Talk:Ramallah

Granada Bar & Restaurant
The user that created that entry clearly seems to be the owner with no other entries than this one and a name related to the restaurant. Should this be removed due to touting? Ceever (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, Unnecessary Capital Letters should be edited out, but there is no Wikivoyage policy of removing listings just because business owners added them, and in fact Wikivoyage has a Welcome, business owners page that you might want to look at. Remove the listing if you know the place is not worth going to. Otherwise, I'd say leave it up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That's confusing. I thought that was the reason why you regularly remove listings of one-time only users that just promote their business. Or is the reason for the deletion the sugar-coating of information? What is touting and what not, of written by the business owner? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * See Don't tout. That answers what is and is not touting pretty well; the rest is a judgment call. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks. Ceever (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thought about it again and feel that "well known for their live music" does qualify as touting when written by the owners. Ceever (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it shouldn't matter what the wording was. This was added by the business owner (who hasn't shown any interest in contributing to Wikivoyage) in order to drum up custom. It's an advert, and by definition touting, even if the wording could have been written by a traveller. In fact, such wording is arguably more harmful than obviously touty language, because the average reader won't realise it's an advert. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My words ... Cheers, Ceever (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] I agree on the "well-known for" phrase, but if your remarks are what Wikivoyage policy should be, then shouldn't we delete every listing for Citadines and the related vacation rental chain (whose name slips my mind), because they've obviously employed a crew of folks to do nothing but post listings for them and gotten good enough by now to post merely descriptively and avoid getting reverted for violation of Wikivoyage's don't tout policy? We've seen other users exclusively post listings of various other chains. How is that different from posting a listing for a single business, and just how rigorously do you plan on enforcing your version of the don't tout policy? Moreover, we even made one hotel marketer an autopatroller by consensus, since he so fully embraced Wikivoyage policy. Should we rescind the decision and delete all his listings, even though we consider him and them to be trustworthy? Just where, beyond the words of Don't tout, do you propose to draw the line? Perhaps you should make your proposal at Don't tout, but link this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am flabbergasted by what I have just read. With regards to Citadines, had I been aware of such 'teams' of touts, then I would have absolutely argued for their reversion before now and am disappointed that such large-scale advertising appears to be within policy, just because of the language used. However trustworthy an individual or company is or seems to be, the fact remains that the only reason they are editing Wikivoyage is to advertise a business. To someone employed to advertise, the traveller's needs come a very distant second after their primary goal of making money for their employer.


 * Furthermore, if the traveller really does come first here, then he or she has a right to know whether the listing they are reading is an advert, or whether it has been submitted by a fellow traveller on its own merits. Even Google distinguishes between genuine results and ones that are sponsored. The idea that we have knowingly and willingly allowed editors to contaminate hundreds of articles with commercialised content dressed up as ordinary fair content submitted by genuine Wikivoyagers is sickening.


 * You're right, there should be a proposal at Don't tout. However, I should probably take some time to think about this rationally, when in a less indignant and recriminatory mood, which doesn't help anyone. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Ikan: I have no idea. I am just very confused because I often see you (Ikan) reverting even the tiniest touting attempt but suddenly this listing does supposedly not fall under this rule, even though you agree on the "well-known for" phrase. I am clearly against touting, and yeah, maybe everything you mentioned before should be reconsidered – commercial companies editing on WV, wtf? It is argued so often to stick to the rules here, but then I feel some decision are still made to certain people's liking, and by this frustrating other editors. Maybe a more genuine and objective flexibility on WV policies is the solution. Yes, maybe keep the companies here, but also do not punish every well-meant but slightly out of line thought and change. It is difficult to phrase but this also relates to the discussion there was in the Pub when one junior editor was angry about the arbitrary maps added by some senior members. I feel that all this does not help but weaken WV. One cannot run a system that is ruled by the punitive opinion of seniors onto juniors they depend on. Ceever (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think I revert for "the tiniest touting attempt", but I also distinguish between a quick revert and the deletion of a listing that's been here for some time. Maybe I shouldn't. But the main point I'm making is that having a standard of deleting based on the user, rather than the content, is a huge can of worms. But yes, by all means open a discussion on the policy page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I am drafting a post intended to open a policy discussion. It's turning out quite long, but I am keen to address your concerns, Ikan Kekek, as I share them. Anyway, it should be up for review and comments tomorrow. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it is harmful to exclude any one group from editing here, even if it is professionals adding their own listings, companies and whatnot. Few of our articles suffer from too many listings, and if they do, we may still remove some listings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I tend to detout listings I see in "Recent changes" if there are few if any listings in the section and the listing, though touty, looks reasonably salvageable, but I have a bias toward reverting immediately when there are already lots of listings. It has to do with what I think is a good use of my (and our) time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Name change to Ram Allah
Hey, Israel4Eva here. I think we should change the name of the article to Ram Allah. It will help with pronounciation, as the town is pronounced RAM-AL-LAH and not RA-MA-LA. Israel4Eva (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the criterion for Naming conventions is that we use the spelling that's most often used in English, which I think very clearly would be Ramallah. You can specify the pronunciation in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)