text:
Talk:Palawan

Sleep listings
Sleep listings, as a rule, belong in city/town articles, not region articles. Unless there is a compelling reason to list them here, they should all be moved to the appropriate city article. I've copied below the ones I removed, in case anyone wants to save them by putting them in the right place.

 *  Tabuyobeachresort  website  http://www.tabuyobeachpalawan.com  Its a backpackers paradise,in the village of Caramay,between Puerto Princesa and Roxas. The resort has a few nice native style cottages for very affordeble price, only 500 peso ,or 9 euro a day. Its located on a white beach ans just besides a large mangroveforest The resort can arrange trips to the undergroundriver in Sabang or hiking to the Bataktribe.   Also islanhopping in Green Islandbay is possible e-mail tabuyobeach@yahoo.com phone 09-297955464
 * Busuanga Island Paradise, - 10 minutes east of Coron town. Wake up to the sound of Dimanyan River, a stone's throw away from your room. Enjoy the amazing views and hear the birds sing while enjoying your breakfast on your veranda. The rooms are located at the base of a small hill overlooking the swimming pool. Rooms are nicely decorated with A/C, a mini bar, TV, refrigerator and fan.
 * Located outside of town a 10 minute walk up the main road from Coron market. The rooms all surround a beautiful garden great for lounging around on less adventurous days. The staff can help you arrange things to do around the island.
 * Coral Bay Resort, on Popototan Island, a two-hour scenic motorized banca ride from Coron in Busuanga. The resort is situated near limestone cliffs, deserted islands, large pearl farms and in a marine conservation area. The four cottages are strewn along a white sandy beach with a private veranda. Coral Bay Resort offers you the peace and serenity of a superb island hide-away in Palawan.
 * This Palawan resort is your link to volcanic lakes, tropical jungles, caves, and some of the best preserved World War II wrecks in Asia. Take a short 10min banca ride from Coron town and you'll find a cozy resort sitting on a sheltered hillside..

 * Hotel Dolce Vita, 10 minutes away from Puerto Princesa airport. A delightful hotel set amidst a tropical garden with a beautiful waterfall swimming pool. All rooms have a unique design shape furnished with rattan in Italian style, the large canopy beds are luxurious and comfortable. The shower is in a hidden cave with a pedestal lavatory and bidet made of ceramic. All rooms have a private terrace.

 * Evergreen Diving Resort, on Popototan Island, a two-hour ride from Coron in Busuanga. The guesthouses & cottages are built on stilts by hand using only local natural woods. Guesthouses consist of 4 simple but nicely furnished double room with showers and the cottages are spacious with on suite bathroom with hot water shower and a large veranda with sea view. Specializes in diving holidays.

 * Flower Island is off the coast of Taytay, Sandoval in Northeastern Palawan.With eight huts, each with its own unique charm, and an isolated location, it's the perfect island getaway.

The room rates starts with $16(single accommodation, one bed) to $19 (bigger room, bigger bed) an additional bed would cost you approximately $4. The travel time from the airport ranges to five or fifteen minutes, two or three minutes if your coming from the port. You can also visit their website at http://www.lolaitang.com/, you can make your reservation at lolaitang@yahoo.com. Your stay here would be received with a warm reception.
 * Sangat Island Reserve, 63-920-954-4328, e-mail: andy@sangat.com.ph, . An eco resort situated in the northern part of the Calamian Islands in the province of Palawan. The resort has ten private cottages built in an indigenous style using native materials. The cottages offer exquisite views over the beach and Bay of Coron. Full decks on the cottages provide lovely views of the horizon in the day and the stars at night
 * LolaItang Pension House and Filipino Restaurant, If you are looking for a low budget but recreative and agreeable stay, then this pension house is just for you. The management can arrange a travel tour, which will expose you to the different beauties that mystify and surrounds Palawan.

 *  Web site : http://www.puertoprincesahotel.com . Total luxury, quiet prices, nestled in a garden . A warm welcome awaits you amidst a colorful array of flowering hibiscus; relax with a glass of wine or a cup of coffee under the shade of a mango tree. Hibiscus Garden Inn is a boutique hotel with 14 spacious rooms designed for total comfort. Possibely the best available prices in Puerto Princesa for the quality and services offered.

 *  Web site : http://www.puertoprincesaphilippines.com/

 * A nice restaurant near the port with quiet fan and ac rooms starting at 700 pesos as of 2009. Authentic Italian restaurant with friendly staff. Rooms good value for price.
 * A peaceful and safe haven for backpackers, honeymooners. Perfect for team building. Rooms, foods, bevarages are reasonably priced (Room rates starts at $5) Offers Internet & Computer services. Palawan

Geographic hierarchy inconsistencies
Which region of the Philippines is Palawan truly in? At File:Map_of_Philippines.png, it clearly is shaded blue meaning the Visayas region. Yet the IsPartOf template lists it in " Luzon > Mimaropa " which is the green colour. The Luzon article doesn't even have Palawan in its map. There are some clear issues here, but I have no knowledge of the Philippines so don't know which is right. Either the map is wrong, or the templates and hierarchy is wrong. As a temporary measure, I've added Palawan to both region articles. JamesA  >talk 08:30, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

 * It's a part of Luzon, the "pa" in "Mimaropa" stands for Palawan. The map should be updated to reflect the change. --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Technically (and temporarily, now there is a different Philippines president), Gobetrotter, you are correct.
 * But, by language(s), culture and recent settlement patterns Palawan (and especially South and Central) has few connections with Luzon, but many with the Visayas.
 * Because it lies West of a significant biosphere division boundary and because some areas of native forest still remain, Palawan really should be a separate region. If that is impossible, it should not be included in the (mainly) Tagalog speaking mega-region of Luzon! -- (WV-en) A l i c e ✉ 13:44, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

 * Now I understand. Mimaropa is that whole group of islands off to the west. I think a separate region for them would be the best option. There's no harm done; the Philippines only has 3 regions as it stands. JamesA  >talk 13:55, 29 September 2012 (CEST)
 * Nice to meet you, James! Mimaropa is purely a Manila bureaucrat's construction and not a natural (or tourist oreiented) division. Ask someone (other than a politico) in Puerta Princessa where (or even what) Mimaropa is and they will probably be non-plussed. The local Palawan politicos voted for retaining Mimaropa (and Palawan's membership of it) largely so that they could continue to claim (shopping) trips to Manila (rather than Cebu) on their bloated expense accounts for "good governance" reasons.-- (WV-en) A l i c e ✉ 15:42, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

 * Nice to meet you too! Welcome to Wikitravel, Alice! :) Well, that sounds like an interesting situation in the Philippines. Feel free to change it to how you think the traveller will benefit most, and I can modify the map with different colouring/a new region if you want me to. JamesA  >talk 16:42, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

 * It's great that you have those map-making skills, James.
 * I think I may have noticed you on Wikitravel (RIP!) where I posted under the user name of "Singapore.Alice"
 * I think we probably need some more people knowledgeable about the Philippines to comment before we do anything drastic. (Before I got promotion, I used to fly from Singapore to Cebu and Davao five times a week and I've spent some fantastic holdays in Palawan, but I only have a smattering of Cebuano, Tagalog and Ilongo - however I have discussed my posts with over a score of Filipinas. That said, the Filipino way is not to disagree with somebody to their face - an "Asian" trait we seem to be losing at a rapid rate in Singapore...) -- (WV-en) A l i c e ✉ 18:49, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

 * We now have four regions for the Philippines: Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, plus Palawan treated as none-of-the-above. Discussion leading to this decision is at Talk:Philippines. Pashley (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 * There is now also an article for Mimaropa, but as an extra-hierarchical region not the breadcrumb-parent of Palawan. Pashley (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning needed?
Warnings issued by Philippine military & US, UK embassies. Pashley (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Warning box added. Pashley (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palawan


text:
Talk:Paleochora

I've just changed the spelling from Paleohora to PALEOCHORA. The original spelling as shown (without the C) is never seen in Crete and doesn't make sense in Greek. Mick82.44.53.209

Palaiochora
As there's a WikiPedia:Palaiochora page, if Wikivoyage uses a different name then there should probably be a redirect from it. ~ 203.144.143.4 22:45, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Listing moved here for discussion
I just moved this here:

Very nice rooms you can stay are Casaloma Rooms and Apartments http://casaloma.gr

In order to properly list this, all the procedures mentioned at Apt need to be followed. So, first of all, is it common for visitors to rent apartments at Paleochora for 1 week or less? If so, we could approve a listing, but it has to include an exact address for a physical office in Paleochora. Etc., per the link I gave above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Paleochora


text:
Talk:Palermo

"Sleep" section needs an objective overhaul... it's full of advertising

Safety
(Sorry, I'm not able to write in english) Gli avvisi sulla sicurezza sono IMHO eccessivi. Palermo, e la Sicilia in generale hanno indici di criminalità diffusa inferiori alla media italiana (cfr. qui e qui). Sono ancora elevati, certamente, gli indici di criminalità organizzata, ma è rilevante la costante diminuzione degli omicidi e gli arresti dei capimafia, oltre alle azioni di lotta al pizzo. --(WT-en) Dedda71 15:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Monreale
I get more and more confused. Why is Monreale redirected here? It is a bus ride from Palermo and it is certainly possible to sleep there? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Davidx (talk • contribs)

 * I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps try creating a valid article for Monreale by replacing the redirection template with a proper small city template, and then merging the existing content about the town in this article to the newly created one. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:20, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Very nice panorama, but I vote for leaving the current, less obvious one. Jjtkk (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for finding this picture. The same here, I like the panorama, but prefer the existing banner, simply because it is rather unusual. Danapit (talk) 10:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I prefer the panorama. The picture of fish and seafood is fun, but the panorama shows more what the city is, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palermo


text:
Talk:Palestinian territories

Political edits
Along with Israel this article is a magnet for political edits. The official policies here are that the traveller comes first and we try to be fair. This is a travel wiki, so please concentrate on information that is important to travelers, and make all efforts to avoid edits which take sides in the politics of the region - there are links to Wikipedia where interested users can read about the history of the conflict. Note that editors and users here are not implying that the debate is unimportant, merely that it is in the interest of travelers to focus on travel information. As always anyone interested is encouraged to discuss on the relevant talk page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 17:16, 17 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Having been guilty of what some will inevitably regard as making political edits, the status is extra-ordinarily complex. The problem is that in this part of the world, the way outsiders and visitors view the situation has significant repercussions for people's lives.  Visitors not informed about the debate will not understand what they see on the ground.  You cannot visit without being political - either through what you do or what you don't do, what you know and what you don't know.  A potential solution would be to copy background/history from Wikipedia where the emphasis is on these more encyclopedic facts and to limit this page to supplementary travel guidance.  Similarly with the Jerusalem page. (WT-en) Henryr 07:02, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

 * Hey, I'm trying to re-organize so people can look at the political stuff if they want to, but we spend more time on why someone would want to go to the PA and what to do there. So I just dove in, but by all means, let's talk about how to do this.
 * LeptonMadness (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Your edits seemed fine to me. I also edited out the word "fled." My reasoning is that I never want there to be a debate about how many Palestinian refugees fled just because they were escaping a war zone, how many may have been told by someone to leave or else, etc. The point is, they were war refugees are were stuck outside of Israel when the war ended. And that's probably as much as we need to say about how many Palestinians came to be refugees, given that this is a travel guide and not an in-depth history guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Your edits look good too. The less political detail and debate, the better. People need to know the basics - that they might have trouble with checkpoints, or that East Jerusalem's present and future status is complicated - but the main focus should be on all the amazing sites to see and things to do. If people are interested in the details, there's plenty of internet places to go for that.

EDIT - I've also started a "politics" section which we can fill with a paragraph of the essential things to know about the current situation so that they don't spill over into the other parts of the article, but I'm so not sure how to lay that one out so I'm just going to leave it for another brave soul. LeptonMadness (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It remains surprisingly empty and I'm not wholly convinced it's necessary in a travel article when so much is written on news websites about Middle Eastern politics... --118.93nzp (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Capital
An anonymous user changed the capital from Ramallah to East Jerusalem. I reverted without much thought given the level of attention this article gets, but thinking about it further, with the recent Hamas / Fatah split of the West Bank and Gaza I don't actually know what is considered the current capital. If there is another city that is now the de facto capital, or if there is no longer a true capital, please update the article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:38, 4 February 2008 (EST)

 * Ramallah is still the de facto capital, although the PA continues to claim that Jerusalem is/will be their real capital. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:54, 4 February 2008 (EST)

I edited it where it said it is necessary to respect Palestinians due to the Israeli occupation to due to the Arab-Israeli conflict, because there is no occupation. Do you consider it to be occupation in the U.S., because Native Americans don't have their own country? Is there an Australian occupation? How about Canadian? They act like it's some crime to establish our state, well the real crime was 6,000,000 of us being killed, and we need our own state if, godforbid, something like that ever happened again, so we would have somewhere to go. Arab-Israeli conflict is fine, occupation is not.

 * The nature of a wiki is that anyone can edit it, and every article that has any bearing on the Israeli-Palestinian situation gets tons of edits that slant it in either direction - it is impossible to keep up with all of them all the time, so cleanups like yours are appreciated. Project:Be fair describes the official policy on addressing divisive topics, but please understand that there will always be someone who edits an otherwise reasonable article to inject divisive views.  While we try to patrol for such edits, any help in correcting them is appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:37, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Regardless of what the person above thinks. The West Bank and Gaza are deemed under occupation by Israel by the world, also known as the international community or the UN. Deal with it! Even the Israeli government admits this. The situation in the Golan and E. Jer. the is different but again the international community does not recognize this as part of Israel! Take your political / nationalistic rants elsewhere. The object is being neutral here and the word occupation is a fact. I suggest you check the legal status of the area before you let your emotions get in the way...

 * Palestinian Authhority considers Ramallah, "temporary capital". East Jerusalem is an occupied territory according to United Nations (several General Assembly resolutions ask Israel to withdraw the territory).

 * The 6.000.000 figure is questioned by majority of historians today (i.e: Auschwitz plates in honour of dead people (not only Jews) has been decreased a couple of times). 6.000.000 figure appears in 1943 documents, also in post WW I documents. Finally, did Palestinians supported Nazism? what kind of argument is that? I don't want to be polemic with the 6 million figure because it deals nothing with Palestine.

 * "Occupation" is the accurate term according to United Nations and International Law, not my opinion, but Law. If someone feels offended by that term he should consider that they were the same United Nations who approved the establishment of Israel. Please put a little coherence. If we consider UN as to legitimate the creation of a new State (so we do recognize the State of Israel) we should apply the same UN criterion elsewhere and to make clear that Israel is not only occupying but, doing so, also violating a great number of UN resolutions (more than any other country). My claim is not POV for Palestinians nor for Israelis, but for the respect of International Law (the more perfect instrument humankind has to resolve conflicts in the moment I'm writing). I am in Jerusalem now to study the conflict, the base to do it should begin by studying the legal documents and not the suffering of Jews during WW II). I've found very interesting a travel guide to the holy sites edited by Palestinian Initiative to Responsible Tourism with the support of Christian networks in the Holy Land. I don't think Christians networks could be under suspicion of being pro-Palestinians, much less anti-Jewish. Please have a look to their Code of Conduct to see by yourselves how impartial it seems. Good vibes to Jews and Palestinians. ;-) —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 213.6.46.47 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 July 2010

 * The fact is though that Jerusalem remains the capital of Palestine and since there is no Palestinian state we can only regard the capital as that considered by the people to be their capital. Jerusalem is clearly the city identified by most, if not all, to be the capital. If this site wants to be apolitical, both Israel and the oPt articles should refer 'disputed' or some similar point. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 213.6.51.14 (talk • contribs)

 * It's clear that the capital is in dispute (and the article states this) but from a traveler's perspective the capital is not Jerusalem - Israel controls that city, and as I understand it the Palestinian authority does not have a significant presence there. A traveler looking for government offices will find them in Ramallah, and thus as a practical matter, since there isn't an internationally agreed-upon choice, that would seem (to me) like the correct city to use in a travel article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:27, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

 * Per WikiPedia:Ramallah, Ramallah is the "administrative capital". Would changing the language in this article to reflect that be sufficient? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:37, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

 * Yes, the use of the label administrative capital would be clearer. I understand your point about travelers and practicalities but Palestine is a political place and calling Ramallah the capital may alienate you.  When Israelis try to wipe Arabic names off the map, such distinctions become more important.  In any case, the article on Israel accepts Jerusalem as its capital although you mean West Jerusalem and many countries do not recognise this, placing embassies in Tel Aviv.
 * I favour Ryan's position. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Israeli settlements on the West Bank
There was a recent edit that added population percentages and other facts about Israeli settlers on the West Bank. The edit was reverted without comment. Some of the language in the edit could have been seen as inflammatory and presented a particular point of view unnecessary for a travel guide. However, Israeli settlements such as Efrat are indeed covered within the West Bank hierarchy, not Israel, so shouldn't the population figures include Israeli settlers, rather than ignoring them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, Yes.
 * I think that this version was more factually accurate and gave a better understanding for a visitor than the version that immediately succeeded it but, as we both know, we have to tiptoe around the facts for fear of inflaming controversy... --118.93.244.91 03:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Title
The title "Palestinian territories" sounds odd. Can it be titled "Palestine" please? I believe this name has been chosen because WP uses the same but WV is not an encyclopaedia. --Saqib (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this change. Most of the world community recognizes Palestine, and it is a better-sounding name. I think we should leave this discussion open for at least a week and give this discussion wider visibility, though, because we don't want people to suddenly object after the fact more than they will, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Other things being equal, brevity is good.
 * Unfortunately, in this case it is trumped by our usual practice of using the most common English name in general use. Personally I do hope that the currently occupied and fragmented (both physically and in their political allegiances) Palestinian territories do achieve some semblance of a working country - but I'm not holding my breath - and until they do, the current title is my weak preference. To me the acid test will be when I can visit "Palestine" without always having to beg the permission of an Israeli border guard first... --118.93.244.91 03:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that most tour operators call it "Palestine", so my weak support for that. By the way, Wikipedia has Palestine State of Palestine Palestinian territories. I see one hotel described as "best in Palestine". But if it is sensitive, I am OK with status quo as well. Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Saqib placed a speedy delete tag on Palestine in order to carry out the move, but since there's no clear consensus yet, only a few contributors to this discussion and the topic indeed is fairly political, I've removed it for now and will post a link on the RfC page to get some more eyes on it. I don't feel qualified to give a real opinion on the proposal to move and don't oppose it, I just think it was a bit too soon to move ahead. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose. It's simply unavoidable that we'll offend someone with our coverage of the Israel/Palestine mess. This is fundamentally a political question, and one of which is the lesser evil: offending ardent pro-Israel diehards or offending ardent pro-Palestine diehards. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other. In situations like this, my understanding of policy is that we default to reflecting, without taking a political stance, the objective reality on the ground. 118 is absolutely right here: other nations can make the purely symbolic political statement of officially recognizing Palestine till the cows come home, but if Palestine were currently an independent and sovereign nation in the full sense of the word, the Middle East would be a very different place. Meanwhile, the status quo seems to not have caused us too many problems thus far, and frankly, some might mistakenly construe the very act of changing the page's title from "Palestinian territories" to "Palestine" as a political statement on our part. Nicolas1981's point is well-taken, though, and in the interest of the traveller I think it would also be best to retain Palestine as a redirect to Palestinian territories. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose . Again, we want to avoid be seen as making political statements. Interestingly, (according to WP) the State of Palestine has "non-member observer state" status with the UN, which is the same as the Vatican (Listed by WV as just part of the city of Rome). On the other hand Switzerland had the same status for 50 years whilst being a fully independent European country at the same time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't we see things from a traveller point of view? Look at many of the controversial territorial disputes such as Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and Taiwan, we're using the name as they know commonly but still we never offended anyone. Did we? To me "Palestinian territories" sound a very political title and this is being very unfair to Palestine. Btw, how many editors on this wiki use term "Palestinian territories" when they either talk about Palestine or going to Palestine? I'm sure none then how the term "Palestinian territories" is workable for a traveller? --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is actually an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_of_Palestine#Proposed_merge_with_Palestinian_territories
 * (Actually the discussion is around naming the place 'Palestine', 'State of Palestine' or 'Palestinian territories')
 * I am not saying that consensus in WP should directly dictate WV content. That said, they have a lot more people and are basically arguing the same points that we are doing here. Why not let it play out on WP first rather than argue about it here? (Which I feel is going to be a painful exercise) Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I don't care greatly about this question of nomenclature, and if it is overly controversial, I'm fine with keeping the name as it is. The arguments that have been made in this thread have made sense to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 * This is still on the Requests for comment page. Since consensus to change wasn't apparently met, and the discussion is dormant for two months I will move to close this for now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused; there seem to be conflicting claims above. Ikan claims that "Most of the world community recognizes Palestine" but 118.93 says that "using the most common English name in general use" requires us to keep it at "Palestinian territories". Is it only English-speaking persons who don't recognize Palestine? Powers (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this is a confusion between diplomatic recognition (where most of the world would indeed recognise "Palestine") and varieties of English usage, where many native varieties of English would reserve "Palestine" for the historic British mandate and reserve "Palestinian Territories" for the currently illegally occupied areas. Parallels with "Malaya" and "Malaysia" ? --118.93nzp (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true I wasn't sure what meaning of "recognizes" Ikan intended, but either way I think my question stands... if most of the countries of the world have diplomatically recognized the state of Palestine (as, presumably "Palestine"), then might it not be fair to say that usage favors that as well? Powers (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant diplomatic recognition - not necessarily an embassy, but an official recognition that there is a state of Palestine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "Palestine" generally refers to the entire region comprising Israel, the West Bank, & Gaza. Also, the traveler comes first and "Palestinian territories" is the more commonly encountered term. While we don't exactly have an NPOV policy, most disputed regions come with a disclaimer that WV doesn't endorse claims of either side. In that case, "Palestinian territories" is also the most neutral term. It's like using "Taiwan" vs "Republic of China"...despite government preference for RoC, Taiwan is both common in English and the more neutral term. AHeneen (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument. To be fair, though, the Republic of China is recognized by few countries in the world, though many have relations at the "trade mission" level with Taiwan, which they officially consider a province of China. But that side argument aside, if you are correct that the name "Palestine" will confuse many readers into considering it to include Israel (or/and Jordan), and the phrase "Palestinian territories" will not, that's a good argument for maintaining the current name. One problem with it, though, is that places that are recognized by most of the world as nations almost never include the word "territories" in their names. Can you think of another? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek: Sorry for bringing it too late and I have no intention to restart this discussion as I can agree with some arguments raised last year, but anyway thought of letting you know if what do you think of State of Palestine? --Saqib (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little doubtful at this point. Functionally, the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, controlled by Hamas, are different entities, so which one is the State of Palestine? For the purposes of a traveler, I don't think they are really the same, as different governments have to give permission for entry. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. I was not aware of this. Then lets leave it as it is. But I thought that State of Palestine under Mahmoud Abbas govern and control both territories. I never been to Palestine so don't really know if who issue visa for which territory but if Hamas still govern or control Gaza Strip, then yes it make sense not not rename it to State of Palestine. --Saqib (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In theory, there's supposed to be a national unity government of both parts of Palestine (not counting Israel proper, which many Palestinians consider "Palestine of 1948"), but in practice, there is no unity between Hamas and al-Fatah, which are pretty hostile to each other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 * As I see it, the current title is the only correct one. As Ikan says, the West Bank & Gaza Strip are politically quite different, so it is not at all clear what "State of Palestine" might refer to. Also, neither is fully independent; both are partly controlled by Israel.
 * "Palestine" is correct as a historical term, but in much historical usage it includes all of what is now Israel. We should not take such a strong position (or in fact any position) here, though some Palestinians do and in English-language Saudi media the term "Israel" is never used; it is referred to only as "occupied Palestine". Pashley (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Coverage of East Jerusalem
As Wikivoyage recognizes all clearly-established de facto conditions (see, for example, our treatment of Crimea and Kashmir), East Jerusalem is by that standard (again: of clearly-established de facto control) simply part of an Israeli city, though this status is disputed by every or almost every other country and faces sometimes violent resistance from Palestinians. I have therefore removed all coverage of East Jerusalem as part of Palestine, to be consistent with Wikivoyage's worldwide policy on de facto conditions, and instead inserted a disclaimerbox. I hope everyone will understand that my action is not politically motivated and is not intended to express any view about the desirability of the current de facto situation continuing; instead, it's in the interest of benefitting travellers, who need Israeli entry stamps or visas and not Palestinian ones in order to visit any part of Jerusalem. If that situation ever changes, that will be the time to change the breadcrumb trail of the East Jerusalem article to Palestine, rather than Israel. And if Crimea ever reverts to Ukrainian control, etc., etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Intifada of the knives
I'm posting this message on Talk:Israel and Talk:Palestinian territories: Should there be a new warning about the rash of knifings and other attacks by young Palestinians on Israelis, and attacks by Israelis on Palestinians and also in some cases of mistaken identity, on non-Palestinians they have mistaken for terrorists? The danger seems greatest in Jerusalem, based on media reports, but attacks have also occurred elsewhere in Israel and on the West Bank. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Only linking to subarticles for get in and get around
The choice to only link to the subarticles for some sections doesn't seem in line with policy. I just reverted the deletion of the basic get around information (for a minute I thought it was the get in information). Country and large regions are bound to have some duplication with their subarticles. While the information in higher level articles can surely be more general, having no actual information in them would not make them useful on their own. For this article, I think some text for get in is also required. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Make this more of a disambiugation page
There is little that the West Bank and Gaza have in common these days and they are geographically separated anyway, maybe it'd be better to have this page more of a disambiguation page with the clearer details in the West Bank and Gaza Strip articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 * There may be some true pragmatism in this, but frankly you are opening us up for a whole deal of pain if you want to suggest that the West Bank and Gaza are seperate. Very few Palestinians themselves would support such a view, even if they disagree about who should be running things. I appreciate this is inconsistent with our consensus on subjects such as Crimea, but I would still support this being regarded as one country (or territory), albeit rather divided. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 * User:Ar2332 : Can you comment here in an ongoing discussion before making large changes to 'get in'? Thanks --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. Basically, I think it depends on the section. Some sections, like "Understand" and "Buy", are common to WB and Gaza and should be discussed here. Other sections, like "Get in" and "Get around", are entirely different for WB and Gaza. It would better to concentrate this info on the WB/Gaza pages to avoid duplication and misleading implications (i.e. getting around by bus - Gaza has no buses, so the PT article should not discuss buses without mentioning that it's WB-only). My bottom line: PT is close enough to a country that it needs a real page not just disambiguation, but detailed information that's specific to WB or Gaza should be on that page not the PT page. Ar2332 (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * That's true for many countries and large regions though, and this kind of information often differs per sub-region. Some duplication is normal on this level. It's fine to stick to the most general information in the country article and refer to the more detailed information in the subarticles, but I don't think it's okay to simply have no text and only a link. A reader wanting to get a general idea about a country or area should be able to get a basic understanding of the general means of transportation etc without having to read two more subpages. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 * How do we handle other "countries" (for lack of a better term) with non-contiguous territory? What for example would we have done had we existed during the time when Bangladesh was "East Pakistan" or in a hypothetical timeline where Quebec secedes and leaves Canada split in two? I'm not sure our coverage on Angola is detailed enough to take Cabinda into account and a similar thing likely applies for Kaliningrad Oblast, but I think we should see the issue from the practical standpoint that you simply cannot get from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank without either entering Israel or some other third country, and they are de facto governed by different entities (though what happens when Mahmoud Abbas dies or resigns is another can of worms entirely) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure; but why not let the get in section simply explain that, rather than reducing it to a link? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I think whatever does apply to both Gaza and the West Bank (btw should the name "Judea /Samaria" be mentioned and if so where) should be mentioned here and for everything else we should direct our readers' attention to the Gaza and West Bank articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The name "Judea and Samaria" is most relevant to the West Bank article, where it should be mentioned as the most common name given to the territory by inhabitants of Jewish settlements and their political supporters. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If we would only mention the information that is really relevant and correct for both, that would indeed leave us with a strange combination of an article and a disambiguation page. I don't particularly like that idea, but Hobbitschuster's point that the regions really are quite far apart is an important one. If we have to go down that road, I'd prefer a clear disambiguation and some overlapping information in the two articles over a half-way solution where we follow the article template but with half of the sections empty. I do however agree with Andrewssi2 that, to avoid political discussion, such a page would need to make clear that the two territories are considered as one political entity, and that we only separate the information for the benefit of travel purposes - like we do with overseas territories of Western countries, for example. I could imagine something of a relatively long intro, with links to the two region articles under it. Perhaps the best thing would be to set it up in a sandbox somewhere, and see what we can make of it and if that would be better than the current situation? JuliasTravels (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

More welcoming?
Re: this edit: the policy of this site is Be fair. If it's generally true that "Palestinians are...often more welcoming to foreign visitors than Israelis are," we should say so. Is it generally true? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I don't think we can get an objective answer to this question. Ar2332 (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 * We'd be looking for a fair answer, not an objective one. However, if that's impossible, that edit was good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palestinian territories


text:
Talk:Palisade

Comments
Palisade has a Mesa County Branch Library in Palisade. The address is 711 Iowa Street, and they do have WiFi. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 205.169.128.111 (talk • contribs)

 * Please plunge forward and edit the article itself! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:07, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Palisade


text:
Talk:Palma de Mallorca

Article says that "Personal drug possesion in Spain is legal". But according to http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5769EN.html "As with all drugs, cannabis-related offences, such as possession and use in public places, are punishable by administrative sanctions".

Alternative banner for this article?

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, very nice panorama. Jjtkk (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

An exceedingly weird sentence
What is supposed to be meant by this: "Later, Carlos III established a free trade pact with the Indies, which had a huge impact turning financials around in Palma."? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palma de Mallorca


text:
Talk:Palmer Lake

Internet speed at Speedtrap today as measured via speakeasy.net: 233kbps down / 253kbps up <>< (WT-en) tbc 17:53, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Palmer Lake


text:
Talk:Palm Islands

Is this necessary?
Do the Palm Islands really require their own separate article? The Dubai article isn't exactly overflowing with listings, and this article just seems like an excuse to do a promotional piece on the islands. I'm thinking this should be merged and redirected to the Dubai article. Any thoughts? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:46, 4 January 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Palm Islands


text:
Talk:Palmyra Atoll

The map included in this article is completely wrong. It appears to be an amalgamation of what the atoll looked like around 1913 with some cartographer's imagination. There is not now, nor has there ever been a large round island in what would today be the East Lagoon. Additionally, the northern and southern sides of the atoll were formed into large single islands by the military and there is a thin causeway running north to south across the lagoon.

title: Talk:Palmyra Atoll


text:
Talk:Palo Alto

Moved some non-Palo Alto restaurants to this page; these need to be put on their own city pages:

650-321-4080. Pricey but outstanding continental cuisine and a first rate wine cellar.
 * Chantilly II, 3001 El Camino Real, Redwood City (at Selby Lane in Atherton)

--(WT-en) Evan 13:45, 29 Mar 2004 (EST)

Actually, Stanford is not in Palo Alto, but rather in Stanford, CA. Perhaps it should read, "and borders Stanford University"?

 * In general Wikivoyage avoids government designations if they don't make sense, and it can be argued that splitting up Stanford University and Palo Alto simply because the government designates them as two separate places probably doesn't make much sense. Visitors who want to read about Stanford will also want to read about Palo Alto, so having them both in the same article seems like it makes the most sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:46, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Except for the fact that Menlo Park has a government, you could say the same thing about it, and Stanford has much more to interest a visitor. I will discuss this more in a new thread, below. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is high
Wikipedia says "Palo" in the context of "Palo Alto" means tall stick -- this is simply wrong. The word Palo has multiple meanings including stick (the most common), club, tree, and others. In the context of city names like "Palo Alto", "Dos Palos", or "Palos Verdes" it clearly means tree because "tall stick", "two sticks", and "green sticks" make far less sense than "tall tree", "two trees", and "green trees". -- (WT-en) Colin 20:27, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

 * I've reverted my revert, so the translation is now listed as "tall tree". As to Wikipedia smoking the dope, that's a matter for someone else to resolve. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:18, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

Steve Jobs' home
While a neat house, it holds little historical or current significance other than a celebrity lived there (e.g. such as the "Apple garage" in Los Altos or the site Jobs was born in SF). Even more so since his widow still primarily resides there it seems in poor taste to advertise it as a destination since in some cultures ringing the door would be quite acceptable. They were and are private people by American standards. Should we remove this "to see" item? Aerotheque (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That listing seems inappropriate to me as well. I don't think there is any official project policy that applies directly to this matter, but I'd be fully in favor of your proposal. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and have deleted that. --Rogerhc (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To do 2014-02
Based on a trip to Palo Alto in Jan-Feb 2014, I'm making a note to myself to add the following items. No action required by anyone else, unless you also know these places and want to help. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do/Chocolate Garage http://thechocolategarage.com/
 * Eat/Calafia http://calafiapaloalto.com/
 * Do/Stanford Theatre, add address, cost, etc.
 * Buy/Rocket Fizz http://rocketfizz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=223&Itemid=59
 * Eat/Gelato Classico
 * Eat/Jing Jing's
 * Do/Aquarius Theatre
 * Buy/Farmer's Market

Stanford
Stanford is full of things to interest a visitor—much more than many of our city articles. It is a destination in its own right, very easy to get to from anywhere on the Peninsula, but it fails the Sleep There test for having its own article. So, I would suggest creating a Palo Alto section with listings for the various museums, outdoor sculpture displays, Hoover Tower, Memorial Church, performing-arts venues, athletic events, libraries, eateries, etc. We should also move the existing listings Stanford University Free Lectures and Events and The Dish Walk into the new section. I do have some questions about where to put the new section, e.g., do we divide Palo Alto into two "districts", Stanford and Everything-else? Peter Chastain (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 * Palo Alto is not big enough to district, surely. However, it makes plenty of sense to have a separate subsection for Stanford in "See", and probably in "Do" and some other sections. So go ahead and make the subdivisions within sections, as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I have previously created an alternative banner for this article (which was initially created for the parallel article at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, but I decided to suggest we'll use it here at the English Wikivoyage article as well). Which banner do you prefer that we'll use on the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current banner. The new one doesn't really show very much. It doesn't catch the eye. Ground Zero (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also prefer the current banner, which is more visually unique. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the current banner. It has a very distinctive Stanford look, while the alternative banner looks like nothing in particular to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Current banner by a mile, per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Current banner - echo earlier comments. The new banner is dull. Gizza ( roam ) 01:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Shockley's Laboratory, 391 San Antonio Rd.
It's in Mountain View, not Palo Alto. —The preceding comment was added by 2601:647:5e00:5960:acb0:95c5:c22a:7698 (talk • contribs)

 * Then cut it from here and paste it there. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palo Alto


text:
Talk:Palolem

please tell me how to post a picture on a page

 * Help...
 * ...How to...
 * ...How to upload files
 * ...How to add an image

Is this really still just an outline?
It contains usable information. Anyone mind if I change the 'Outline' template?

Updated the article template to (usable).

Does anyone know how I can get the picture to frame and still specify the size? --(WT-en) Dazzla 12:02, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Palolem


text:
Talk:Palos Verdes

I thought Palos Verdes meant Green Hills in Spanish, not Green Trees
 * I have replaced it to read "green stalks" or "green wood". (WT-en) Texugo 00:33, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Merging content
I get that there are technically four different municipalities in Palos Verdes, but do we really need five different articles for Palos Verdes? Given how much overlap of content there is between this article and the four cities (and how little content each city article has), can we merge and redirect Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates to here? PerryPlanet (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Palos Verdes


text:
Talk:Palouse (Washington)

Changed to include Northern Idaho in the Palouse, as it undoubtedly is. ~10/26/2009 —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 129.101.154.96 (talk • contribs)

 * Undone because this article specifically refers to the portion of Washington only, as made clear by the title and the list of counties in Understand. The corresponding portion of Idaho is covered under North Central Idaho.  - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:07, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Palouse (Washington)


text:
Talk:Pals

VFD Discussion
Note: VFD took place on the article's former name of "Platja de Pals".

 * Delete We don't make articles for beaches. (WT-en) ViMy 16:10, 6 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Rename to Pals and outlineify.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:50, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Pals


text:
Talk:Paluma

To do
Need to add details on the waterfalls, walks, lake, 'rainforest ambience'. Also link into the State, National and World Heritage areas.

title: Talk:Paluma


text:
Talk:Pamalican

mmm, anybody has an opinion about this place in terms of security???

title: Talk:Pamalican


text:
Talk:Pamplona

as a lot of people sleep in the park, we need some info about left luggage/backpack storage

title: Talk:Pamplona


text:
Talk:Pamukkale

Edited to remove advise to wear slippers. Slippers are considered shoes, and not allowed.

title: Talk:Pamukkale


text:
Talk:Panajachel

Repeated edits that don't help Wikivoyage
Since Nov 2nd, 2006, there have been repeated edits to the Panajachel article, and isolated edits to the Antigua (Guatemala) and Guatemala articles. These edits have come from anonymous editors, ie people who don't use Wikivoyage user names. I'd like to explain to these people that I believe your edits are not helping Wikitraval achieve its goals. That is why I have been reverting (undoing) your changes. Please let me explain.

The edits have included the following actions:
 * Adding links to www.atitlan.net or pages on that site. This is unhelpful because it is against the Project:External links policy.  We want the information in this article, so that anyone who prints the page out gets the information.  A link is not very helpful on a printed page.  Also, Wikivoyage is not here to help promote any individual travel web site. See the  section above for more information.
 * Removing the link to www.panajachel.com. When someone removes the link to panajachel.com and adds a link to another site, it looks like a competitor is trying to use Wikivoyage to promote their site. Wikivoyage is neutral, please do not use it for competition (see Project:Goals and non-goals).  Now, if Panajachel.com is an official site for Panajachel, then the link belongs here.  If Panajachel.com is just another private tourism site like atitlan.net, then the link does not belong here.  However, Wikivoyage is neutral between competing businesses.
 * Removing entries for businesses. At times people have deleted the entries for Casa Del Mundo, La Iguana Perdida, Hotel Atitlan, and Sunset Cafe.  It is not appropriate to remove entries for legitmate but competing business from Wikivoyage. Travellers deserve to know about all the useful businesses in a place.

To the people making these changes, I would like to make the following requests:
 * 1) Please continue to contribute, but in a helpful way. I believe you know interesting information about Panajachel and Guatemala, and I hope you will add that information to Wikivoyage. Some of you have corrected formatting errors in the article. That was good, and I appreciate it.
 * 2) Read Wikivoyage's advice for contributors. In particular, please read Project:Welcome, newcomers, and Project:Tips for new contributors. This will explain why the changes until now have not been appropriate.
 * 3) Register a user name, and log in to make edits.  If you have a user name, then your edits will have more credibility.  Also, it will be easier for people who have disagreements with your work to talk directly with you.  See Project:How to create a user account.
 * 4) Discuss changes on this page. The purpose of this page, Talk:Panajachel, is to provide a place to discuss changes to the Panajachel article.  If you want to get a consensus for a change, write about your proposal here, and watch the responses.  By the way, it helps to type ~ after comments on this Talk page, so that Wikivoyage can add your user name and the time you made your comments.
 * 5) Understand our motivations.  I and some others who have been reverting (undoing) your changes are not attempting to stop your contribution, we are attempting to help Wikivoyage. If you can find a way to make your contributions in a way that helps Wikivoyage, then we will be your supporters.
 * 6) Don't try to outlast everyone else. The people making these changes are persistent. This has been going on for nearly two weeks.  I think that even with your persistence, you will not succeed.  There are at least three Wikivoyage volunteers, working independently, who are watching this article and reverting changes  that we think are inappropriate.  I expect there are more people to undo changes than to make changes.  And note that, because of the way Wikivoyage works, it is actually easier for us to undo changes than it is for you to make them.

I hope this explanation is helpful. I'm sure the present situation is unsatisfying for you as well as for me. Let's work together. If you'd like to make a response, please edit it in below. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 15:57, 12 November 2006 (EST)

www.panajachel.com is in no way an "official" site. A simple whois query will reveal that. In fact, it has a less than stellar reputation in Panajachel. The hotels that you mentioned were removed because they are not located in Panajachel. If you have ever been in Panajachel, you'd know that every block of every street has several names, and there are no street signs. I thought an overhead view, with locations marked would be helpful for visitors trying to find the hotels mentioned in the article. Without a map, someone could, and has, spent a lot of time trying to find a hotel that doesn't exist in Panajachel. atitlan.net has well over 2500 pages. A lot of people, who actually live in Panajachel, are insulted that you think it is a secondary source. [This text added on 18:02 PST, 2006 November 15, by 72.252.58.227.]

 * Perhaps the popular uprising in the streets of Panajachel is caused by a misunderstanding about what "primary source" and "secondary source" mean. It doesn't refer to the quality but to the origin of the work. --(WT-en) Evan 11:11, 16 November 2006 (EST)

 * Hello, and thank you for adding your comment. Now we can talk and make progress.  I see you making several points:

Thank you again for your comments. Let's continue this conversation; please edit here and under the sections below, as appropriate. And by the way, what is your name? I don't want to keep calling you "72.252.58.227". (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 12:04, 16 November 2006 (EST)
 * panajachel.com is not a primary source. Good observation; I'm starting a discussion under  below.  Let's call for comments, and if there's no objection, delete it.
 * handling of hotels not in Panajachel proper. Good observation; I'm starting another discussion under below.  I'll also make an initial edit right away.
 * A map would be useful for the Panajachel article. I agree, a map would be great!  Can you provide a map that can be uploaded to Wikivoyage and included within the article?  If so, that would be great for Wikivoyage. Note that the map needs to provided under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license; see Project:Copyleft. See how to upload an image at Project:How to add an image. See also Project:How to draw a map. I'm happy to help with the technical details if you wish.
 * "A lot of people... are insulted that [I think atitlan.net] is a secondary source." I'm sorry that people are insulted. I don't mean any disrespect for atitlan.net. It looks like a fine site.  The terms "primary" and "secondary" aren't about quality, they are about relationship of the site to the place being described. See Project:External links. For example: "Official tourist offices for a destination [and] Official government Web sites" are primary sources.  atitlan.net is not one of these. (It sounds like you are making the case that panajachel.com is not one either. Fair enough.)
 * I ((WT-en) JimDeLaHunt) don't know Panajachel very well. True.  I've been there once, briefly.  I'm confident that you and many WikiTravel contributors know Panajachel much better than I do.  However, I think I understand Wikivoyage pretty well.  Working together, we can make a great Panajachel article in Wikivoyage.

 * 200.6.224.84, you made some great additions on 16 November. Thank you, and please continue! (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:30, 19 November 2006 (EST)

 * Just to complicate the issue even more, I am the editor of atitlan.com (not atitlan.net). Wether or not panajachel.com is the "official" site of Panajachel is up to those who decide such things. I, as a competitor, would be willing to concede that if it isn't the official site, it is the closest thing to it there is.

But that isn't really the point. What I do take exception to is the comment "it has a less than stellar reputation in Panajachel". This is not the forum for such comments, especially from anonymous sources with no evidence to back such statements up, even if such evidence existed.

How does such a comment help travelers? This is nothing more than sour grapes and absolutely nothing to do with wikivoyage.

Duncan Aitken atitlan.com

 * Duncan Aitken (you are User:(WT-en) Maango, I presume): thank you for these comments, and thanks for giving us your name to use. I understand that "it has a less than stellar reputation in Panajachel", from an anonymous person when the other party can't respond, isn't very nice.   That says something about the person who said it, doesn't it?  This is the place for such comments, because it's where people who talk about the Panajachel article can have our discussions.  The main article is clear not the place for such discussions, and that's part of the reason the External links policy discourages links in the main article. I hope to have many more contributions from you to Wikivoyage, as you see fit. Thank you, (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 23:07, 22 November 2006 (EST)

I just wanted to thank Duncan Aitken for his unbiased comments. We have had competing websites for about nine years and we have never lowered ourselves like the owner of atitlan.net. Both Duncan and I have lived here for 20+ years and are fluent in both Spanish and our knowledge of Panajachel, Lake Atitlan and its people. Jerry Smith (the owner of atitlan.net) on the other hand is just being cruel. Thanks again to Duncan!

John Riddle panajachel.com

panajachel.com not a primary source
'www.panajachel.com is in no way an "official" site. A simple whois query will reveal that', writes 72.252.58.227 on 18:02 PST, 2006 November 15.

 * I've done a teensy bit of research and I can't seem to find an official Web site for Panajachel, so I've removed that link. --(WT-en) Evan 11:11, 16 November 2006 (EST)

I did a whois search on panajachel.com. The Registrant is listed as: Sunset Cafe Restaurant Apartado Postal 106 Panajachel, Solola 07010 GT

The Administrative Contact and Technical Contact are listed as one person: Riddle, John riddlej@VIRTUALGUATEMALA.COM Virtual Guatemala Apartado Postal 106 Panajachel Solola 07010 GT 0115024162122 fax: 0115027621278

Neither of these sound like INGUAT, the official Guatemalan tourist agency. INGUAT's site is visitguatemala.com, and I don't see that they have a page on Panajachel.

Thus I think that our colleague 72.252.58.227 is right, and panajachel.com is not an official site. Thus I think it should not have a link per the Project:External links policy. I propose removing that link. However, since someone else included it, and since it's been the subject of editing disputes recently, I'd like to leave the subject open for comment for a few days. If you have an opinion, please edit it in below. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 12:04, 16 November 2006 (EST)
 * Support removal. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 12:04, 16 November 2006 (EST)
 * ((WT-en) Evan removed it)

 * www.panajachel.com was officially leased to the Panajachel Chamber of Commerce but that was over three years ago and at that time it was the official website for Panajachel. www.panajachel.com has not claimed to be the official site for over a thousand days as our contract terminated. Lets stay on track here. The comment made above is nothing more than a cheap trick by whoever wrote it (and we all know who) as you from Wikivoyage were keen to point out that "someone" from Atitlan.net was removing entries made by www.panajachel.com. Did I remove www.atitlan.net info. I don't think so! You guys would know that. My point is please remove the slanderous whois statement above as it has absolutely no merit and has been posted for far to long. I'll let you do it so you can show me your integrity and I can regain my faith that you can see through this childlish attempt to discredit www.panajachel.com. I hope to see some remarks from the Wikivoyage watchdogs asap. One more thing I used to be the owner of the Sunset Cafe which you guys noticed was removed by "Someone" isn't that a coincidence.
 * Even Duncan the owner of www.atitlan.com stated that my site comes as close to an official site representing Panajachel than any other.
 * Best Regards, John Riddle www.panajachel.com —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Panajachel (talk • contribs) 05:39, 2007 November 13 Moved to end of this section by (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:29, 15 November 2007 (EST)

 * I John Riddle removed the Information stating that www.panajachel.com is the official website for Panajachel. I waited a long time to see if you guys would get around to the realization that www.panajachel.com doesn't claim to be in any way the "Official Site" for Panajachel and remove it yourselves. Didn't you (wikivoyage) look into the validity of his claim before even letting it become an issue? It should have never been an argument or even been given any creedence. Show me where www.panajachel.com makes such a claim. As I stated many times. www.panajachel.com was leased to the Panajachel Chamber of Commerce but that ended over three years ago (I have a signed document from the Panajachel Chamber of Commerce that I can produce at any moment) so I took it upon myself to remove the nonsense that Jerry Smith of www. atitlan.net copied and pasted from the who is data base from network solutions. If you take a close look you will see I was the owner of the Sunset Cafe in Panajachel and wikivoyage noticed that someone was removing its information as well as www.panajachel's. I wonder who was behind that? For your information I John Riddle was the original owner of www.atitlan.net but by a series of miscommunications I did not have the chance to renew it. Jerry Smith who I considered a friend unscrupulously bought it with full knowledge that it was mine. Extremely bad taste. Need I say more. This is the truth and nothing but the truth anyone who knows anything about websites in Panajachel will back me up on this. Network Solutions must have a record that will back me up on that and if not I probably have a printed page that shows clearly that I purchased it. Jerry I always liked you. Why do you behave in such a manner? And about www.panajachel.com having a less than a steller reputation thats laughable. Jerry has been visiting Guatemala for over 30 years and has a Spanish vocabulary of close to zero. I am fluent in Spanish and more importantly fluent in relating with almost everyone in Panajachel. No one even knows who Jerry is. I am on a first name basis with practically the whole community and and well liked. My daughter was born here. I donated money to the basketball association of panajachel to put lights on their courts as well as buying rims and uniforms for countless teams over 18 years. I coached the 12 to 17 year old girls basketball team two years ago to the national tournament. I have made websites for free for the victims of Panabaj. I hope anybody that is reading this can get the picture. I'm not perfect and don't claim to be but I won't tolerate this low life behavior. If I were in the states I could sue him. I'm not like that though. Hope you all get the idea! Peace! —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Panajachel (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2007 November 15
 * • I (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt restored the deleted text and moved User:(WT-en) Panajachel's comment to the bottom of the section. I'm not comfortable having record of discussions deleted. The deleted text confirms Riddle's statements, rather than disputes it. I think we are all agreed that panajachel.com is not an official site for the city of Panajachel, and doesn't claim to be. Thus I don't see why information that backs up that fact should be deleted. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 16:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
 * • John Riddle, I get the impression that you feel let down by certain people in Panajachel. I sympathise, but that isn't an issue for Wikivoyage. What matters to me as a volunteer here is writing a travel guide that will help visitors to Panajachel. I do not see anyplace in this Talk page where anyone claims that panajachel.com is an "official" site for the city or tourist office of Panajachel. We are all agreed on that point.  For the record, the link to www.panajachel.com was added to the main Panajchel article  by anonymous editor 68.51.81.194 once on 11:10-11:15, 2006 July 21, and in a second place on 10:03, 2006 August 21. User:(WT-en) Wrh2 moved the link to the top of the article at 10:28-10:29, 2006 August 21. Based on discussion here, User:(WT-en) Evan deleted the link on 09:09, 2006 November 16.  Now the article doesn't have any general external links.  The only links now are in listings, to official pages for those attractions.  Thus, I must confess I don't see how this commentary is about Wikivoyage. It may be about various people in Panajachel, but those disputes are outside of Wikivoyage's scope. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 16:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Subdivide "Sleep"
Right now there are 11 places listed under "Sleep", so it may be worth subdividing into subheadings.

72.252.58.227 points out that three are out of Panajachel proper (Casa Del Mundo, La Iguana Perdida, Hotel Atitlan). I'm comfortable with moving their listings to a better place in Wikivoyage, but I don't think we should delete them entirely. Is there another article which would be better for any of them? Right now I think Panajachel serves as a description of the Atitlan area in addition to describing the town itself. Thus they should stay in this article.

 * Casa Del Mundo is Jaibalito, not Panajachel. Jabalito has no tourist facilities, other than this hotel. [This comment on 20:48, 2006 November 17 by anonymous editor 200.6.232.101]

 * In a quick search, I don't see a page for Jaibalito. I do see an article for Lake Atitlan. There is a brief entry for Casa Del Mundo there. Maybe it makes sense to move this content to that article? (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:28, 19 November 2006 (EST)

 * I moved Casa Del Mundo to Lake Atitlán, which is now a proper regional article. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 20:28, 19 November 2006 (EST)

 * La Iguana Perdida is in Santa Cruz La Laguna. Do these pueblos have their own page? With over 50 hotels in Panajachel, and many, many more in Santa Catarina, San Antonio Polopo, or Solola (which are all closer to Pana and accessible by wheeled vehicle) do we need to include hotels that are not there? [This comment on 20:48, 2006 November 17 by anonymous editor 200.6.232.101]

 * In a quick search I don't see a page for Santa Cruz La Laguna. Would you like to create one?  Or maybe expand the Lake Atitlan article?  Bear in mind that all these hotel entries appeared because someone thought they would be of service to travellers in Panajachel.  There are many other hotels not listed, and the best response to that is to add the listings that make sense, not to delete other good listings. Please plunge forward and make additions!  (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:28, 19 November 2006 (EST)

 * I created an article for Santa Cruz la Laguna, and moved La Iguana Perdida there. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt

How about adding a subheading "Nearby", and putting these three places under there? I'll make that edit, and look for comments here, or better edits in the article.

Also, the Big city article template suggests dividing "Sleep" into the subsections Budget, Mid-range, and Splurge. That might be a good approach here. Any idea what price is the boundary between "Budget" and "mid-range" in Panajachel these days? What about between "Mid-range" and "Splurge"? (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 12:04, 16 November 2006 (EST)

 * In general, most domains of official websites in Guatemala are registered in Guatemala, and thus end in ".gt", not .com . Why are there 3 hotels listed that are not in Panajachel? Do you think this is a service to the readers of the page, or someone else? [text added 08:18, 2006 November 16 by user 200.6.224.84, and moved to this section by (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt]

 * You and I were writing simultaneously, so you wouldn't have seen my comments above. Unless there is a better article for them to go to, then I think the hotel listings near Panajachel can stay in the Panajachel article. I think those listings do serve tourists, they aren't too commercial. And I think there are major exceptions to the principle that most domains of official websites end in ".gt"; INGUAT's domain is "visitguatemala.com". (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 12:13, 16 November 2006 (EST)

Please show me where www.panajachel claims to be the official site of Panajachel? You are very naive editors and have not checked your sources. Its really like defimation. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Panajachel (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2007 November 13

Guatemala official websites
Please see: https://www.inguat.gob.gt/Inguat, Congress of the Republic of Guatemala, Judicial Branch of Guatemala, Guatemalan Government Page. These are taken from wikipedia. I believe they are "official" government sites. [These comments on 20:30, 2006 November 17 by anonymous editor 200.6.232.101]

 * (I condensed the list of links.) Thanks for researching these links.  However, the discussion in this article is about official links for the city of Panajachel.  All of these look like national links. Thus, they don't help a traveler visit Panajachel, and aren't appropriate for this article. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 04:19, 19 November 2006 (EST)

Lake Atitlán as Region article
I've just done some work to prepare Lake Atitlán as a "region" in the geographical hierarchy. This article can be a place for information about the Lake Atitlán region in general, plus suggestions for what visitors can do in each town, plus listings for hotels not in a specific town. There are links to articles for seven of the towns around the lake. Information about hotels in a particular town can go in that town's article. Thus, the Panajachel can now be about Panajachel only, not about regional information. Please take a look, and add on there. If you find information here in the Panajachel article that is about a different town or the region, please move it to a new home, don't just delete it from here. Thanks, everyone, for your contributions. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 20:33, 19 November 2006 (EST)
 * Lake Atitlan Hotel —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 69.108.110.133 (talk • contribs) 0:46, 2007 September 9
 * The correct place to add a hotel listing is in the destination article for the town where the hotel is located. I've added this hotel listing to the San Marcos (Guatemala). It's disappointing to see that the same IP address which added this comment to Panajachel also deleted two hotel listings from the Lake Atitlán article.  It almost looks like someone is trying to promote one business by hiding information about competitors. That sort of behaviour doesn't help travellers, so it doesn't belong on WikiTravel.  I put "nowiki" tags around the above comment, so that it doesn't serve to strengthen a search engine ranking. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 19:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Good. Lake Atitlan as a region obviously including Panajachel is a positive start. John Riddle www.panajachel.com —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Panajachel (talk • contribs) 04:07, 2007 November 13

Panajachel map
I've done a survey in Panajachel this week. There are 85 hotels in Panajachel, and 37 restaurants on Calle Santander alone. Do you think this would make an unintelligible map? [This comment added on 17:10, 2006 November 21 by anonymous editor 72.252.49.155]

 * I'm sure that it's possible to draw a legible map with 85 hotels and 37 restaurants. Maybe it would need to be multiple maps, one of Panajachel overall, and one of the dense area of Calle Santander. But is it helpful to travellers to include all of those hotels and restaurants?  Let's select just the ones most recommended to  Wikivoyage readers, put good descriptions of them in the text, and include them in the map.  Wikivoyage's goals and non-goals say it shouldn't be a directory of all restaurants, hotels, or bars for a city. "Think of a friend from out of town asking you where they should go -- you wouldn't list all 200 possibilities, but 5-10 options for a particular type, budget, or part of town." So, which 5-10 of the 85 hotels, and which 5-10 of the 37 restaurants, should go in the Panajachel article and on the map? (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 23:39, 21 November 2006 (EST)

General comment
Jim, I have been out of the loop for some time on this discussion about who's site really represents Panajachel. By the way a map of Panajachel has been on my site for years http://www.panajachel.com/travel.htm. Sure it doesnt show every single establishment but at least it is a reference source. Go to http://www.atitlan.net/guatemala-map.htm and you will notice that the drop down link has references to places that don't exist (suspicious) and also takes you all over the place 100's of miles from Panajachel. I believe I have one link to www.chiminosisland.com that is not located around the lake .It is abundantly clear that www.panajachel.com is the most purely relative site representing Panajachel. In reality most of the sites whether they are www.atitlan.com or .net have information about Panajachel as well as the whole Atitlan region. Should they not be allowed to represent Panajachel? I think they have every right as www.panajachel.com should have to deliver information concerning the whole lake as well. Panajachel is the second most visited travel destination in Guatemala after Antigua and is the gateway to all Lake Atitlan has to offer. What is a link or external link really? It is added information that clearly points out that the link takes you to a page or site that is not in Panajachel thats why we call them link pages. Lets give people a little credit for diserning information. Non of my links are misleading or designed to compete with another site. I find stagering flaws in Wikivoyage and Wikipedia's content. I have read the most outlandish completely unstubstantiated articles that are completely off base. If my child would use your site as a reference soucre on a homework project she wouldn't be the straight a student she is. I have warned her to be extremely skepitcal as to what she reads on your sites. Elvis is alive in Panajachel did you know that? It is impossible for anyone at Wikipedia or Wiki Travel to pass judgement on our sites( we are small you have billionaire venture investors behind you). And beleive me I know because I have family that are in the same league as you. Anyone can post whatever they want. You guys might catch it sometimes or eventually but it is an an almost borders on a narcissistic arrogant and impossible task. After all do you have PHD's on every subject? I give you credit for an idea that sounds good on paper but really can be like a virus spreading disinformation. Beware of what you have created. I know this because I can see how you apparently try to be objective and rightous but you have lost control. I am aware that this is a learning process and I sincerly wish you find a way to control unscrupulous editors. Its clear especially on www.panajachel.com that the there are very few links links that or should I say not even come close to the number of links that www.atitlan.com or www.atitlan.net lead the navigator to that have absolutely nothing to do with Panajachel. I have no problem with that. I just don't like cruel people. Some of my links are to non profit organizations that are based around the lake. www.panajachel.com makes no profit from these links. www.panajachel.com did design some of these sites free off charge. Take a deep look at your own site and look at its flaws. I have lived in Guatemala for 22 years and have read articles that are outright lies. I know you don't approve and when and if you discover them will do the right thing but in many many cases they will go unoticed. You would have to be god to control it. It will never happen. I am dissapointed because I know I am a sincere person but some so called competitors think they are clever at discrediting www.panajachel.com which is very humble in its content. I have no problem with www.atitlan.com but the other.net comes close to sounding like a sociopath. You guys at Wiki might have created a monster thats out off your control. I hope you can think of a way to get a hold on it. I really do. But lets just face it, like spam are we ever really going to have it under wraps. I'm sure your aware of Steven Colberts remarks. Funny no doubt. Lets see you prove him wrong!

Best Regards

John Riddle

P.S. I'm not hiding behind any mask and to tell you the truth everything I wrote above is for you to learn from. I'm kicking but with my site with or without you. No offense intended. I actually wasn't surprised to see all the sites that concure with my thoughts.

Don't go the way of AOL.

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Panajachel (talk • contribs) Revision as of 06:21, 2007 November 13
 * (WT-en) John Riddle, thank you for your note here. I'm nobody special at Wikivoyage, but since you addressed your note to me, I'll write a reply.
 * Thank you for the information about www.panajachel.com and other web sites. I think that the subject of Panajachel web sites was settled a year ago, for this article. There is no web site that is a "primary source", i.e. run by the city government or tourist office. Thus there is no general external link in the article. See Project:External links for an explanation of why we don't want to put in links to web sites that aren't a primary source.
 * Wikivoyage is not the same thing as Wikipedia. They are run by completely different organisations (Internet Brands vs Wikimedia Foundation).  They have different policies. All they have in common is free content, a collaborative editing process, and the same underlying software.  And I agree with you that both have some really bad articles. I think they also have some helpful articles, and are getting better.
 * It's great that you have 22 years of experience in Panajachel. That's way, way more than most Wikivoyage editors have, including me. You don't say, but I'm guessing you are in the travel business in some way, or know people who are.  I'd encourage everyone in the Panajachel travel business to read Project:Welcome, business owners (or the Spanish translation).  If you are willing to put your expertise into freely-available improvements on Wikivoyage itself, we'd love to have you. For instance, wouldn't it be cool if restaurant and hotel managers improved the Panajachel article, and then printed it on paper for guests to take with them?  It might be a service that would draw guests, and might be cheaper than writing their own tourist guide.
 * Thank you for your contributions, and best regards. (WT-en) JimDeLaHunt 02:59, 15 November 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Panajachel


text:
Talk:Panama

history
I think the history section is a sad excuse as it stands right now.. no mention of the more than dubious "hey Colombia care to let us build a canal thru your country" - "Nope. and f*** you, gringos" ... "Hey Panaman rebels, how about we arm and finance your ridiculous non-existent indipendnece movement, and in exchange you give us a bunch of territory for a canal" - "sure thing, Teddy, where do I sign?" thing. Also I find the lack of mention for the French Canal attempt and pineapple face (US friendly dictator doing shady drug and arms deals for several years, than falling out of favor and being toppled in opration "just cause") disturbing.141.30.210.129 22:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please plunge forward and edit the history section accordingly! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh the good ol' history section...
The history section as it is now (after I added some things I read here or there) stinks. Does anybody know anything else? Or could we maybe rearrange the facts there are into a concise prose rather than strange pseudo headlines with little importance like when a (promptly ignored) constitution was signed Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Some history of Panama before independence from Colombia would be good. Also 'Operation Just Cause' by the US Military in 1989 was a very significant event, but doesn't even get a direct mention. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Getting Panama to guide.... Or at least "usable"
What should be done to achieve that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For Usable, we need all of the Other Destinations and Cities upgraded to Usable. All of the Other Destinations are currently at Outline. For Cities, Balboa, Boca Chica, Colon (Panama), David (Panama), and Gamboa are at Outline. The other Cities are at Usable. Powers (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Bocas Del Toro and Caribbean West
Hi team, I am travelling in Bocas Del Toro at the moment and I think it is fair to say that the current labelling and structuring for our 'Caribbean West' region is incorrect and misleading. To help us improve the region, I would make the following two suggestions:

 * Labelling - change the name from 'Caribbean West' to 'Bocas Del Toro' - Despite what the article seems to indicate, Bocas Del Toro is actually a province, not a single island or town, and this region is actually quite massive (you can see the google maps border here). It includes a large chunk of the mainland, towns, islands and many national parks. The main reason why I am suggesting this change is that when people search 'Bocas Del Toro' in Google, they will get 'Caribbean West'. 'Caribbean West' is never used by travellers or tourist officials and therefore is inconsistent and confusing for the traveller. Now, I understand that would mean we would be incorrectly labelling Ngöbe-Buglé Province which is included in our current region border on the map, however this is an extremely remote region, with no ferris or roads to the remote indigenous villages. Now I understand one day it would be nice for WV to have some info on this part of the world however I do not foresee this happening anytime soon (based on the state of the Bocas region, which is a very popular tourist spot). So, I suggest we just focus on Bocas Del Toro and if we start getting articles for the other region we can re-look at the name of this region.
 * Structuring - Under the name of Bocas Del Toro Province, we would have the following structure:
 * Cities
 * Changuinola - a large city on the mainland
 * Cruce de Frontera - border town where you can immigrate into Panama from Costa Rica
 * Almirante - A port town on the mainland and where all ferries leave for the islands
 * Bocas Town (Isla Colon) - the biggest town on the islands and party capital of Bocas Del Toro

 * Other destinations
 * Isla Bastimento - a beautiful island with secluded surf beaches and some accommodation
 * Isla Cristóbal - a nature filled island
 * Parque Nacional La Amistad - a large National Park on the mainland

So what do you guys think? I think the second suggestions can be acted on now (unless anyone has any complaints), and the my first suggestion I would imagine needs some debate. --Justvagabonding (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Might we wish to add Colones and Columbian Pesos to the currency conversions?
I mean, we have some free space due to it being the dollar regardless and many people who travel to Panama ar coming from or going to either Coombia or Costa Rica. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Traversing or crossing the canal - and how long does it take?
In light of this, what exactly is meant? Getting across the canal from Costa Rica to Colombia or passing from Atlantic to Pacific? And how should it best be worded? And how long does it take? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Currency denotation
Consequently US$100 or $100? Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As in other countries that use a dollar, the prefix isn't really needed. It could be used on its first appearance in an article for readers who don't know that the US dollar is used. This format is also useful for the first instance in an article: $, which provides a link to the explanation about currency in Panama and to exchange rates. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyedits, formatting
I have made a number of edits to the article to tidy up capitalization, italicization, and grammar (particularly to ensure that sentences have main verbs in them), and to remove some redundancies. I am willing to discuss any of those changes if any other editor has any concerns about them. Ground Zero (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Don't try to dress to 'fit in', just be yourself."
Can anyone explain what the author meant by this? It's 85 degrees and 85% humidity, many people from northern countries would be in shorts at most, but the article then goes on to explain that you should, in fact, not be yourself. It feels discordant, or disingenuous. Brockert (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it was weird-reading really. It was better removed. Ibaman (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Panama


text:
Talk:Panama City

Taxis
Probably got ripped off so I figured I would include this here rather than integrate it into the article. I was in Panama City today and it cost, for 3 people about $8 to get to the locks at the canal. The hostel I stayed at arranged a taxi (who did wait 2 hours) but the charge was $25. We went out to the islands too via taxi and that cost $3.65. -- Laura

bus ?
I arrive in Panama City at 8:45 pm. Is there bus service then to Albrook airport? Or a taxi? Any advise is appreciated.

 * There are several bus routes between the Tocumen airport (the international airport) and the main bus station (Albrook, near the domestic airport). One route goes over the northern expressway (Corredor Norte), another over the southern (coastal) expressway (Corredor Sur). I was told by hotel staff (late 2013) that the buses on at least one route run 24 hours a day, but only once an hour. However, I saw several of them on the highway within a much shorter time interval (in the early morning). The metrobus web site has route maps for the Tocumen bus routes, but no schedules. Taxi should be around $25 (including highways tolls) -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Website info moved from article
This info was moved here, per Wikivoyage's external links policy. Information on this site can be used for research, but the site cannot be linked in the article:

The web-page DegustaPanama.com is kept up-to-date with excellent information on Panamanian restaurants.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Safe or unsafe?
This paragraph is internally contradictory:

"Be careful in both Casco Viejo and the Panama la Vieja ruins area. There are tourist police aplenty in both neighborhoods but do not wander too far in these areas alone (even in the day) and certainly not in the evening (as of 2010 these areas are very safe, lots of activity and tourist traffic)"

So which one is it? Are these neighborhoods dangerous, safe, or something in between? I hope someone who knows will edit the "Stay safe" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The Casco Viejo (a.k.a. Casco Antiguo) looked ok - no worse than what you'd see in similar historic areas of Kuala Lumpur or Moscow or New York City, for example - but there are surprisingly few people there after dark, even on well lit central squares. The locals, though, have a remarkable habit (no doubt, for a reason): if you look like a foreigner and ask them for directions, or simply "which street is this?", they would suggest that you walk to the police station instead, or take a taxi and get out of the area pronto ("plenty of thieves [maleantes] here, you know").

 * As to Panama la Vieja, I understand that it's just ruins in the middle of nowhere (or, rather, next to a not very pleasant neighborhood). -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * If you feel confident in doing so, please edit the article for an accurate, consistent tone on safety. I might give a good deal of credence to locals' opinions about the number of thieves around, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The hand-drawn map shape
I must say, I am not quite sure about it. It doesn't seem to reflect the official borders. What is its purpose? Oh and on a related note, "Line 1" shows up on the map, but it is black. Can the color be changed to the official color? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Panama City Metro Line Two
Apparently the new line will open "within the first trimester" of 2019. If and when it does, we should update the map accordingly. Anybody know how to do that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Panama City Metro Line2
Can somebody please update the mapshape for the Panama City Metro to include line2? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed something, now we wait... ;-) -- andree.sk (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The word "officially"
In light of this, I think it is simpler to say "officially" then to introduce this weird parenthetical. However, there seem to be others that this common word is some sort of "code", so what do third voices think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to know if others understand that "officially" here meant "Panama has some "totally not a military" forces which look a lot like a military". I didn't know that, and I don't think I'm being dense. Ground Zero (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was decent, but an explanation is definitely helpful. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Without the word "officially" one could get the impression that there is no military of any kind. With it, people can draw the conclusion "officially" they got rid of it, "inofficially" may be a different story. And this is - if anything - a discussion on airports in the context of the article, not on military or the abolishment thereof, which more properly belongs into the main Panama article or rather its "understand" section... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure everyone will draw the same conclusion from the "hint" about an official military; however, I agree on your second point. This isn't the correct part of the article to have a potentially controversial description of Panama's (lack of?) military. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Having an explanation is better. The very fact that you wrote an explanation in your edit summary shows the need for this. Without an explanation, there's no way of knowing that "officially" is significant in the sentence.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this explanation is a good one. Now I feel like we have to explain what these "limited military duties" are, and why we think that Panama's national police and border patrol organizations should be counted as "limited military duties" but the US's national police and border patrol organizations shouldn't.
 * A brief explanation might be appropriate in Panama, but for the purposes of this article, all that matters is that former military airports were turned into civilian ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That wording comes from Wikipedia. If it isn't a sufficient explanation, then, like "officially", it isn't informing the reader, so there is no reason for it to be there. If saying that Panama abolished its armed forces is problematic, then maybe we should just take it out. Ground Zero (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ground Zero. This seems like an unnecessary but also controversial detail that can be left out of the article. Only if this non-official military (or whatever it is?) is a travel concern does it make a mention necessary. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Panama City Metro expansion
Line two now Aeropuerto metro station serves the airport please update accordingly!213.95.33.60 22:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Wikivoyage is the travel guide that anyone can edit – plunge forward (and update as accordingly)! SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 02:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Panama City


text:
Talk:Panama City Beach

Comments
Some listings are needed in EAT and DRINK to make this article usable. (WT-en) gamweb 04:30, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Alright, its "usable" now. It shouldn't take too much work to get this up to "guide" status. (WT-en) gamweb 16:26, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

title: Talk:Panama City Beach