Talk:Arequipa

I did a general clean-up of the sleep-section. Far too many unhelpful adjectives. I suspect we are dealing with some owners here. Please restrict yourselves. (WT-en) Mariusm98 23:40, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Imports from wikitravel
Just as a notice: the last edits I made on this page partially come from my own work on en.wikitravel.org. Valkyr (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Reversion of Downtown Walking Tour
(Having taken the tour myself) I think the detailed nature of the tour falls in the gaps between the policy referenced in the reversion. To cover the tour content in a WV article would be neigh on impossible as elements of the content do reference locations and interactive explanations. Locations use used to suppliment explanations. Having done the tour I have a far better appreciation as to how and why Arequipa “is” but would have not idea where to start with any written article and I am 100% certain nobody could undertake such a tour “on their own”.

The “must have a phone number” illustrates how inappropriate the policy is to such tours given no booking is necessary why would anybody phone?

The tour represents something of great value to those travelling and if the WV policy excludes it then the WV policy is very wrong and too narrow or inflexible to provide best usefullness to travellers (which is what the site should be all about, helping travellers rather than enforcing inappropriate policies).

I could explain further about how daft the policy is in relation to this tour but I can’t be bothered. WV needs to consider if it is about providing useful information to travellers or about implementing inappropriate policies. I tried to help by providing very useful info but I’m more interested in exploring and will happily forget about WV and not add to info for benefit of others.PsamatheM (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, if you'd like to be helpful to readers, the best way would be to post to Wikivoyage talk:Listings with your good argument for making a change in Wikivoyage policy. Taking your ball and going home doesn't really help anyone, though you could also try to get a consensus for an exception on this page only, and the best way to steer interest to such a proposal would be to post to the Travellers' pub and, if you feel inclined, also to Requests for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m in the middle of travels and don’t have time to start arguing “policies” for an example where common sense shows how daft and inflexible adhering blindly to “policy” is. I’ve tried to discuss “policy” in the past where I have specific expertise and to gain consensus becomes too much work. When a project becomes totally dictated by “policy” over common sense and on the ground knowledge then I’d question the usefulness of the project. WV needs to decide if it wants to have information useful to those travelling or a bureaucratic exercise. One listing is not a big deal; the attitude of putting bureaucrocracy over common sense is. I’m going to focus on my travels and not spend time arguing with people who seem more interested in maintaining policies than providing information travellers might find useful.PsamatheM (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ps. Not “taking my ball and going home” but rather getting on with my travels (i.e. myself) rather than wasting time where common sense and experience are treated as irrelevant. And if WV has so many contributions and contributors that people think it worth arguing for consensus over a single listing then people need to look and see the vast shortcomings in the content and should be celebrating a useful contribution not fighting it and driving off contributors. PsamatheM (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, I'm interested in revisiting the policy. I've never really liked bans on free walking tours. I just maintain policies while they exist. Anyway, enjoy your travels! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I also think this policy should be revisited, but I support having policies, rather than just letting anyone put in anything they want in anywhere. That sort of approach would lead to edit wars, endless touting, and an unholy mess of information. Policies help make Wikivoyage more usable for travellers. But maybe this one needs some flexibility. Ground Zero (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thread started here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

On the narrow issue of this particular walking tour, I think it's fine to make an exception to policy in this case. In fact, WV:Tour specifically allows for making exceptions when warranted. And it doesn't say that all walking tours are forbidden—just that most are disallowed. I support re-adding the listing regardless of whether policy is amended or not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, and if this proves to be uncontroversial, we can simply restore the edit. Let's give it at least 24 hours for more people to have a chance to comment, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I support allowing this exception to the existing policy. Ground Zero (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As no-one has objected, I reinstated the tour listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)