Talk:Puerto Escondido

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I am attempting to obtain consensus for including vacation rentals in the sleep section of the Puerto Escondido page. I added our listing to WikiTravel in February 2007 and it remained there, without incident for almost 2 years until it was removed in December 2009. I was unaware of its removal until March of 2011 and assumed a competitor had removed the listing so I added it back only to find it immediately removed. I was unaware at the time of a wikivoyage policy regarding vacation rental listings. After review, I feel that our listing does not violate the terms and would like to re-include the listing on the page according to the conditions set forth on the policy page.

  • The listing appears to meet the criteria found on the policy page:
"exception to this rule is for locations where rental properties are a common form of travel accommodation"
  • I have added the listing back to the page and followed this directive:
Rental agency listings must be placed into a separate sub-section of the article's "Sleep" section.
  • Our physical and mail address, phone and email address is displayed and in compliance with:
Agency listings must include a local address with a phone number that specifies the physical address at the destination
  • Our listings are available for less than a week up to long term multi year availability.
Apartments or cabins must be available for rentals of one week or less

Rentals in Puerto Escondido are a common, if not primary, form of accommodation and vacationers enjoy the amenities and privacy that come with a rental such as a private kitchen, swimming pool, personal chef, etc.,. We do not only offer small apartments but properties that accommodate up to 25 guests. Our listing adds value for visitors considering this destination for travel.

I think the listing is fine, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:19, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
This recent edit seems exceedingly spammy to me - I'd suggest that if further similar edits occur that this real estate company's listing be removed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:21, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
An example of something exceedingly spammy is Agama Yoga Mexico. They are not even located in Puerto Escondido. They are in Mazunte which has it's own wiki travel page. And if you look at that page, THEN you get an idea of something that is "exceedingly spammy." Also, check the history for Puerto Escondido Oasis on this page. The link was there for a long time. Why did it all of a sudden get removed? There seems to be no consistency regarding what should get a link and what should not. Why is there a link to Odyboards and Guadua? Our site has been built not only for rentals and sales but also to be a useful resource for visitors which, unlike most other websites, is updated and kept current when restaurants move or go out of business. For example, we host a page for the restaurant Pascale's as well as a Surf instructor who has a surf school. There's more to do than what is in the To Do section - such as fishing - for which we also host a page for the top rated local fisherman. All of these resources would be useful and valuable additions to this page. I'd suggest that you think more carefully about your reasoning, do your homework a little more thoroughly and develop a sense of consistency before acting so hastily. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)
The Agama link has been removed. To your point about "consistency", whenever you edit a page the final bullet point above the submit button reads as follows: "Wikivoyage has strong guidelines on links to external web sites. Links to booking engines, hotel and restaurant aggregator sites, or other third-party sites will be deleted." You may also want to have a look at Project:Don't tout which stresses "Similarly, don't add more than one link to a place, neither on one page nor on different pages. There is never a reason to do so, and will mark your contributions as advertising spam in the eyes of other editors." Thanks! -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:23, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

Listing of travel agents and rental property bookers[edit]

The listing below was moved across here on 11 may 2011 for appropriate discussion and consideration and a blind note was put in the article seeking no further listing there without prior discussion here.

  • Please also see Consistent treatment of links as it contains comments from the IP responsible for listing Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals and some associated edits. -- (WT-en) felix 00:26, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
    • Please read the discussion page again. Apparently you missed that I raised it as a discussion already, gained consensus, no one objected or deleted it until you did. I have undone your edits which removed it. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) (Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals)
IP (Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals), possibly you need to read the entire thing again yourself and if you want this listing back in the article go ahead and remove all remaining embellishments. Please do not relist something in the article that has been removed from the article for discussion prior to that content being reviewed. Also please sign your notes here using ~~~~ at the end so it is clear who you are without having to go digging through the edit history to check. Thank you--(WT-en) felix 16:38, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
Felix- please explain and articulate what you mean. What 'embellishments'? What gives you the right to remove it from the article when I had already posted it for discussion/consensus, gained it, put the link back and it was on the page, undisturbed for 10 days until you came along and decided to be the sheriff? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) (talkcontribs) (Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals)
I suspect the issue is the "gained consensus" statement - there wasn't any broad agreement to include rental listings. My primary misgiving is that if such businesses are indeed "a common, if not primary, form of accommodation" for visitors then there should be multiple reputable agencies to list, but currently there is just the one. Provided the article includes a list of 3-5 major agencies, with good descriptions that would allow a traveler to choose between them, I would not be opposed this section being present. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:37, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
I agree with Ryan's points. Here's the reply I was trying to post when his got posted:
There are several issues here. (1) I don't think you can claim one comment by one person constitutes a consensus. (2) I think Felix is talking about generic promotional terms like "luxurious splendor" - see Project:Words to avoid. (3) Just taking the listing below out of context (i.e., without prejudice to other listings), I would consider it pretty OK but would want you to give an upper limit to price. (4) I don't think that my opinion is conclusive, either. A consensus means just that. So, considering that the purpose of Wikivoyage is to aid travelers - Project:The traveller comes first - and not to promote anyone's business, it's probably best to wait a bit longer and discuss things further. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 18:43, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
Really I was more referring to what was the remaining promotional tone in the Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals listing detail, in particular; "Features the largest selection of apartments, condos and beach front homes for rent across all categories" and "from economy to luxurious splendor". However I note that the contributor has also somewhat embellished the responses made in regard to consensus having been achieved, though I assume that is probably driven more by optimism and mis-understanding than anything of a more nefarious nature. Frankly I think the problem here is more one of an enthusiastic local business person not paying enough attention to the listing requirements of Wikivoyage and then becoming belligerent and impatient when they do not quickly get their way, it is not exactly unheard of here and we are all quite familiar with this sort of behaviour. Over all I suggest that the contributor is most likely confused but contributing in good faith at least from their own POV. I am also entirely in agreement with the commentary made by both Ryan and Ikan Kekek above. -- (WT-en) felix 11:46, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Proposed vote on listing of rental property bookers[edit]

I have detailed a history of the previous, current and proposed versions of the listings concerned. I must also make note at this point that it is not appropriate to delete unused listing fields from the <listing>string as has been done in the Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals listing. This only complicates and slows down future edits, especially for inexperienced contributors, Please just don't do it!

Article content-Rental properties[edit]

Previous content, prior to revision by User:(WT-en) Wrh2 on 14:54, 29 April 2011 and User:(WT-en) Felix505 on 05:56, 5 May 2011:

===Rental properties===

Current (removed to Discussion page) version

Current Recommended version

===Rental properties===

  • Support, a section for holiday rentals and the listing of Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals in that section if that sub-section is to be established. The assertion by the contributor appears reasonably valid in that there is vacation rental activity in this area and that such services are most likely sought out by visitors to the area. It would also be appropriate to see some other suppliers listed if a Rental properties section is to be established, rather than it being the sole domain of one supplier. The proviso should remain that the listing stays on the Discussion page until that clarification is made. Generally we do not support the listing of such endeavours unless this can be conclusively shown. Essentially on this I share the view that Ryan expressed above and I believe the onus is upon the contributor/provider to show this if they wish to list that service here. -- (WT-en) felix 11:46, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Email address removed from proposed Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals listing upon request by -- (WT-en) felix 13:07, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Article content-Surfing[edit]

Previous content-Odyboards Surf Shop & Factory, prior to revision by User:(WT-en) Felix505 on 05:56, 5 May 2011

  • Odyboards Surf Shop & Factory The largest selection of new and used surfboards and accessories in Puerto Escondido. Ask for Ody, he's a super friendly guy that can handshape you a wicked custom epoxy surfboard.

Current Recommended version-Odyboards Surf Shop & Factory, Content edited by User:(WT-en) Felix505 in and article wide general revision on 05:56, 5 May 201, that removed front linking. The listing was later re-formatted to standard <Buy> listing format and updated into article on 12 may 2011.

  • Support, if this is the listing the contributor is referring to then I cannot see any conflict with WT policies in listing now the front linking has been removed. -- (WT-en) felix 11:46, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Article content - Pascale Restaurant in Eat section[edit]

Previous content, prior to revision by User:(WT-en) Felix505 on 05:56, 5 May 2011

  • Pascale, located at Playa Principal (just off Adoquin) is the best restaurant in the area. The French cuisine is given an incredible lift by the extreme freshness of the seafood. An amazing setting, where the seating pours out onto the sand, and a few small changes in the decor make this place amazing. The service is excellent but the food even more so. Try the paella with lobster.

Recommended content

Content was edited by User:(WT-en) Felix505 in an article wide general revision on 05:56, 5 May 2011. Currently the version below is in article and it is proposed to leave it in the current form as it has been recently de-touted and appears to have no direct conflicts with any other listings made or proposed by Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals. It would be beneficial if a full address was supplied (if it has one), and a phone number.


  • Support, but only if the business concerned is truly not directly connected with the other and with an undertaking not to tout it up again and the contributor supplies some information about where they are and how to contact them, surely they have an address and telephone number. -- (WT-en) felix 11:46, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Article content-Gift shop[edit]

Previous content, prior to revision by User:(WT-en) Felix505 on 05:56, 5 May 2011

  • Puerto Escondido Oasis on the Adoquín pedestrian mall is a gift shop that offers gifts, clothing as well as local and imported home furnishings and accessories.

Recommended content

Content was edited by User:(WT-en) Felix505 in an article wide general revision on 05:56, 5 May 2011. Currently the version below is in article and it is proposed to leave it in the current form as it has been recently de-touted and the front linked external link to the travel and vacation rental agency has been removed. It would be suitable though to use the <buy> listing format as below and for an address and phone number to be applied.

  • Puerto Escondido Oasis, Adoquín pedestrian mall. Gift shop with, clothing, local and imported home furnishings and accessories.
  • Support, listing at this time but with some reservations. Whilst the Vacation Rentals listing is not present there is no issue at all as the front linked external link to the travel and vacation rental agency is gone now. The Gift Shop detail may be of usefulness to the traveller. However if the Vacation Rentals listing goes back in it becomes rather borderline allowing two listings as the business activities are clearly symbiotic and very closely related in both promotion and presence. There are many quite serious and multi faceted enterprises that only get one listing when they supply a range of services such as accommodation, restaurants, function facilities, bars, nightclubs, health clubs, gyms, golf courses and spas as either one enterprise or group of enterprises and they only get one listing to cover the whole lot of them. I am a little doubtful as to the appropriateness of making an exception here as the gift shop enterprise could be included as an append to the rentals listing.-- (WT-en) felix 13:00, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Email address removed from proposed Puerto Escondido Oasis listing upon request by -- (WT-en) felix 13:07, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

The above suggestions and recommended listings are made with the very strong proviso that Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals and any persons associated with that enterprise must entirely comply with standard Wikivoyage policies and guidelines and make an undertaking to continue to respect those policies and guidelines as time goes by. It must be understood that there is no right to list here on WT. The guiding principal of Wikivoyage is that all content must be in the interests and to the clear potential benefit of the traveller. There is no undertaking nor any intent to assist in any business endeavours by way of promotion or other provision unless it is clearly in the benefit of the traveller. It is envisioned that having read and understood the conditions under which a listing may placed into an article that the contributor will then not give rise to any further issues similar to the current one. Current and prior edits by this contributor have not been compliant and there is some resistance and belligerency being displayed by that contributor. If this continues it is unlikely that any further listing or contributions by that person or persons will be appropriate to this article. Constructive contributions are encouraged here and it is hoped that this contributor/s representing Puerto Escondido Real Estate & Vacation Rentals may feel sufficiently motivated to read the appropriate WT policies and guidelines and contribute further to this article in a constructive manner only. If so made and with good intent then appropriate contributions to the Puerto Escondido are certainly most welcome. The personal slights against me made by this contributor have been addressed on my talk page where they were made and I see no reason for them to be discussed in any detail here on the article Talk page. -- (WT-en) felix 11:46, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

You want input, so my input is that I'm fine with all of this. But that shouldn't be surprising because I was OK with the vacation rental listing in the first place. I think the only real problem with the very positive remarks about the businesses in the original phrasing of the listings is that the owner, him-/herself was the one characterizing them, and that's what made it touty. If it were a regular customer making the same statements, it would be fine. And this goes to the heart of why we have guidelines about touting here: We generally have no way of knowing whether someone raving about a place is self-interested or just a fan. So I think your edits improve the tone of the listings, though I would further edit a few little things (dining instead of "dinning," etc.). (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:16, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
1. I don't see where I have been belligerent. Frustrated and confused by some of the policies maybe. But belligerence is not my intention. Please accept my apologies, however, for any perceived offense. 2. I was unfamiliar with what was meant by touting. I see now what is meant by that as far as "largest" and "luxurious splendor". It was an effort to be descriptive in that we have inexpensive and affordable as well as high end luxury. I have no objections to 'toning' down the language. 3. The email address listed is incorrectly spelled and I would prefer to keep the email address off of the internet to prevent email spammers from harvesting it. 4. How long does the 'consensus' process go on. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month? No one commented for 10 days and this may be an article with little traffic or interest. Sounds like the process is a little subjective. That said, I think it's clear that the way you have updated the listing now adheres to the WT policies. So where do we go from here? When does the link get restored? Who decides this? 14:22, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
We're having the discussion here. One thing about any Wiki site is that anyone can be an editor. I can see why that would be frustrating for you, but Felix is endeavoring to get a wider consensus than one comment. If there is a clear consensus in favor of your listings, it will be cited and your listings will be restored if someone else decides to delete them after the fact. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:48, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
To Ikan, Felix, Ryan and Claus. This conversation seems to be going nowhere because no one is participating. So in addition to my question above about how long, I now question, how many people is needed for a consensus? Claus was fine with it. Ikan was always fine with it. Felix made changes to the touting and formatting to make the listing adhere to the guidelines. Ryan is ok with it except that he is extrapolating and drawing conclusions about the policy. Yes, it is a common form of accommodation. Just because it's common doesn't mean there are going to be multiple agencies. Do you know the population of the town? The geographic size? How many visitors a year do you think visit there? Have you searched to find other agencies? Any you find are poor forms of imitation that copy our material, trade dress as well as scour our website to poach our clients so that they will then have the same listings as us. I can provide evidence of each one of these statements. My point is that any other sites you find mostly likely have entirely duplicate (as well as duplicitous) content so I am not sure how helpful that will be to visitors. 16:21, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Your points seem valid to me. Felix and Ryan, your take on this? Can the listings be put back up? I think we have a cooperative businessperson here and should give him/her a break and police something else that needs it more. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:33, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
I'm fine with restoring the listing, but to the point that "Any you find are poor forms of imitation that copy our material", this is one of the primary reasons why Wikivoyage does not generally include rental agency listings in articles. I can guarantee you that in the near future your competitors will all add listings to this article, and having let one agency be listed there is currently no fair way to prevent others. If you've got suggestions as to how Wikivoyage can avoid becoming an ad brochure for questionable businesses the input would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:41, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Thanks Ikan. I had a good feeling about you from the first words of yours here. Ryan I didn't say that to prevent imitators from listing here. I'm fine with that. I was more trying to point out that the town is small and prior to us there was nothing decent online. And like you said there's scant else to currently find, so. 20:18, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

I agree, this person has obviously made an effort to understand WT policies and guidelines now and as Ikan Kekek suggested there are certainly far greater and in some cases habitual transgressors here (on WT) to deal with. However it does present a couple of policy dilemmas. If we go ahead and put them in, as per the proposed listing content above, someone else may just come along and revert them on policy lines at some later time unless this has some pretty clear determinations made on it. If that happens it is going to leave the person listing here feeling a little perplexed. Ryan has also made a very good point and it is one I share a concern about. If we allow this rental booker on the page them others may follow and they may then turn this article into the same ongoing battlefield that some other articles have become with ongoing policy breaches, competitor deletions, hijackings and similar. The lister has already eluded to some issues there with competitors and this is not uncommon. The business is not actually being entirely excluded from the article. The gift shop and designer homewares business are in there, just minus the previous external link to the booking agency and travel service, as it had an external links policy problem in addition to the easily remedied front linking issue.
Maybe the gift shop listing could mention that it is associated with a travel and rental booking service, but without the problematic external link. Something like: Shares the premises with a travel service and vacation rental booking agency. The person concerned has declined an email listing as they want to avoid the attendant issues and they have used an image to display their email address on their own website for that reason. The email address, due to its naming the agency in the address kind of hinted to that association by default but they do not want to list an email address. Maybe their phone number being included as per my revision above, plus a mention of the association with the travel service and booking agency is going to help if they cannot list the link due to External links policies.
I did put this issue up on Travellers' pub hoping for some other input but no one else has expressed an interest to date. I did have a look around the area and the competitors websites early on. The local market seems pretty standard in terms of property listings, promotion and general style. The person listing here is just better presented, has a better designed and resourced website and appears to be more readily identified than some of the vacation rental bookers are elsewhere. For now I have updated the listing
* <buy name="Puerto Escondido Oasis" alt="" address="Adoquín pedestrian mall" directions="" phone="+52 954 582 3130" email="" fax="" url="" hours="" price="">Gifts and clothing from Thailand, Indonesia and Mexico. Local and imported home furnishings and accessories.</buy> as per the proposal above as no one seems to have any issues with that in that form. The rest still appears to be short of consensus at this time. I have been travelling and will come back to this again soon. -- (WT-en) felix 11:33, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Begging your pardon, I think you're worrying too much about issues that are not currently a problem here. Disallowing a listing because of the possibility of others posting listings that are more problematic at some point in the future strikes me as hard to understand. Shouldn't we take everything on a case-by-case basis? I agree that a phone number, if not an email, is needed, but assuming that it's provided, can we please drop this case? I think you do a lot of wonderful work - especially all the "grunt work" you do in inserting or reinserting Wikivoyage formats and styles for listings - but in this case, I think you're being overzealous. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 13:34, 19 May 2011 (EDT)
Ikan Kekek, I did rewrite the listings and state that I supported them going back into the article several days ago. However I cannot disagree with Ryans comments as stated above. Do bear in mind that this is not just about this listing alone. It is also about supporting the establishment of a rentals section in this article. BTY, Thank you for the kind comments on the 'grunt' work.
However Ryan has apparently supported it with reservations and I supported it days ago, with similar reservations and Ikan Kekek appears to support so I am going to put (the edited version) of the vacation rental listing back in and in doing so establish a rentals section. It has been sitting on the WT pub for a while now without other comments, and here so I assume there is a consensus, albeit with reservations. -- (WT-en) felix 11:45, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Puerto Escondido[edit]

Swept in from the Traveller's pub[edit]

Puerto Escondido—Proposed vote on listing rental property bookers
Hi all, could some experienced editors please have a look over the outline of edit/listing content for several listings in the Puerto Escondido article and either give an opinion or a vote on the appropriateness of these listings. The listing contributor is a business operator and although not new to WT it appears their experience of the policies, guidelines and MoS have been pretty much limited to a listing established in the article a long time ago. Recent activity has involved re-establishing their previously deleted listing and adding 3 more resulting in what appears to have been some unintentional non-WT MoS appropriate outcomes. They then got a bit upset and became a little belligerent when things started getting deleted and edited. Essentially the issues were some mild listing touting language, front linking, multiple listing and cross (front) linking a gift shop enterprise to a (shared) URL with a travel agent and vacation rental service provider operated by the same business entity. As listing an external link to a travel agency service is not permitted and the listing of a rental booker requires consensus and establishment of an appropriate section I accordingly de-linked the gift shop from the travel agent vacation booker. I de-frontlinked another listing by the same contributor, de-touted a restaurant and a surf shop listed by the same contributor and then removed the vacation rental listing to the discussion page, de-touted it and it remains there awaiting a consensus vote or similar decision as it requires a Rentals section to be established in the article. We also need to decide whether it is appropriate for this business operator to multiple list with the gift shop and the associated travel agency and rental booker. (nb; I do not recall them actually mentioning the travel agency in the article, however the URL points to a travel agent and vacation booker). Many multiple activity/services providers are denied a multiple listing where they have a range of defined yet quite separate services and undertakings working in synergy. A large resort or entertainment complex being an example. They normally only get to list once despite having many things going on. I personally see the restaurant and the surf shop as being separate businesses and I suspect this person is looking after IT related things for them rather than it being a 'shared' enterprise. The Travel service, gift shop, design services and rentals agency are all under the one roof and clearly directly associated. I would appreciate some input and hopefully some sort of consensus vote on this so it has come closure for both the contributor and the article.

The contributor has slowly come to an understanding of what is going on and I think now understands that the process is non-adversarial and that a positive determination will actually serve to assist in protecting their listing/s and a negative one will clarify that the listing is not appropriate. They have also now expressed an understanding of the nature of promotional language and the WT Don't tout policy. Thanks -- (WT-en) felix 12:23, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

Maybe someone else would like to look this over and give an opinion.-- (WT-en) felix 11:40, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Sunset above La Punta - Add to map?[edit]

Hi Wikivoyagers. I have added watching the sunset above La Punta in the 'See' section after doing it the other day. I hope it ok. Also, can we add it to the map? Cheers, --Justvagabonding (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead and add it to the map. Thanks for adding it to 'See' – I wish I'd known about that spot when I visited last year! – StellarD (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)