Talk:Tofino

Tofino, Long Beach and Pacific Rim NP

So the Tofino article currently covers both Tofino and the Long Beach section of Pacific Rim National Park, and I wonder if it should? Long Beach could be a destination in its own right (it seems to meet the definition of what an article is), or it could be included in the Pacific Rim NP guide. Pros and cons I see are:

1. Include Long Beach in Tofino guide Pros - Long Beach is a common destination on trips to Tofino, so it would be one less guide a traveller would have to print Cons - not consistent with our hierarchy or normal article standards -- Long Beach is part of Pacific Rim NP, not Tofino, so it would be more difficult to make a complete Pacific Rim NP guide if Long Beach is included in the Tofino guide

2. Include in Pacific Rim National Park guide Pros - Consistent with our hierarchy since Long Beach is part of the park. Cons - Probably doesn't put the traveller first since Long Beach isn't connected to the rest of the park. Almost everyone travelling to Tofino will pass through Long Beach, but very few of those travellers will go to the other parts of Pacific Rim NP.

3. Create a Pacific Rim National Park - Long Beach Unit guide Pros - Compromise that can still respect the hierarchy and help the traveller. It would create a focused Long Beach article that is relevant to people travelling to Tofino/Ucluelet, but could also be linked to from the the main body of the Pacific Rim NP guide. Cons - Creates two articles where there could be one (i.e., someone looking to cover all of Pacific Rim NP would have to print two articles instead of one)

I prefer option 3, but would like to hear what others think or any other ideas people might have. - (WT-en) Shaund 00:47, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

Vacation rental listings

I would delete all but Tofino Vacation Rentals, whose listing includes an address. I believe it's a pretty hard-and-fast rule that "Sleep" listings without a physical address are deleted. The content of the apartment listing policy may be instructive in this situation. Please comment on whether you agree or disagree with deleting all listings with no physical address. If no-one comments, I will plunge forward and make the deletions within one to a few days. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I prematurely made an edit without posting a coherent editing summary (the summary is simply the characters my glass hit on its way to the "Enter" key on my keyboard; fortunately, the glass was empty). I deleted all accommodation listings that had neither an address nor rates listed. The next steps would be to delete all listings with no address and listings without listed rates. Please, if you know the addresses or rates at the listed establishments, insert them as soon as you reasonably can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the rush? The policy says if accommodation listings need to be pruned (i.e., more than nine) then look for listings that omit price and/or location info. These aren't spam listings and the guide isn't being overrun by Sleep listings. I think we would be doing the traveller a disservice if the Sleep section was nearly empty because listings weren't 100% MoS compliant. -Shaundd (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Listings with neither address nor pricing info are more promotional than useful to travelers. And "as soon as you reasonably can" isn't a rush. As you can see, it took me about a month and a half to follow through with my initial plan to delete everything that had neither address nor rates listed, and what prompted me to do it was a new non-compliant listing. I hope you're not suggesting that those listings should be reinstated the way they were before I deleted them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, look at don't tout: "[...]listings without pricing information may be deleted.[...\]If prices vary, provide a price range (example: `$100-$200, varies by season')." Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with deleting the apartment rentals. I tried to find address and rate info for a couple of them last year when visiting Tofino, but couldn't come up with anything. It's the proposed phase two that I have an issue with.

I disagree that listings with neither address nor pricing are necessarily more promotional than useful. If the description is vague and full of flowery language, sure, but otherwise the listing is likely just incomplete. Promotional listings should be cut or reworked, but incomplete listings should be left so someone else can build on it (unless we have too many listings and need to prune). Having been to Tofino, most if not all of those hotels should be in our guide if it's going to be complete. And the listings themselves are mostly complete and generally not promotional (although the Pacific Sands one is pushing it). To remove the Wickaninnish Inn -- a very famous hotel and probably on many top 10 hotel lists in Canada -- just because no one has dug up its address yet seems silly and not the point of Don't tout. -Shaundd (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see that what you're saying is reasonable and based on specific knowledge of the place. I won't follow through with deleting listings that have at least either an address or rates listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)