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 11:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree with the objections in this thread to the original framing of a tours policy—that a blanket ban is too restrictive and that trying to establish consensus for every tour agency that should be in our guides is not going to be very effective. I think though that the restaurant analogy doesn't quite work because some tour agencies/guides are in direct competition with Wikivoyage in that they aim do the trip planning themselves. Here are the guidelines that I think have come up in this discussion that might work in a tours policy:

 * 1) Don't list tour agencies that act as a booking agent for the traveler—we are looking for tour agencies that offer something as a supplement, rather than a replacement for our guides.
 * 2) As with accommodations, it is not permissible to list resellers of tours, only list the actual tour operators.
 * 3) Always list tour agencies (even if they do not meet other criteria) if they are requisite to visit a certain area. Examples include tours that are required by law (e.g., North Korea) or for places that would simply be too dangerous to tour without a guide (war zones and extreme environments such as the Amazon, Antarctica, Space, etc).

Do these sound sensible? And do they leave out anything important? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:31, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * One thing -- where do we list them? Is the easy answer is "wherever appropriate" (walking guides in On foot, rafting expedition organizers in Do, etc) OK? (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:06, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I definitely lean towards not listing tours, unless really necessary. I would say unless it's required/safer to go with a guide (Soweto), that we should pull them out like rotting weeds. I almost think that #3 should start "Only" not "Always". It's tempting to also allow if they are providing something really unique and that can't be described easily in our guides, but then that gets fuzzy, and hard to patrol. I would think most city tours can just be described as our own itinerary with a map, no need to farm that out to a tour guide. In most places like Hollywood, Bangkok, Kathmandu, etc you can just point people to the right neighborhood for booking a tour, if they're interested. "Want to tour the stars homes? Head to Grauman's Chinese Theater on Hollywood Blvd, where tour operators abound" - that's more than enough in my opinion. I know there are a few exceptions, and it's hard to throw the baby out with the bathwater... but it's also hard to then explain to one operator/editor why his tour agency can't be here when we list others. We've had persistent editors who really want to list audio tours, and we were militant about avoiding that... but then may allow listings to human tour operators doing the same thing? The external links policy was set up to avoid grey areas and to be useful in policing newly added links... and yes, unfortunately, there are a few times when it really sucks to not be able to add something like a nightlife guide... but for the most part it works. I don't see why the tour policy has to be any different. Perhaps Extra can figure into this equation in the future... a place to talk about your specific experiences with a tour operator? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:09, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I like Peter's guidelines and they seem like a good foundation to me. Generally, I want to be able to list a tour agency if they can take a traveler to a place they wouldn't otherwise have access to go - not for reasons of laziness or lack of independent spirit, but because they simply aren't allowed into the place without a guide. North Korea is a big example, but I'm also thinking about architecture fans visiting Chicago who'd like to be able to see interiors of classic commercial buildings that aren't open to tourists, only to the Chicago Architecture Foundation. No matter how mapped and detailed our walking tour might be, they can't use it to get inside, and they'd want to. (And let me clarify that I mean access period, not more access to an already accessible place, like a kewl behind-the-scenes peek at the dressing room where so-and-so got ready in 1968.) (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:39, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

 * In response to Cacahuate's comment, I think we often should list tours even when they are not necessary. It's not necessary (or at all cool) to tour downtown Chicago with a horde of segway riders, but that is kind of interesting, clearly a supplement to our guides, and some readers might be interested. We should not farm out itineraries/maps to tour agencies, but we should also recognize that certain types of tours offer things we cannot. For example, no matter how much effort goes into the Chicago skyline guide, we cannot actually fly someone around the skyline on a prop-plane as "Tri-Star Pilot Service Tours" can. So I still think the trick is to clearly delineate what kind of tours belong.

 * As for where to stick tours, I think we should mandate that they go in the "do" section to emphasize that any tours listed must constitute a value-added activity. If a tour is not an activity, then it probably does not belong in our guides (so no generic "sightseeing" tours where someone is just taking you around, but the lame double-decker bus London tours would be ok). I'm thinking of drafting a policy based on this discussion at Project:Activity listings. That article should exist in any rate. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

 * Generally, I agree with Peter's proposed criteria because they help prevent touting. However, I think there are other cases to take account of. Quite a few travellers do prefer travelling with a guide in areas where there is much history to be explained and the traveller may not speak the local language — Beijing or Agra for example. I'd consider it myself, if only because a guide tends to drive off touts. Also, in places like Yangshuo, many travellers hire guides for bicycle tours through the countryside. In general, if "the traveller comes first", who are we to say he/she should not hire a guide or take a tour where available? List the info and let the traveller decide. (WT-en) Pashley 02:54, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

 * I understand your point that travelers may want to travel with guides who speak local languages and drive off touts. These clearly are functions that we can't provide (although we at least try with the language issue). But I still think that opening this particular door is too much of a slippery slope. Allowing any tour operators to be listed without some restrictive guidelines would permit any borderline-criminal-"Oh yes I have small restaurant won't you come have Pepsi with me so we can talk"-"guide" to add their personal phone number to our site. Another reason that I think we should avoid an all-inclusive tour operator policy is that this would allow advertising for companies that are in direct competition with Wikivoyage to be listed. In my view, listing tours that serve as booking agents and that make all the general travel decisions for someone are just as much a competitor as other printed travel guides; we do not, as a rule, list the latter and I think we should also avoid listing the former.

 * Well, we still have opinions ranging from (WT-en) Pashley and (WT-en) Ravikiran's "allow all tours" to (WT-en) Cacahuate's "no tours," but I nonetheless think we can come up with a policy that would be at least acceptable to all of us. I will take a stab at it today. If it turns out impossible we can always get rid of it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

 * OK, I just created an activity listings policy article, based on Project:Accommodation listings, which includes a draft tours policy. Lets continue this discussion over here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:22, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Revisited
This is becoming an increasing nuisance, particularly in our Italian guides - don't know what it is with them Italian tourism professionals and wikivoyage, but darn they can be a pain sometimes - thoughts? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:13, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * As far as I can see, they don't comply with the existing policy, as far as they aren't doing anything that a traveller couldn't accomplish by themselves. A tour to see Rome or Venice is entirely valid way to see the cities, but if that is the travellers choice, they don't really need the Wikivoyage guide.  Tours should only listed when they constitute an activity within the city.  Perhaps we need to summarise these policies more effectively in Project:Welcome, business owners.  That document goes too far in making people think that a listing is a right IMO.  --(WT-en) inas 21:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * That's what I've been telling myself - and the touts - until I read the discussion above, the policy was explicitly drafted the way it is, to allow walking tours. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:33, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * A little off-topic, but I've come to the opinion that touting/spam increases regionally when that region is unattended. Our Italy guides went pretty much unmoderated and uncared for until this year, and were overrun with garbage. Same happened with Costa Rica, but when I cleaned up the majority of the Costa Rica articles (there aren't that many, since it's such a small country), the spam deluge halted within a matter of 1-2 months. Business owners usually don't care to use their time reading policies—they just want to pop in and boost their exposure as cheaply as possible—so they follow the existing models on the page they're editing.

 * Any "consensus" we may have established on walking tours is a lot more nuanced than the policy article indicates (and it's best to keep it that way to make moderating easier). The emphasis is, I think, on the "value-added" part. The one legit walking tour on the Rome article, for example, was for fine-grained neighborhood tours led by history professors—I'm not sure it's even desirable for us to try and duplicate such specialized and detailed information, so that one struck me as having value-added.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:05, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

How about we made the same rule as with the car rental outfits. If there are more than 9 tour operators in the city we list none of them? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 20:35, 16 January 2010 (EST)

 * Once something becomes a commodity, listing it becomes more of a yellowpages then a travel guide. But are there many examples of when a tour that would comply with our existing policy on value-adding would fall foul of a nine-tour limit?   --(WT-en) inas 18:47, 17 January 2010 (EST)

Tour listings in cities only
I'd like to add a clause that tour listings may not be listed outside city articles, and must be tied to a real world office in that city. This would be an extension of the basic policy that a tour must exist to provide a specific activity, and nothing related to general travel planning. Having a quick, easy way to get rid of rubbish like this is the motivation. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:53, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

 * It doesn't really make sense to put tours of a country or region or island group in a city article. Wouldn't this exclude a class of tours --(WT-en) inas 18:36, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

 * That's the aim. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:41, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

 * So, Australia would go - arguably they would already be excluded by the existing policy. But what about places like Galapagos Islands, where a tour is more likely than not required to get around?  What about a policy such as "tours entries are limited to value added operators, that offer an experience or access different to what what could ever be accomplished by an individual with a a travel guide - accordingly tours would not normally be included in regional articles".  --(WT-en) inas 19:12, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, I like that wording. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:59, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

Tour agencies
Swept in from the pub:

I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere, but I don't know where. For apartment agencies, we have the policy that they must have a physical address, and that the listing only appear in the article of the destination where that physical office is located. I would like to think that the same applies for companies that arrange tours, if we allow them at all. For example, the Do section of the Brazil article currently lists a couple of such agencies. Can someone point me to the appropriate place where discussion of this issue is? I'm sure I've come across it before, but haven't found it just now. (WT-en) Texugo 07:44, 21 November 2008 (EST)

 * → tour. I love this policy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

 * I think direct only is the best policy. Think of how many tour agencies we would have in HCMC is we allowed every tour agency with a physical sddress there.  Tour companies should only be listed here if they own a bus, and take people around.  People can always find an agency to book with if they want one.  No agencies, no consolidators.  Apartment listings only when direct to the apartment leasor, i.e the person who will give you the key, not to an agency or consolidator.   Anything else could 1000's of agencies in even small cities..  floodgates...   --(WT-en) Inas 16:28, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Vienna walking tour link

 * What adds value for a traveler more than a free detailed self-guided walking tour with a free printable map? I many understand how wiki is looking out against spam, but when good free walking tours are instantly being deleted something is wrong.

I have just been quite confused why especially free walking tours cannot be listed on wikivoyage. I can understand why paid tours might be denied but the free ones should be allowed to be posted. It seems like wiki is afraid of losing traffic to sites that offer better information. Example: I started a free travel website recently (it is non-profit with zero ads) which includes free self-guided walking tours in different cities. One of those cities on my site Vienna, Austria gets 400 new hits per week with a lot of return visitors so the tours are well liked. I tried to submit my walking tour under the title "free walking tour" in the external link section of wiki and it was instantly deleted. I also tried to submit the info for my tour with the map and it was also instantly deleted. The reasoning i was given is that it competes with wiki as a travel guide and can't be allowed, the second submission was denied because it was said to lack vaule. I also was denied while posting to the Salton Sea section of wiki, however other than my post the Salton Sea section was blank, if my free tour doesn't add value to a blank page what does?

 * This is the site i attempted to submit to the vienna page: http://www.bigboytravel.com/europe/austria/vienna as a link.

 * Since wiki promotes paid attractions in every city, why not promote free walking tours, especially good ones with printable maps? (WT-en) Jonathanleighmiller 22:26, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * I think you are misunderstanding the concept of competition - as it applies to Wikivoyage. Our primary objective is to provide free travel guides, that can be copied, used incorporated into other websites, published etc.  If there are freely available walking tours with maps, we can incorporate the details here on wikivoyage.  However, once we start to link to the information, rather than hosting it, then it is a slippery slope to becoming a directory of links, rather than a fully self-contained travel guide.  If your information is free, and good, then add the information to the guide - not just a link to it.  No one is really afraid of losing traffic from Wikivoyage to bigboytravel.com.  People will find the best guides to suit them and their purposes.  We are afraid of losing contributions and information in the guide if we merely provide links to it and don't mandate that the information be in the guide.
 * You are also misunderstanding what it means to add value. When we say add value we mean that a tour adds something above what could be contained in the wikivoyage guide.  Takes you somewhere you couldn't otherwise go, gives you an experience that you couldn't otherwise get just by using the Wikivoyage guide.  We are not talking about adding value to the wikivoyage guide, which is something different entirely.  --(WT-en) inas 22:50, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * your goal of offering free travel guides is the same as mine, I will supply my info for the free walking tour to wiki and the map i made for it today to the Vienna, Austria site on wiki and we'll see if i sticks this time. It is just interesting that other cities such as Rome, Sydney, ect. are allowed to have tours listed which not only provide external links but are links where the 3rd party makes money off of web traffic, while free non-profit tour sites in other locations can not have external links.  It gets even more confusing when attractions and activities in each city are allowed to provide external links.  There just needs to be a more uniformed consensus/implementation from wiki on how external links and tours, especially free tours are handled.  Things seem to differ a lot by country/city/section.  An absolute yes or no may not be the best but possible a submission process to whoever overseas the city/country's content.
 * Constructive criticism: If wiki really wants people to walk around with WT travel guides while touring cities they need something like what i tried to provide the Vienna page with, that's why Rick Steve's guide books are the best. If wiki is only going to provide straight text book info without free walking tours w/maps then people might as well just carry an encyclopedia with them (WT-en) Jonathanleighmiller 23:16, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Your observation that policies are erratically enforced is no doubt true - but that is wiki for you, people watch different articles, and areas. It probably will always be that way.  There are no paid administrators here, and everybody has their own priorities, available time, etc.  No one oversees the city or countries content - it simply doesn't work that way, so an absolute yes or no will probably never be possible.  It is a post - revert - discuss cycle.   I don't think Wikivoyage provides text book info.  As I have said, itineraries for city walks are welcome on wikivoyage, people can update them, add things, change things etc on the site.  The site will only ever be as good as its contributions.  --(WT-en) inas 23:33, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Food tours
(swept from the pub)

A business owner has been placing his food tours on the Bangkok page. I reverted this edit, citing policy that we don't add tours that are not "value-added". The business owner objected to this on my user page, and cited that there are some other WT pages that feature food tours, including Miami, Stratford  and even Star-quality San Francisco. As the last one is peer-reviewed by the community, would this constitute that food tours fall within policy? I am wondering what the community thinks of this case. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:51, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
 * We are not perfect, and letting some listings slip through in a star nomination is not a suicide pact. If we missed a typo in a star article, that doesn't mean that proper spelling is no longer required.  That said, these sorts of listings are right on the borderline.  The food sampling could be seen as a value-added activity since it allows you to try a variety of foods for a single flat rate.  In this case, I'd be tempted to say it's okay: the flat rate means the company likely has an agreement with the local vendors, and it's not just some dude in a van driving you around to different restaurants.  But I'm open to other arguments.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:36, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
 * The anon's argument ironically sums up why I don't wish to see this type of tour listed: Most food tours around the world that I have been to usually bring travelers to restaurants or local eateries that are "not tourist-adjusted". So these tours do support local neighborhoods that most of them are not within reach by most travelers. These are exactly the type of eateries and deep coverage that we want in our guides, not available only via link. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:45, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Do you think the listing in 'cisco's Chinatown article ought to go, then? It seems legit to me.  (WT-en) LtPowers 11:25, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Actually, to my eye, despite being very well presented, the whole walking tours section looks like a violation of the tour policy. Sometimes I'm loathe to remove tours that are in violation, though, like the one at New Orleans/Tremé—I imagine that many travelers would be nervous to tour the area without a guide, but I would hate that to stop people from exploring the area on foot, and that tour seems likely the best way to get people with a lower urban comfort level to do so. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:49, 13 June 2011 (EDT)
 * As LtP says, this is a borderline case. I'd be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt, leave it in unless it gets toutish. I can readily imagine travellers wanting to know that for $x they can visit $n out-of-the way restaurants. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to read marketing hype here, though. (WT-en) Pashley 07:06, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

Hey, what is the policy regarding pub crawls? On one hand, going to several places and getting drunk isn't hard and traveller can "fulfill the substance of the tour on their own", but maybe meeting other crawlers is added value? Most of pub crawls advertise as showing good, underground or not touristy venues but this kind of information we want IN WT. -- (WT-en) Jjtk 17:21, 24 March 2012 (EDT)

Warsaw Tour
Hello, I would like to find solution of one problem. I was trying to edit info about exploring Warsaw and information about tours was erased according to. I asked User:(WT-en) LtPowers to change back information because mentioned tours have got "value-added activity". Warsaw during WWII was destroyed in 90% and many interesting places are covered by modern buildings (eg.last pieces of Ghetto Wall). Whats more there is lack of book which describes Warsaw architecture in English. Thats why Wiki users should have access to erased information. Thank you for helping with this case. 85.222.21.83 06:30, 9 January 2012 (EST) Zaginiony

 * Hi. As I said in the pub, I see this as highlighting our raison d'etre.  WT offers the opportunity to give this information wide distribution.  To just point somewhere else to get the information isn't what we're here for - we're trying to make this information free and available to all.  To maintain the incentive to put the information in our freely distributable guide, we don't generally link to other guides, or to tours which are just guides.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:24, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Hi. Thank you for your answer. I really do understand the main idea of WT - and I have no doubt that tourists should have as much as it's possible free and available information about places which they're visiting. Which is difficult to understand is that eg. in Moscow, Amsterdam and Berlin I found tour guides list and here I can't add the 1st one. Believe me - if you ask in the hotel for tour guide you'll pay 3times more than. I'd like to answer to who gently (thank you) answered to me hereProject:Travellers' pub - yes, point 1-4 of Project:Activity listings "Tour listings" is fulfilled. I have real office, as supplement I am offering "social realism" tours,architecture tours - also old bus tours. All the tours are organised by me and only licensed tour guides (cause in Warsaw you need to have tour guide if you visit sights in a group of 10 or more). I understand that from your point of view is difficult to recognize which tour guide company is commercial one which is not - if you still have doubts please read testimonials of my clients. Thank you! 85.222.21.83 04:29, 10 January 2012 (EST) Zaginiony

Tour listings - rules
SWEPT IN FROM PUB

Hello, I would like to find solution of one problem. I was trying to edit info about exploring Warsaw and information about tours was erased according to. I asked User:(WT-en) LtPowers to change back information because mentioned tours have got "value-added activity". Warsaw during WWII was destroyed in 90% and many interesting places are covered by modern buildings (eg.last pieces of Ghetto Wall). Whats more there is lack of book which describes Warsaw architecture in English. Thats why Wiki users should have access to erased information.

 * A better place for this discussion would be Wikivoyage_talk:Activity_listings, the talk page for the policy in question. Have a look at older discussions there too.

 * Please sign messages by typing four tildes( ~ ); that adds date, time & your ID,like this: (WT-en) Pashley 05:53, 9 January 2012 (EST)

 * I agree. Users should have access to the information.  I suggest that you kindly put the information in Wikivoyage.  It is a guide, then people will have the information.  We're here to provide open information, accessible and free.  Anyone can then use our free and open information on their site, for their tour, or for their personal information.  --(WT-en) Inas 06:32, 9 January 2012 (EST)

 * Yes, perhaps this should be discussed at Wikivoyage_talk:Activity_listings, so please do raise your concerns and inquiry there if you wish. However do consider first if the tours being offered are something that requires the experienced and specialist guidance of someone such as that offered by the tour company. I note you have mentioned there is apparently a lack of readily available information, such as from a book. Please consider if a visitor to Warsaw can go and visit (or 'tour') these sites independently and without the support of guide services. If so then the Tour service is probably precluded from listing in the Wikivoyage articles. Also of course have a good read of Activity listings. Consider what it is that the tours is offering. Does it offers something as a supplement to that a person would be able to sufficiently derive from a visit to the location on their own? Also consider if the tour operators are are a requisite to visit a certain area, this would include provisions where a guide is required by law or safety regulations of some kind, or where un-supervised access is denied without an official guide or supervisor.-- (WT-en) felix 06:38, 9 January 2012 (EST)

"Haunted" tours
One walking tour that doesn't quite seem to fit into the pattern; the ghost tour or "haunted walk" where, instead of recounting the same description of each landmark that's already in Wikivoyage and a thousand other guides, a walking tour guide leads a group around town and tells stories about how a long list of key buildings are actually haunted. In Ottawa, for instance, a guide might point out the old Château Laurier railway hotel, claim that the furniture which was to be placed in the hotel when it first opened was shipped as Titanic cargo, where it and the person in charge of the hotel both went down with the ship... (points upwards at most expensive room in big, fancy hotel)... and the old man haunts that fancy suite in that big old hotel forevermore (pause for dramatic effect). The process is then repeated through most of Centretown. Is this a tour in the conventional sense, or is it just entertainment? I presume it's not duplicative of WV unless we were to rewrite our Ottawa, Gananoque, Kingston (Ontario) and Toronto articles to be merely lengthy discourses on why all of these towns are haunted... which isn't going to happen. K7L (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

 * In the past some of these "entertainment/special activity" tours have been handled on somewhat of a "look the other way" basis. If there are only a small number of such tours listed for a destination, and if they really do seem to have some value-add beyond what a visitor with a good guidebook would get on their own, then it seems that most editors have tended to leave them be - see for example the trolley tour in Chicago/Bronzeville.  However, if the list of haunted tours/photography tours/art history tours/etc gets long (and thus somewhat spammy) then the Tour policy becomes a useful tool for trimming them.  It would be nice if there was a more objective way of drawing a line, so suggestions for clarifying policy (while still preventing the Rome article from filling with hundreds of marginal tour listings) would be welcome. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Portland Tours not treated equally
Currently walking tours are permitted on the Portland (Oregon) by our competitor, CGS, but not by us, even though their tour directly competes with (some say copies) ours and even use some of the same locations. Twice I have attempted to equalize the situation by adding our tour descriptions and twice they were removed, but the CGS tours remain. Would someone please explain why one tour company is permitted to list their tours on this site but not another? I think both companies would argue that they are offering something (narrative, background history, displays, access to private/restricted areas) that cannot be obtained on a "do it yourself" basis. GaryC 20Feb2013 —The preceding comment was added by 67.171.248.221 (talk • contribs)

 * Hi Gary, I looked at Portland, but didn't see any operator by the name CGS listed. --Peter Talk 00:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Strike that—I found it, and it also does not meet our criteria for inclusion in the guide. I have removed it. --Peter Talk 00:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a tour app to Wikivoyage
We are building an open source tour app that provides an easy way for users to create and take tours with a cell phone and would like to explore ways that it could help Wikivoyage. There is a working version of the app for iOS on the Apple App store and instructions at exsilio.org. The app could be a useful adjunct to Wikivoyage allowing new uses for material produced by the site. Users start a tour in the app, follow a map, and a page pops up on their phone when they reach a point of interest. The page provides an image and information (text or text to voice).

The source code is openly available on GitHub and we'd welcome a collaboration to improve it and find ways to link it to Wikivoyage content. Please let me know if you're interested. ChufiBandit (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 * We have several pages on working with various other projects, e.g. Cooperating with Wikidata. Search for "Wikivoyage:Coop" will give a list. Should someone add one for Exsilio?
 * You can use almost any WV material with attribution; see Copyleft for details. I think all the text is under CC-by-SA 3.0, but we use stuff from other projects -- notably Wikimedia Commons & Open Streetmap -- that have their own licenses. Pashley (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Great!  Arep   Ticous                                                    11:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I looked at the Coop pages but couldn't find a way to ask to be a collaborator. Issuing our code under CC-by-SA 3.0 is no problem. I'm particularly interested in finding people interested in collaborating -- building tours and suggesting improvements. One obvious need would be to build a seamless way to connect with Wikivoyage content. Any suggestions gratefully accepted.

 * I think the closest things we have to tours are Itineraries. Could those articles somehow fuel your app? Would changes here help?
 * Fiction tourism, Literary travel & perhaps others (suggestions, anyone?) also have stuff you might use. Pashley (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikivoyage talk:Activity listings


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Administrators' handbook

Handbook
The idea of creating an :en version Administrator handbook has been in the air for a while, so I decided to plunge on this. Does this look right? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

 * It's a good start, but it should be called Administrator's handbook, because that's the current job title. If admins are renamed to janitors -- a move I still support -- then the book can change as well. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:14, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

 * OK, I like the cute janitor title too, but it's easier to just move the page ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:00, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

 * BTW, what stops us from renaming Administrators to Janitors? It feels much closer to truth, and doesn't give the illusion of extra power or burden of responsibility. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:17, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Nothing much; I don't think anyone ever opposed the change. We could reopen the discussion at Project:Administrators, and see if anyone objects over the course of several weeks, then make the change. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Protection expiry
How do you set the expiry time on protection? I know only how to protect pages for an infinite time span. The terms should be in this handbook. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:38, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

 * I usually type in text in the "Expires" field and hope that it gets parsed correctly - for example "4 hours" will result in protection that expires after four hours. "infinite" (or blank) apparently results in permanent protection.  I'm not entirely sure what date format would be used to (for example) set an expiration of "noon tomorrow". -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:21, 7 December 2008 (EST)

 * Thanks, this does seem a lot easier than I remember it being. I'll try and write up something useful. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)

 * If you type in the date in full format (December 25, 2008), it sets the expiration time at around the same clock hour on that day. (WT-en) Texugo 00:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Dupe?
There's already a wts:Manual for administrators... (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)

 * At wts:Talk:Manual_for_administrators we discussed the possible need for language version-specific manuals, as the policies governing use of sysop tools differ a bit from version to version. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:30, 15 November 2008 (EST)

direction of this page
After we hone our actual policies, I think this page needs to be just a list of pointers to policies on how to user the mop, but not actually describe or try to sum up said policies, or be considered a policy in itself... it's simply a helper for guiding new admins to relevant policies – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 14:04, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Block recommendations
I'm very unsure of which of the following boxes are safe to tick (in dealing with spambot accounts and spambot ips):

 * Prevent account creation
 * Prevent user from sending e-mail
 * Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from
 * Watch this user's user and talk pages
 * Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address

Advice? --Peter Talk 17:01, 29 October 2012 (CET)
 * I think it should be left on default (Prevent account creation and Automatically block last IP checked). There's no reason to prevent sending e-mail, or watch user page. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 06:10, 2 November 2012 (CET)

 * I want to ban the spambot & the user name permanently, but am reluctant to block IP addresses permanently because someone else may use them later. I therefore untick the "Automatically block the last IP address used..." and "Prevent logged-in users..." boxes whenever I remember, which is maybe half the time. However, I've never been sure if this was actually the right thing to do. Pashley (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I seem to recall that someone did a test a while back and discovered that when permanently blocking a user and an IP address that the IP address isn't actually permanently blocked, although it would be good to get something confirmed officially if anyone can provide a link. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * IP adresses are blocked for 24 hours, and this remains logged on Special:BlockList. The system also automatically blocks further IPs the user uses while logged in with the same duration. Savh (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused by the blocks and bans section here. In one of the sentences written is a recommendation that "spambot blocks (which should not be permanent and should not prevent account creation) which are generally set for three months, or six months if the bot has already been blocked before". But in the sentences immediately following, there is also a recommendation that "The form's boxes "Prevent account creation" and "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from" are automatically checked, and almost always should be left checked." So ought we permit blocks of the underlying IP behind an account (we call them "autoblocks" on enwp btw) and in what circumstances?

Also, I disagree with the guideline immediately following it discouraging blocking talkpage and email accesses: generally speaking spambots are likely to just search for the nearest page they could paste their spam in, and if they're prevented by the MediaWiki software from pasting anywhere else, their own talkpage is the most likely page for it. For other users however, I'd be fine with allowing talkpage access, even going so far as to indefinitely give as many chances to appeal as possible, at least until the community's patience runs out. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I believe the first paragraph you cited refers only to IP addresses, while the second refers to registered users. In the first case we don't want to block a shared address and thus prevent legitimate users from registering or editing, while in the second we want to make sure that a mis-identified user has a chance to appeal.  Feel free to update the language on the page to be clearer. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Spambot IPs are frequently open proxies or virtual private servers, and we're safe blocking those for a while. --Rschen7754 04:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I edited this section to reflect current consensus and practice, as I found it completely misleading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Move apostrophe in this page's name
I suggest we move Administrator's handbook to Administrators' handbook since there's more than one admin. Nurg (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators' guide? --Saqib (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Psychological problems"
"One might object, on the basis that there are some unusually persistent editors, who appear to have serious, untreated behavioral/psychological problems, who just won't give up, and continue to add their unwanted edits daily, even for years!"

Fellow Wikivoyagers, would you object if I deleted the highlighted text? Equating mental illness with malicious behaviour is pretty offensive. While "mad=bad" is not an uncommon attitude to encounter in the world, it's not really something you'd expect from the Administrators' Handbook of a respected travel guide.

I notice the same wording has been here for a very long time and assume that nobody else has been upset by it, which is why I've raised the issue rather than just deleting the text. Thanks, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Go ahead and reword it at will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Ikan Kekek. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit in my name?
Is there anyway an edit could be done that states is by me but I did not do? this edit I did not make. Have not been on this page for some time. Only other explication I can think of is accidentally pressing rollback from the Recent changes or Watchlist page which I may have had open at that time. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The automatic edit summary matches that from the [rollback] button, which is a single click if you're logged in as an admin and therefore possible to hit by mistake. The "undo" provided to all users is a bit harder to hit by mistake as it brings up the old revision and waits for the user to click "save". K7L (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely did not do an undo, as you say too many actions required. Probably hit rollback by mistake. Guess I need to be more careful when I have multiple windows open and trying to do too many things at once. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done that before myself. It's especially easy to do on a mobile phone. It would be nice if the MediaWiki software didn't make it easier to rollback than to undo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rollback as one click is useful but I always use it on a history difference page where you can see what will happen, not sure it should be in the Watchlist and Recent Changes pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 * It would be great to turn off Admin functionality when just doing standard editing, and turn it back on when you are cleaning up vandalism/other cleaning up. I don't edit in mobile mode in part because of these kinds of issues. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 * If it was easier to 'undo' than rollback, then rollback would serve no purpose. Powers (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to protect both pages at once?
Is there a way to simultaneously protect e.g. a user page and user talk page, or an article and its talk page, rather than having to protect first one, then the other? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"Revert button"?
Where is the "revert button"? On a revision history list I see "rollback", but not "revert". Do other admins see a button somewhere called "revert"? Nurg (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The button is called 'Undo' rather than 'Revert'. This is a two-stage revert that allows the reverter to leave an edit summary and make further edits in addition to undoing. 'Rollback' is a one-click revert button that only users with certain rights have access to.
 * Do you see 'Undo'? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see "undo", but that appears for every edit. The description of the "revert button" in the handbook seems to be describing rollback. Is the handbook mistakenly calling "rollback" the "revert button"? The section heading is "Rollbacks". Nurg (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see what you mean, and have clarified the text in question. Good spot, and thanks for bringing it up! ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Revert is an umbrella term that includes rollbacks, undos, Twinkles, etc., while rollback is a very specific tool. Thank you for clarifying it, tt! SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)