Talk:Boston/Roxbury

Guide status
The only thing holding Roxbury back from Guide status is a second Sleep listing. I know this one skirts the limits of policy, but I would argue it's allowable in that de facto the property functions more like an extended-stay hotel than a vacation rental: namely, booking looks to be done primarily via sites like booking.com, various B&B rental aggregators, and other services more commonly used by tourists than apartment hunters, and it fulfills all the other caveats laid out in Listings. Feel free to revert if you strongly disagree, but if so, I still think Guide status applies to the article as this and the Best Western appear to be the only "Sleep" options in the district.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, how did you find this place Andre!? Thank you for adding it and staying on top of "the rules". I pretty much gave up on understanding the policies around here tbh. I just add whatever I think makes sense, taking cues from the Chicago pages. The cities are pretty similar anyway. Thanks again! --ButteBag (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * ButteBag - I don't think anyone, myself included, has more than a token percentage of Wikivoyage policy committed to memory. Generally the thing to do is let common sense be your guide, understand that no one's going to bite your head off if you make an honest mistake - and the longer you stick around, the more you start to get an innate sense of where the borderlines are, so you can go from interpreting policy conservatively to being more daring (and more in a position to argue your case if you think you've found the exception that proves the rule). It looks like you're off to a good start in that regard, anyway, so don't be too intimidated. :)


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)