text:
Talk:Pitcairn Islands

way off the beaten path... (WT-en) Member 00:54, 18 December 2006 (EST)

Listing challenge
Pacific Expeditions has a poor reputation. Do not undo this edit unless you can provide evidence it has a good reputation. People depend on this site having accurate, information on which to base their decisions. This isn't site to advertise on. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 66.8.146.42 (talk • contribs)

Highest Point
Is the highest point really called Highest Point? According to Wikipedia, the highest point has a name: Pawala Valley Ridge. Is this correct? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:39, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Pacific Expeditions
Can anyone please show a proof link, explain or comment -- why Pacific Expeditions has a poor reputation? I worried because I want to use them :-) --(WT-en) Maloff 14:58, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
 * I went with Pacific Expeditions to Pitcairn on SRV Discovery (ex R/V Bounty Bay) 2011-02-22 - 2011-03-01. Everything went well (although conditions are quite "spartan"). The crew (Craig, Arthur and Ruvid) were very kind people, ready to help and the food was above expectations --(WT-en) Maloff 23:47, 10 March 2011 (EST)

Highest Point
"Highest Point" is the highest point along the main ridgeline of Pitcairn. This is the name used by the local people. Quite a brillant place to sit down with a 360 degree view of the mighty South Pacific Ocean - something never to forget (WT-en) Islandboy1 22:21, 9 March 2011 (PST)

Do not delete talk page comments
Please do not delete comments on this page. Anyone is welcome to rebut any argument made here, but the guideline that governs usage of talk pages on Wikivoyage is Project:Using talk pages, not a Pitcairn Island legal case. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:54, 10 March 2011 (EST)

 * Again, Wikivoyage policy is that disputes are resolved via discussion, not censorship. If something is factually inaccurate please present a counter-argument with any relevant facts.  Repeatedly deleting the comments of others does nothing to help resolve a dispute. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 10 March 2011 (EST)

ATVs
This sentence has been edited a couple of different times, by different users, to remove the information in parentheses:

"Walking and personal all-terrain vehicles (3- and 4-wheel "motorbikes") are the main ways to get from one place to another, and a bike is usually available for rent."

It is really the case that everyone but me knew that ATVs can have 3 wheels? Anyway, I see no harm in leaving the parenthetical statement there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * ATVs usually have four wheels, but they can also have for example three or six or a pair of caterpillar tracks and so on. I've seen several examples on the Internet what local Gyro Gearlooses for instance in rural Russia can come up with, and in a place like Pitcairn Islands where the closest official ATV dealership and service is thousands of kilometers away I believe they are equally creative... ϒpsilon (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks. And do you think the parenthetical statement ought to be removed from the article, or that it does no harm to leave it in? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I think we can leave it in the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * ATVs are a very well known type of vehicle, and so there's no value in stating the obvious ... what next explaining in articles that a car is? —The preceding comment was added by 89.187.78.189 (talk • contribs)

 * First, please sign your comments in talk pages by putting this at the end of the comments: ~ . Second, how about waiting for a consensus before changing the text again? Thirdly, you're obviously wrong that the fact that an ATV can have 3 wheels or what kind of ATVs are used in Pitcairn is as well known as what a car is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * In a 90s travelogue book about Pitcairn I read recently the author states that Pitcairn uses 3-wheel ATVs. IDK if they changed them, but that proves that at least they used to have 3-wheel ones. 93.136.71.58 00:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 * ATVs definitely used to have 3 wheels. See the Wikipedia article. They were unsteady, and manufacturers agreed to stop making them in 1987. It's possible that a remote place like Pitcairn would keep patching them up to keep them operating (like Cuba's fleet of 1950s American road boats), but it seems unlikely. Unless anyone can provide a source for saying they are still operating, or has been to Pitcairn and seen them, I don't that we would want to claim that they are still running. Ground Zero (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Debris on Henderson Island
From https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/05/17/no-one-lives-on-this-remote-pacific-island-but-its-covered-in-38-million-pieces-of-plastic-trash.html "the remote island has become the final resting place for an estimated 38 million pieces of garbage, according to researchers who arrived on its shores in 2015 and were stunned to find the atoll’s once-undisturbed white-sand beaches littered with trash." Nearly all of it is plastic being carried from out-of-region by ocean currents. K7L (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Depressing, to say the least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rural area or country article
Isn't this a similar situation to Montserrat, which is a country article? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pitcairn Islands


text:
Talk:Pittsburg (California)

Article name
This is Pittsburg (California) instead of Pittsburg because the latter really needs to be a disambiguation page for people who spell Pittsburgh wrong. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:55, 6 Aug 2005 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Pittsburg (California)


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh

I'd like to say that this article is becoming better and better every day. A lot to learn about this town! --(WT-en) Evan 02:46, 24 Mar 2004 (EST)

Realy a great job. Well done, William! --(WT-en) Hansm 17:49, 2004 Apr 26 (EDT)

-- Are Primanti Brothers at 46 18th Street in the Strip District? If so the details should be on that page too. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:01, 27 Mar 2004 (EST)

Title Changes
I made two changes to the basic titles which I would like to promulgate because time after time I couldn't think of which one to put something under and I didn't want to put the same things under both. I'm pretty new though and don't want to upset any applecarts. Comments are solicited.

First I combined See and Do to See and Do. After all does one see a museum or do a museum? Does one see a park or do a park? In fact it is hard to think of something one might do without also seeing it.

Second I combined Eat and Drink into Eat and Drink. This eliminates redundancy in most cases. The only times I can imagine that this distinction might have meaning is if one were searching for a non-alcoholic dining experience in an area where either was available (and this could be handled by a comment). Then there is the question whether WikiTravel should even get to this level of specificity. Most of the time the distinction is null. Try to find a "non-alcoholic" restaurant in Europe. Maybe MacDonalds, but then everyone knows that. Try to find an "alcoholic" restaurant in Saudi Arabia (I couldn't.) So this distinction between the two seems to me largely meaningless. Besides, aren't most of the interesting bars for visitors in fact in restaurants?

Third, though this is a mere detail, I find the term Shop preferable to Buy, though I have yet to use either. My guess is that people shop much more often than they buy and that to shop is the essence of what is usually sought by visitors. (WT-en) William M Goetsch 12:03, 30 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Bill, I'm changing the headings back to the ones that are defined in the Project:Huge city article template. You might also want to look at Project:Where you can stick it for more info on where to put museums vs. parks, sports stadia versus restaurants. --(WT-en) Evan 13:50, 18 May 2004 (EDT)

Great article, but I'm not so sure about the bit on Fort Pitt and Fort Duquesne. I believe these were actually two separate structures, Duquesne being burned by the French upon their retreat, a stone outline of which can be seen at the Point, and Pitt being somewhat larger, some walls of which are still intact at the point closer to Downtown. 130.49.222.47 13:28, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I'm working on a restaurant listing for Pittsburgh on my userpage, and was wondering if this would be a place that could use the listing. It's nowhere near complete yet, still working on it, but just wanted to see if others were interesting in using/improving/etc the list in this space. Please leave a message on my talk page if you're interested. Thanks! 67.171.76.13 18:46, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Very interesting page however Pittsburgh Mills Mall is NOT the only Mill left in Pittsburgh. Allegheny Ludlum is very much still alive and running. :)

Pittsburgh Left
Locals: should the Get Around section include a note about the so-called "Pittsburgh Left"? (WT-en) RickScott 00:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Staking my claim
In the event Pittsburgh is destroyed, I will be the one to delete the article from Wikivoyage. I wonder what would be the happiest day of my life - getting married, Pittsburgh being destroyed, or the Bengals winning the Super Bowl? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:29, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Getting married???? Ha! Good one, you silly man. (WT-en) OldPine 19:41, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

District Reorganization
After being in Pittsburgh for several days I feel that there is a need to rework our "Neighborhoods" section into some "Districts" which will cover the whole city. I understand the desire to make neighborhood articles, but there are so many neighborhoods in Pittsburgh that we can't have an article for each one, and with what we have now we can't talk about attractions in smaller neighborhoods (where's the zoo in all of this?), so we have to combine neighborhoods into useful regions of the city (unless that neighborhood has so much stuff it needs to stay its own article).

Now, the Pittsburgh Wayfinder sign system is a good system to work from, because it's all over Pittsburgh. We already have articles for Downtown and North Side, those looks fine. Now I'm going to propose some changes, and if anyone is familiar with Pittsburgh please tell me what you think:

 * I don't think Mount Washington works well as an article on its own. It's got the inclines and some restaurants, but can you sleep there? Are there other things to do? Is there much shopping? So I think Mount Washington and South Side should be worked into a new article to cover everything south of the Monongahela and Ohio rivers. But here's a problem: what would we call this article? I think there would be difficulty in calling the article "South Side", since when people actually say "South Side" they're referring to the specific neighborhood across the river from Downtown. Another possible name is "South Hills", which I got from Wikipedia, or perhaps "South Side-South Hills". What do you think?

 * How about we create one article for the East End, and incorporate Point Breeze, East Liberty, and Squirrel Hill into it (since all three of those articles are looking pretty small)? East End would also include other neighborhoods like Highland, where the zoo is. But Oakland will stay as its own article, since its got lots of stuff.

 * Strip District and Lawrenceville will stay their own articles. However, Bloomfield and Shadyside, which will also stay as their own articles, will be listed under the Greenish-Brown area which covers the Strip District and Lawrenceville. I'd like to do this because I actually saw a Wayfinder sign which had that Greenish-Brown color for those two neighborhoods.

Overall, this would create 9 districts articles: Downtown, North Side, South Side/South Hills/South Whatever, Strip District, Lawrenceville, Oakland, Bloomfield, Shadyside, and East End. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:10, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I've only spent any real time in the areas under the first bullet, but I think you're definitely right to combine Mt Washington & South Side. I'd say just group them under South Side, since Mt Washington is south of the river. I don't know if that's a heretical thing to do, but if someone complains, changing district names is really easy.

 * I'll hold off on discussing the rest, since I really don't know anything other than the South Side (aside from the US Steel building, which may be my favorite skyscraper). (Why is it that I tend to only know south sides?) But I will say that 9 districts sounds like a good number for the city—I wouldn't go higher, maybe go lower if it makes sense to do so. Lastly, this is going to be extremely helpful (svg!). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I've definitely spent a lot of time studying that Pittsburgh neighborhood map. It's so nice to see a good breakdown of neighborhoods. Anyway, working from that very map, I've put my proposal in map form to make it a bit easier to understand: Image:Pittsburgh districts proposal.png . (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:27, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Are subdistricts common? I see New York (city)/Manhattan is subdivided (boy is it subdivided!), but that's Manhattan.  I would prefer to keep city articles as flat as possible.  What does the amount of content look like if we just take the five colors as districts?  Would that leave them too big?  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:19, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I think John is grouping them a la Washington, D.C. or Chicago. That is, group districts by color for organization's sake, but keep the hierarchy flat, without articles for the groupings themselves. Again, I don't know the city well (outside of the South Side, which I think you might be better off just calling the "South Side"), but it's a reasonably small city—you might want to first try some of those East End groupings as single articles, to see if they do need subdivision. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:55, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

 * Okay, that's fine. However, I'm not a big fan of having one of those districts (East End) a) split between two colors and b) non-contiguous.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:03, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

 * The reason why East End is split between two colors is simply because that's the way the wayfinder system works. The Greenish-Brown color is basically the entire northern side of East End, while the Orange is the entire southern side of East End. However, we can just use one color for the East End, and then explain the whole way the wayfinder system works and how it differs from our system. Or if you like, we can create an "East End North" and "East End South", whatever you prefer.

 * I'm willing to throw Bloomfield and Shadyside in with an overall East End article (that'll bulk it up a bit), but I haven't given myself a chance to really penetrate those neighborhoods yet so I don't know if it'll turn out to be too big. But if it does, I imagine it won't be too hard to reverse. On the other hand, I kinda want Oakland to stay on as its own article, because there's just so much stuff there. I'd also like Strip District and Lawrenceville to be separated from the rest of East End somehow, because they really are quite unique. But seeing how short both articles are, perhaps it would be best to combine them, say into Strip District-Lawrenceville? I've been through there and I'd feel comfortable combining those two.

 * Here's an updated proposal: Image:Pittsburgh district proposal2.png . Or we can try something like this: Image:Pittsburgh district proposal3.png . (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:13, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I have to admit, since making the maps I've become fond of proposal #3. I think the reason why I didn't propose that layout from the start is because someone obviously went to some effort to make decent articles for Oakland, Shadyside, and Bloomfield, which in a way really shows neighborhood pride and I didn't want to cut that down. But the five-district system looks so delightfully simple it's now my favorite. Just to explain it further,
 * Downtown stays Downtown,
 * North Side stays North Side,
 * Mount Washington and South Side become South Side,
 * Strip District, Lawrenceville, Bloomfield, Shadyside, and East Liberty becomes East End-North,
 * Oakland, Squirrel Hill, and Point Breeze becomes East End-South. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 11:25, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I like #3 a lot too—nice and elegant. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:08, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
 * The synchronicity with the wayfinder system makes it particularly appealing. If any of the five articles ends up too big, we can decide how to split them later.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
 * All right! However, I'm going to have to make a minor change: Shadyside actually goes with the southern side of East End, not the northern part, despite that one wayfinder sign I saw. Turns out if you actually walk through Shadyside, all the signs there are in the bright orange color. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

We need to create a West District. I feel as though all other Pittsburgh districts are represented except for the West. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) RevenuePerformance (talk • contribs)

 * Do you mean split off a west district from the south side district? By the way, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes after your comment ( ~ ). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:46, 6 February 2009 (EST)

 * If you mean creating a West End district, I think we could do that, but first I'd like to get an idea of how much stuff such a guide would have (how many attractions, places to eat, places to sleep, etc) so that we could get an idea of how useful it would be. But if by "West District" you mean the western suburbs and the airport area, that would technically be outside of Pittsburgh and go into Allegheny County for now instead. I'm hoping to get to creating articles for some of the suburbs around Pittsburgh (the ones with enough stuff to do, of course), but it's low on my list of priorities for Pittsburgh. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 23:41, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Kennywood
OK, I realize it's not exactly within the city limits, but this article seems the natural place to put Kennywood. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:33, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Sorry it took me such a ridiculously long time to reply to this...
 * How about I make a Homestead (Pennsylvania) article? Kennywood is right next to Homestead, and there's a couple of malls and a water park there as well, so I think it's enough to justify an article. And then in the Pittsburgh guide we link to Homestead (making it clear that's where Kennywood is), in the Get out section and perhaps also as a blurb in the Do section? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 20:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sounds good to me. Five months ago I didn't have a good sense for where that sort of thing should go.  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:55, 20 February 2009 (EST)

PNC Park image
Given the two choices below, I think I prefer the first one. The composition is better in the second one, but the color balance looks garish to me.

Image:Pnc park pittsburgh retouch.jpg LtPowers' attempt

Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 16:57, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * First one. I shot the first one, so I may be biased, but: Second one's color is definitely off. Its skyline is sharper, but at thumb size that's not so critical. That said, the first one isn't perfect; the sky is overexposed and home plate is covered. Still, it looks more natural/authentic. --(WT-en) Jtesla16 17:36, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Second one . Well, obviously I'm biased because I uploaded the second one, but I like the second because the exposure is better and it's got a lot more detail, not just of downtown but also of the field. The overexposure in the first one was the main reason I replaced it in the first place. But if I'm the only one who votes for the second one then I'll change it back. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 18:39, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Third one. I think the colors in the one PerryPlanet uploaded were a bit too warm, so I cooled them down a bit. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:22, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Third one. That's nice! (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:28, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Third one rocks. --(WT-en) Jtesla16 21:39, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Er, I was apparently doing the same thing at the same time as Peter, except I also rotated it a bit. I would have posted earlier but for some reason Wikivoyage was being dog slow on my laptop. Mine's the fourth one up there. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:45, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I think I still prefer the third one. I enlarged the two to 300px (see below) to see what it would look like at thumb size, and the third one has more clarity than the fourth. The correction in the rotation really doesn't come out at thumb size. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:24, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I agree. --(WT-en) Jtesla16 16:59, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * 3rd, But I think it's getting a bit ridiculous arguing about number 3 & 4 --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 17:06, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Peter and I were working on them at the same time; it's not like I was trying to upstage him or anything. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh, and I think I figured out why mine has less clarity, as Perry noted. I was using Google Picasa for the first time and apparently when it does a rotation, it not only crops the image back into a rectangle, but it enlarges the cropped image back to the original size.  That accounts for the lowered clarity; it's artifacts from the resizing.  A properly-done rotation would be clearer but with slightly smaller dimensions.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:14, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, I went ahead and replaced it with Peter's image. Sorry for causing all this trouble. I've always been a baseball fan, but I never realized just how much we Wikivoyageers care about our ballpark images. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:44, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Looks good. --(WT-en) Jtesla16 21:46, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

 * No trouble, it's nice to have a little Wikivoyage get together over some baseball ;) --(WT-en) GO SOX 02:40, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Green building
I have to ask (because I'm not sure of the answer), does it make sense to have a paragraph about green buildings in Pittsburgh under the See#Architecture section? I'm thinking no...Green building is great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that sort of info is really of any help to travelers, and it's not something unique to Pittsburgh (I mean come on, every city has LEED-certified buildings cropping up). Or should we just leave it? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 01:35, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

 * If the specific buildings are of note (and the David L Lawrence Convention Center looks like it is), then I think they would fit well in district "see" sections. If they're really notable, then I'd recommend mentioning them in the paragraphs above. But the short paragraph as written seems unintegrated into the travel guide, and is overly reliant on readers following the link offsite. Since it doesn't fit naturally in this otherwise cohesive section, I'd remove it. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:20, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I study architecture and am sure that at least noting Pittsburgh's large number of green buildings would be of interest at least to architects/students who might visit. I just showed two of my archie friends around town this weekend, and they were interested to see some of those buildings (chiefly the convention center of course).  I do think it is kinda a big deal even for the amateurs (considering our large number of green buildings, and yet our outdated "dirty" image).  (WT-en) Ctoocheck 15:21, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Sure, if you study architecture I'm sure it'd be of interest, but most travelers aren't studying architecture. And those that are have plenty of other routes to tap into this info, Wikipedia being a great one. And while Pittsburgh has it's fair share of green buildings, it's really not something I think "defines" Pittsburgh - Green building is the buzzword in architecture now, and every city has LEED-certified buildings cropping up. Do we need paragraphs about green building in every city article?
 * I don't have any problem with mentioning that such-and-such building is a green one (like in the listing for the convention center in the Downtown article), I just don't see the need for this paragraph. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 18:06, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Well, it is not an exceptionally long paragraph...maybe the length can be cut a bit...but in any case I think it would at least be nice to mention something of it. It does not "define" us, but, considering our reputation as a dirty city, it highlights the fact that we are not, we do in fact have a very large number of these buildings.  Do what your heart tells you. (WT-en) Ctoocheck 18:55, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

 * I think the last paragraph of the History section already does a good job of clearing off the "dirty" image. Anyway, cutting the length of the paragraph wouldn't really help - it already doesn't fit into the rest of the text, cutting the length would probably just make matters worse. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 19:08, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Yeah, it's not the length that's the problem, it's the flow. Would it be possible to integrate the most relevant information into the existing paragraphs before it? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:26, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Does this look good? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:18, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

 * That works fine. I reworded a bit to improve flow.  Hope that is kosher. (WT-en) Ctoocheck 17:26, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Wayfinder colors
Might it be appropriate to change the colors corresponding to the districts/wayfinder? Newer wayfinder signs show the East End/South in red instead of orange. (WT-en) Ctoocheck 15:28, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Oakland
There's an enormous amount of info just on Oakland in the EEnd-South district, and there's also quite a bit on other neighborhoods. Do you think it might be a good idea to make Oakland a page of its own? It is the "second downtown", after all. (WT-en) Ctoocheck 17:35, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Hmmm...for the moment I want to see where it goes. Right now I think it's holding together pretty well. If it gets too long, we can always break it down later. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 20:16, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Scope
Does this article cover only the exact city limits? I recently stayed in Green Tree and it's surrounded on three sides by the city but it's its own borough. Is a new article in order for Green Tree? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:12, 2 December 2009 (EST)

 * Hmmm...tough call. It's not that far out, but any Pittsburgher basically considers anything past Mt. Washington outside Pittsburgh proper.  I think I would just put it with Robinson Township, since it's along that same highway and hotels along there like to mention their proximity to the airport. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 17:39, 2 December 2009 (EST)
 * I don't like tossing it in with Robinson, since it's clearly a separate borough and is probably more recognizable than Robinson anyway. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:40, 3 December 2009 (EST)
 * More recognizable? At least Robinson has the mall with the IKEA - what does Green Tree have? But I guess that's beside the point - if you want to create a Green Tree article, feel free, I just can't really see it having much in the way of content. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
 * I'm probably wrong, it's probably just my own foreign bias for boroughs (New Yorkese "villages") versus townships. =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:45, 3 December 2009 (EST)
 * According to Wikipedia, Green Tree, while it is a "borough", has a population of 4,700, compared to Robinson Township's population of over 12,000. I guess Pennsylvania's classification system is a little screwy. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 00:12, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * Well, population is hardly the only measure, although I take your point. Still, putting Green Tree content in Robinson would be odd since they're not even adjacent, and the hotels in Green Tree don't have "Airport" plastered all over their names.  =)  The real barrier to a Green Tree article is that I don't think there's anything to do or see, really.  It's just houses, hotels, and a few commercial areas.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:38, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * True that. Maybe we should approach this matter differently...perhaps a "West Allegheny County" article, to cover all these little communities that on their own wouldn't amount to much. So Green Tree, Carnegie, Robinson Township, Coraopolis, the airport...It's not our usual way of doing things, but the way we're handling these kinds of suburban and rural areas on Wikivoyage now aren't really doing the trick. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:16, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * I seem to have bit myself in the back with this one, given how hotels that are in Green Tree keep winding up in Pittsburgh articles. I've added a Green Tree article for the time being. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 12:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Citation?
"The South Side Flats neighborhood has the most popular and diverse bar scene, and is said to have more bars per block/capita than almost anywhere else in the U.S. Most bars are along a mile-long strip of E Carson St. between 7th and 29th Sts."

I can't find much to back this up. Though it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

—The preceding comment was added by 205.232.27.2 (talk • contribs)

 * I would go ahead and take out the bit about most bars per block/capita, but the rest sounds perfectly reasonable to me. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 21:30, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Lead image
This image certainly does have better colors, but it doesn't show the incline car! That spot of bright red was a key component of the old picture, and without it, Pittsburgh looks like any other Mid-Atlantic city. I would prefer the old photo, even with the less-than-ideal hue. LtPowers (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Good point. I have reverted. I disagree with your "any other... city," though. The skyline pushing up into a triangle against the river there is pretty striking! --Peter Talk 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite the addition of the banner, I hate to lose File:Pittsburgh view-from-incline sm-2.jpg. Is there anywhere else in the article we can put it? LtPowers (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 * To be fair, I did use the incline part of that image for the banner on Pittsburgh/South Side, so I actually got two banners out of that image. :) I considered moving the image down to somewhere else in the article, but it didn't seem to quite fit any other section. Any suggestions are most welcome. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I know; we've got so many pics already, but it really makes such a great overview image. It's really the iconic glamor shot for the city.  I searched and searched for an image that had the incline car in horizontal line with the skyline, so it could be used as a banner, but in vain.  The current banner is okay, but it doesn't have that pop to me, and you have to really look to see it's Pittsburgh.  LtPowers (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I too had hoped to find a picture with the incline in horizontal line with the skyline, but I also came up empty handed. Anyway, I thought I would try a different image and adjust the angle on this one a bit. Still no incline car, but I'm hoping it gives it a little more pop. PerryPlanet (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I think that's an improvement. I also like the one you put on Downtown.  LtPowers (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming the East End guides
When I created the Pittsburgh/East End-South and Pittsburgh/East End-North pages, I didn't take too much care in naming them, and I've grown to dislike the use of the hyphen. It's not officially part of our naming conventions, but typically a hyphen is used to distinguish between two districts covered by the same guide (e.g. San Francisco/Civic Center-Tenderloin), making the use of it here inconsistent with the norm. So I'm thinking we should rename them.

We could take the easy approach and simply rename them to "Pittsburgh/North East End" and "Pittsburgh/South East End", although to be honest, "East End" really doesn't seem to be that common a term for the area — locals tend to refer to specific neighborhoods rather than regions of the city — so a better approach might be to just name them after the most prominent neighborhoods in each district (e.g. "Pittsburgh/Oakland-Shadyside-Squirrel Hill" and "Pittsburgh/Strip District-Lawrenceville-Bloomfield"), which would be consistent with our approach in other huge city guides.

What do you guys think? PerryPlanet (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with your assessments. (Though, typographically, the hyphen in "Civic Center-Tenderloin" should be a spaced en-dash, which would solve part of the problem.) Three neighborhood names is a lot for one article title, though. Wikipedia's article calls them "Strip District/Lawrenceville" and "East End", which matches closely with most of the other (unofficial) sources I've found. Powers (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Three neighborhoods is a lot, but not unprecedented. Still, I'd be perfectly satisfied with "Strip District/Lawrenceville". "East End" is a bit problematic, since it covers both areas (even the Wayfinder System is a bit inconsistent about this). We could just rename it "Oakland", seeing as that's far and away the most prominent neighborhood in the area. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Should we include Squirrel Hill in the Oakland name? It seems like a large neighborhood, but then Shadyside might feel left out. Powers (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure... Squirrel Hill definitely is the larger neighborhood, but from a visitor perspective they seem fairly equal in terms of prominence. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Oakland is by far the more prominent area. Squirrel Hill is almost entirely residential. There are no attractions in Squirrel Hill. All it has are restaurants, and although some are quite good, I wouldn't say they provide equal draw to the Oakland attractions. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No no, I meant that Squirrel Hill is equal to Shadyside in terms of prominence. Obviously Oakland is way more prominent than either of those two. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Oops! Yeah, most people who know of one, know the other, but if I were going to choose one to list, I think I'd choose Squirrel Hill. Although I generally think without hyphens looks better, I don't have strong opinions on Oakland vs Oakland-Squirrel Hill ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I kinda forgot about this. Are we all okay with renaming to Pittsburgh/Oakland and Pittsburgh/Strip District-Lawrenceville? PerryPlanet (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a substantive objection. It's kind of weird that with the Wayfinder system there doesn't appear to be any official names for the five subdivisions, but we make do with what we got. Typographically I'd still prefer "Pittsburgh/Strip District – Lawrenceville" but I realize that's not our convention. Powers (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The deed is done. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Without even knowing the original names, I changed these back. Please feel free to revert me, but I think they make a lot more sense: for example, if I need East Liberty information, I can't tell whether it's part of 'Strip District-Lawrenceville' or 'Oakland', but I know it's on the East End. I generally am against the idea of renaming an entire swath of the city after a single neighborhood. But again, feel free to revert. Roydale12 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering there was no discussion on this change and the district names were decided based on consensus in this same thread, I think the names should be reverted and then if you want to start a discussion about renaming the districts, you can. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , since you probably know more about Pittsburgh than others here, you should definitely re-start the discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted in the interim. This kind of change doesn't get made unilaterally, especially in a Guide-level article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Renaming the East End guides II
I think "East End-North" and "East End-South" make a lot more sense as names for the two sections of the east side of the city. Even if "East End" isn't used by natives of the city, I think I've seen it on signs in the city and I've definitely heard or at least read it as a transplant. It's what I would call the entire eastern part of the city between the rivers and east of downtown.

Meanwhile, the existing district names of Oakland and Strip District-Lawrenceville don't really reflect an East End that's full of a lot of distinctive neighborhoods. I could see the argument that Oakland deserves a standalone article, and I do also think that nearby neighborhoods like Shadyside and Squirrel Hill (as neighborhoods with large student populations) have a strong relationship with Oakland, but I don't think naming an article that also includes neighborhoods as distinctive as Squirrel Hill and Shadyside and the Hill District and Regent Square "Oakland" does any good for someone trying to find their way around the city. I find "East End-South" clear enough—it's the south part of the East End of the city—and it does a better job of including the variety of neighborhoods in that part of the city.

The Strip District-Lawrenceville (or as I'd prefer, East End-North) section makes even less sense with its current name. It includes a number of additional neighborhoods that have become destinations in and of themselves (for better and for worse)—East Liberty, Bloomfield, and Garfield being the main three. These neighborhoods don't have a ton to do with the Strip District and Lawrenceville (particularly the further east you go) and I'd argue that they are less related to those two neighborhoods than certain East End-South neigborhoods are to Oakland. Roydale12 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pittsburgh


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh/Bloomfield

City District

Help! I could use a reference for a peculiar feature of Pittsburgh neighborhood streets. Because our builders were as lawless as our robber-barons, sometimes people built in the middle of a street. That is one reason for our crazy little alleys, sometimes only a block long, and which provide such problems for drivers. I remember the speaker said that she had read about this feature in a Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania publication. Anyone? 64.12.116.12 13:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Pittsburgh/Bloomfield


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh/Downtown

Need some help here. On this page heading, Pittsburgh is spelled wrong (no "h" at the end. There are cities spelled that way but the Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania isn't. I thought when I initiated this page (from the Pittsburgh page) that the system would add the Pittsburgh prefix automatically. Apparently it doesn't. So my questions are: How does it get there? Does the initiator have to do it manually? If so, how? How can I now fix it?

 * Hi Mr. Goetsch,

 * When you go to what is now the Pittsburg/Downtown page you should see in the right column a link called "Move this page". Click that to get a page with a text entry box for the new name, into which you'd put Pittsburgh/Downtown.  Then it's just a matter of changing the links, especially from the Pittsburgh page itself. -- (WT-en) Mark 11:29, 27 Apr 2004 (EDT)

 * Thanks Mark. Worked good. I'm learning, slowly.

 * Sorry! That was my who misspelled Pittsburgh. Stupid me! --(WT-en) Hansm 17:29, 2004 Apr 30 (EDT)

 * No problem. All fixed now. And I understand better how it works.
 * (WT-en) William M Goetsch 07:35, 1 May 2004 (EDT)

Removed Dumplinz cafe. I was trying to find it today until someone told me it had been closed for about a year.--72.255.33.77 12:39, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Avenue names
Shouldn't the names of the avenues (First, Second, Third, etc.) be spelled out? The streets use numerals, but spelling out the avenues as they are on the street signs seems like a useful visual distinction between them, which could help avoid confusion. Powers (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Three Rivers Arts Festival Gallery
Is the gallery closed? There seems to be something called 937 Gallery at that address now, and while it's mentioned on the Arts Festival web site, it's only as a venue for the festival proper, not as a year-round extension of the fest. Powers (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pittsburgh/Downtown


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh/Strip District-Lawrenceville

Bloomfield Bridge Tavern picture might need to be deleted. I don't see the "Welcome to Bloomfield" as particularly unique, and the caption below the the picture seems to prove that. I don't believe local residents would say it's an architectural landmark, so I would recommend it be deleted or at the very least, caption be changed. Drew(WT-en) Zepppep 16:25, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I kinda like the picture actually --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 16:46, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Not all pictures need to be of landmarks. I think pages can be made more interesting with this type of photo. I'm sure residents and tourists alike would not name this building as an attraction or must-see sight, but I don't think that means it's bad. At any rate, there is no reason to delete it. There may be a better picture, and if you have one, you could try swapping it, but the "welcome" art is not doing any harm as it is. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:18, 23 October 2009 (EDT)


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh/Oakland

Hi! I live in Squirrel Hill. If someone explains how it should appear (or adds stubs) I'd be willing to add information about places to eat, visit, etc. in Squirrel Hill. --(WT-en) docwhat 12:29, 8 January 2009 (EST)
 * Fantastic! Well, if you look at the top of the sections (See, Eat, Sleep, etc.) on the right-hand side, there is a button that says "add listing". Just click that, and a box will come up which shows you the information to put in. You don't need to put in everything (we don't expect people to put in everything on the first time), just put in what you know. When you save the listing, it should come up and look like the way we try to format them. Don't worry about anything looking wrong, I can correct any mistakes that are made. And if you need help figuring out what goes where, check out Project:Where you can stick it. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 01:05, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Salk Hall museums
Do the museums still exist? Is there a web site/page somewhere?
 * removed following text from listing--Traveler100 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The building contains two small museums, the Dental Museum, on the first floor of Salk Hall's reception area, as well as the Pharmacy Museum, located on the fourth floor. Tours can be arranged (Pharmacy Museum: +1 412 647-8494, 8AM-6PM; Dental Museum +1 412 383-7544).

title: Talk:Pittsburgh/Oakland


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh/Shadyside

I moved everything that is actually in East Liberty to a new East Liberty article, as well as the one item that is in Squirrel Hill. --(WT-en) Sloshmo 12:26 EDT, June 25, 2008

title: Talk:Pittsburgh/Shadyside


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh/South Side

I think this needs to be disambiguated-- or is it really the only "South Side"? I can't think of others offhand, but it's sounds like it. Thoughts? (WT-en) Majnoona 13:23, 21 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * It is the only Southside in Pittsburgh and the name is well understood and not ambiguous to any local. It is comparable (namewise) to the "oldtown", or "downtown" that you find in many cities. There is also a "Northside", which is where the sports stadiums are and people use these "neighborhood" terms.

 * I think you're right that it would be better placed under "Districts", or maybe "Neighborhoods". Your distinction isn't clear to me. Anyway, I'll take a pass at clearing this up but I'm a newbie so you might want to keep an eye on me.
 * (WT-en) William M Goetsch 11:57, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * Hi Mr. Goetsch! I think MAJ mentioned disambiguation because all of the Wikivoyage pages are at more or less the same level.  There are a couple of different ways to do it, but my understanding is that in the case of a neighborhood within a city it would be something like Pittsburgh/Southside, as so not to confuse it with, say, Chicago/Southside. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:03, 23 Mar 2004 (EST)

Tours
Wikivoyage is really designed with the independent traveler in mind, so as explained in the tour policy, tours are listed only if they are a "value-added activity" that a traveler could not fulfill, in substance, on his/her own. That clearly excludes those ubiquitous tourist buses, and I think it only slightly less clearly excludes Segway tours, which if they are special, are special only because they use Segways (which really doesn't seem sufficient). The boat charters don't fulfill guidelines, in my opinion, for another reason:

"If the tour operator is providing a booking service or general travel planning then it should not be listed."

Boat charters are a general travel planning service (or else the listing is so devoid of information that they seem to be nothing but that). If they are going to be listed anywhere with such a contentless listing, perhaps it could be under "buy," though with prices inserted, but let's discuss that. I'd be OK with it, but I'd like for a consensus one way or the other to develop.

The tours I left up use WWII amphibious vehicles - a truly unusual way to get around - or paddle wheel boats, which are perhaps somewhat less unusual, but I think clearly less common than double-decker buses or Segways. And the one using the less unusual vehicle includes Polish food and polka dancing on some of its tours - again, not a common tour activity. Also, it's easy for individual travelers to fulfill the substance of tour bus tours, but tours on water are not as easy for an individual traveler to organize for themselves.

Do you think I made a mistake and removed too many tours, or not enough of them? Please discuss it here, even if I may not be able to respond in a timely fashion after today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just how common do you think Segway tours are? =)  I think they're less common than those seemingly ubiquitous amphibious vehicle tours.  A lot depends, I guess, on what you consider the value-add of the activity.  In the case of the Segways, I think the Segways themselves are the main attraction, moreso than the actual tour content.  LtPowers (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the boat charters listing entailed, since it had no description (so it's fine to take out), but I think riverboat cruises would constitute a value-added activity. So do the segway tours, so I would put that one back in. Though they are becoming kind of ubiquitous... and not just a little goofy ;) --Peter Talk 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you guys want to put the Segway tour listing back in, go ahead - and in that case, I'll refrain from removing such listings in other articles, too. We agree on the river boat cruises. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They may look goofy, but they're really really fun. LtPowers (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So one question: Why is Segway polo the example of what activities not to list in the tour section of the activity listings page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not. The picture is in the "Listing subdivisions and order" section, but I don't think it's meant to illustrate any particular point.  It's just illustrative of an Activity.  LtPowers (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] It's meant to be dismissive of an activity, as witness the caption: "Seriously, San Francisco, segway polo?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely put that picture in as an example of an activity, while still poking fun at SF. --Peter Talk 07:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been interpreting it all the while as an example of what not to list. It should be made clear that such an activity actually should be listed, since that's what you think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this discussion belongs elsewhere, but I would make the argument that segway tours should not be allowed. Like Peter said, they're rather ubiquitous. When it comes down to it, a segway is just a mode of transportation used to navigate publicly accessible roads and sidewalks that anyone can get to on their own, so I'm not sure what is fundamentally different about a segway tour from a bus or a walking tour. What's different about a helicopter tour or a river cruise is that generally these things offer a totally unique perspective on a place, one that would otherwise be very difficult for tourists to view on their own. Now, I think you could argue for a provision being made for segway rental companies that cater to tourists, in the same way that we sometimes do for bicycle rental companies. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above, with a Segway tour, the operation of the Segway is the main attraction, not the sightseeing. Or, if not that, they're at least equal.  The tour company provides the Segways, helmets, and mandatory instruction in the operation of the vehicles as part of the price.  It's very different from a walking tour or a bus tour.  LtPowers (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pittsburgh/South Side


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh/Strip District

Hi, there seems to be a little back-and-forth on this page. I've been reorganizing it to fit better with our Manual of style and article templates. You may also want to take a look at how other city/districts have been done such as San Francisco and London. Feel free to ask if you have any questions, and thank you for your contributions! (WT-en) Majnoona 01:42, 26 Mar 2004 (EST)

 * I had another go as it seems the changes (WT-en) Majnoona made were overwritten by coincident changes by (WT-en) William M Goetsch. -- (WT-en) Huttite 02:45, 27 Mar 2004 (EST)

--- Are Primanti Brothers at 46 18th Street in the Strip District? The details about them on thePittsburgh page should be given here instead. -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:06, 27 Mar 2004 (EST)

The original restaurant is in the strip district but the one on 18th street is in the South side-a satellite. There are others as well. (WT-en) William M Goetsch 22:19, 15 Apr 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Pittsburgh/Strip District


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh Region

Regions
First of all, let me say that I'm new to this site. I'm just trying to find out the best way to go about covering the Pittsburgh region (since that's where I'm from.)

I think we need some different sub-regions for the Pittsburgh Region. Right now it just uses each county as a sub-region. Here were my ideas for the regions and some cities:

 * Allegheny County - for cities, use the ones already on the Allegheny County page.

 * Washington and Greene Counties - Washington, Waynesburg, ???
 * The Laurel Highlands (Fayette, Westmoreland, and Somerset Counties) - Greensburg, Ligonier, Uniontown, Connellsville, Somerset (plenty of 'other destinations')
 * Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Indiana, and Lawrence Counties - ???

As you can see, I couldn't come up with any names, but I believe separating it like this, or some similar way would make it easier than doing it by county. For example, how (or why) would you write a whole article on Greene County? It only has 40,000 people and it is mostly farmland.

I'm not too familiar with the area north of Pittsburgh, so I don't know if those last 5 counties should be split or not. (WT-en) Rockets 14:29, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Counties are just our default way of dividing regions, especially regions that are defined by which counties they encompass. But we certainly prefer divisions that are more useful for the traveler.  Not being familiar with the area, I can't say for sure if your suggestions are ideal, but I'd say go ahead and Plunge forward!  All you need to do is start the new articles, and change the "IsPartOf" or "IsIn" template on each city's page to point to the new subregion rather than to the county or to the Pittsburgh Region.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:18, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I went ahead and carried out this idea. I couldn't think of a better name for the northern and southern parts of the region than "North" and "South", but I figure we can change that later. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 15:53, 5 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm assuming South will include only Washington and Greene Counties so that the Laurel Highlands will include Fayette, Somerset and Westmoreland. Correct? (WT-en) Rockets 10:46, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

 * That's correct. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:27, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Pittsburgh Region


text:
Talk:Pittsfield

Pittsfield MA?(WT-en) SHC 18:58, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

this Pittsfield is now in Massachusetts
Massachusetts it is.(WT-en) SHC 19:09, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Pittsfield


text:
Talk:Pittsfield (Maine)

Sorry everyone wasn't logged in i totally didnt see this blew over my head i apoligize anyway i re created the travel guide for Pittsfield, Maine and i think it looks ok tell me what you think admins other wikivoyagers? (WT-en) Gullsofpeace 09:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * not my part of the world but from the state map it looks as though it is in Somerset County and therefore Kennebec and Moose River Valleys. I have changed the IsPartOf markup to reflect that. If I am wrong please correct it. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:06, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * your guess is as good as mine Burmesedays it sounds like the right part of maine but iam not 100% sure but if you looked on a reliable map source than your most likely probably correct. (WT-en) Gullsofpeace 10:16, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Getting people to waste their time looking up isIn is the name of this guy's game. He's yanking your chain—note the get out link pointing to another one of his favorite non-destinations. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:48, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 * i said detroit, maine because it was close to Pittsfield. (WT-en) Gullsofpeace 13:50, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Pittsfield (Maine)


text:
Talk:Placencia Peninsula

Heard from a friend who just visited in Feb. 2009 that Purple Space Monkey has closed, can anyone confirm?

title: Talk:Placencia Peninsula


text:
Talk:Places for hithiking

So this article is mispelled. I'd fix it, but I'm not convinced this article should even exist since it looks to be an infinite list. Should the content of this article be moved to the individual location articles, or be nuked entirely? Or is there a reason this slippery slope should continue to exist? -- (WT-en) Colin 16:05, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * Tips for hitchhiking also has country-by-country lists that will probably eventually need to go to the country articles. I don't think this needs to exist - (WT-en) Hypatia 16:08, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * Well, the tips article talks more about tips for hitchhiking in specific countries whereas this article seems to focus more on particular routes and places to stand while hitchiking. So while the tips article teeters on the edge of a slippery slope, this one kinda drives clean off the cliff at high velocity. I'm going to vfd this cause there's just no way to have a list like this.  I guess my only remaining question is whether or not to preverve any of the content. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:13, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * I think some of it could go in the Get out of relevant city articles. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 16:18, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)

My arguments for...
Ok, sorry for my grammar. I made this list, because I feel that is usefull to have this kind informations on 1 place. To be easy to print, believe easier to maintain and I think more hithhikers would help create it.

I agree this list can be infitite, but I think that all projects like WikiTravell or Wikipedia are infinite!
 * OK, so what you need to justify is having this content on a single page. Why is it better to have information on hitchhiking from Brno here than it is to have in on Brno? Does it meet our goals better to have it here? I would have thought that if I was looking for good places to hitchhike out of Brno, I'd go look at the Brno article, not in a huge long list in a completely different part of the site... -- (WT-en) Hypatia 17:49, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * Because if you decide to go on the road, It's practical to have information in 1 place. To be easy to print&take away. You don't need to print history of the all cities you want to visit. Because when I go on the road, I usualy don't know where exactly I want to go. "Somewhere in north Europe." I'm sure you know http://www.autostopguide.com/. But it's closed project. It would be nice to have something similar, but in open form, like Wiki allows. I belive it meets goal of WikiTravell. If not, I'm sorry for wasting your time and resources.
 * It's not a waste in any case, even if we do move the information (and this is probably going to happen)... at least you gave us information to move. So... thanks for the help ;)
 * There's a potential compromise you could make, which is going to a country page, like Czech Republic and adding some hitchhiking info there: something like "the best routes for getting where you're going are... [short list]" -- (WT-en) Hypatia 18:29, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * This issue was discussed on Talk:Tips for hitchhiking and the consensus (as well as my opinion) seemed to be " Nobody chooses their destination based on hitchability." Well, it seems like this is exactly what this anonymous traveler likes to do.

 * If that's the case, then such a list would be useful. It is definitely pratical to have information in one place, just like a single train schedule for an entire country or region. Whether it addresses Wikivoyage's goals is a different matter, but I think the utility is clear. And a quick perusal of Project:Slippery slopes doesn't show anything against lists of practical, factual information.

 * I just don't like the idea of having a manually maintained article. In general I don't like open-ended Wiki list articles, because they tend to duplicate information and be incomplete at the same time. Wikis run on a database, so that's what should be used to aggregate information, not manual input.

 * Perhaps there could be a script that goes out and gets anything below the following headings and then sorts it by article name, and dumps it into this article.

 * Yeah! It would be great!But I don't mediawiki, is possible to write this kind of scripts?

 * ==Get out==
 * ===By hitching===
 * ====Locations====
 * If you're coming in on the highway from Hamburg, try to get off at Exit A3, close to the station...
 * Heading out to Stuttgart, wait on the roundabout near Mariaplatz S-bahn station....
 * -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 23:45, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * I'm still not seeing why someone who's looking for good places to hitchhike to couldn't go to the country page, see "the best hitchhiking route in Slovakia is..."" and then look at the city pages...

 * Incidently your first example would go in Get in wouldn't it? -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:06, 11 Nov 2004 (EST)

Country by Country List
Definitely a List for the whole Country. Guess like it is already mentioned, as a hitchhiker you never know where you end up! And so you print out the page and take it along. And you don't surf through all places and copy&paste it together.. but I can understand the people who say the list is gonna be to long.. is there a possibility to get both? Some [tags] which make such a summary possible?

It's also important what other hitchhiker say, they are gonna us it.

Content moved
The content has been moved to the Get out section of Vienna, Prague, Brno and Calais. I think it's good info -- please add it to other cities ;) -- (WT-en) Hypatia 21:09, 10 Nov 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Places for hithiking


text:
Talk:Plain of Jars

When I did the original regionalisation of Laos, I thought that Plain of Jars might not meet the criteria to be an article, and might be better treated as an attraction in the Phonsavan article. Any thoughts on this? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:57, 27 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I would say the same, however the whole region is better known as the Plain of Jars, so for travellers this article would be the starting point. There are UNESCO supported tours to the jar sites all over the province I am going to post at this article soon... that would be an information fitting for this article and not for the Phonsavan one... --(WT-en) gavilan1644 11:22, 28 April 2010 (Lao Time)

 * That would be great if you could. It is many years since I was there and any personal info I have is therefore way out of date. Certainly the name is more recognisable than Phonsavan. And as an side, a number of our Laos articles need work, so please do not be shy and just plunge forward! Cheers. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:32, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Plain of Jars


text:
Talk:Plantation

All these things were listed in Plantation, but they don't appear to have addresses in Plantation. Maybe there aren't any addresses in Plantation? Should it be a district of Ft Lauderdale? I'm sort of at a loss...

 * the Swap Shop
 * Butterfly World
 * Office Depot Center (Which isn't actually the Office Depot Center anymore, its the Bank Atlantic Center)
 * Sawgrass Mills Outlet Mall

-- (WT-en) Ilkirk 19:44, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Plantation


text:
Talk:Platbos

Comments
Since when are we starting articles about a piece of forest? I think this article is just to promote the only accommodation on it, Plateau Country House! I think best we could put it under Nature's Valley or Tsitsikamma. -- (WT-en) Babbelas 02:28, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
 * Plunge forward as you could be right. Maybe you add the merge and direct icon on top of the article so everybody having an interest in this article starts to discuss here. (WT-en) jan 03:54, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

 * "Access to Platbos Reserve is reserved for guests of Plateau Country House." This shows you're right. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:55, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Agreed. Add either to Nature's Valley or Tsitsikamma.

title: Talk:Platbos


text:
Talk:Playa del Carmen

Contributors should note our manual of style and see this about first person phrasing. (WT-en) OldPine 16:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Price ranges, geo tags
I think this article could benefit immensely from listings explicitly mentioning the price, being geotagged and the eat and sleep listings being grouped by price range. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Playa del Carmen


text:
Talk:Playa Dorada

Destination or resort?
Is this is a destination, or just a part of Puerto Plata? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:09, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
 * Judging by the top thirty or so Google hits, it's just a resort. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 01:35, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Playa Dorada


text:
Talk:Playas De Este

VFD Discussion
It's a beach, so probably not worthy of its own article. (WT-en) Nrms 12:06, 2 March 2010 (EST)
 * Redirect to Havana.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:04, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Result: Redirected. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 15:30, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Playas De Este


text:
Talk:Plymouth (England)

How can there have been no discussion for this city

lets make this article really special, what would people like to see?

Profjack

title: Talk:Plymouth (England)


text:
Talk:Plymouth (Massachusetts)

Ideas

 * Need picture of harbor/Mayflower II
 * Would like to do another suggested drive like "To the south" for:
 * going west out of town into the state forest via Summer St, with a side trip to see Morton Park and Billington Sea (it's been a while since I've been out that way)
 * and north into North Plymouth and Cordage villages.

 * Should the itineraries section be split out into a separate page, expanded, and linked back? Allegro8032 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you for all of your great work on the Plymouth page! It is really shaping up under your stewardship.
 * I will be the first one to admit I don't really understand the policies around here, but from what I can see it looks like all the "Driving itineraries" on the page are, uh, let's say "non-conforming". Have a look at Itineraries if you like, but I didn't find it that helpful. Basically what it's saying (I think) is that all the "Driving" content should be moved to live under Carver, or Plympton, or wherever. UNLESS you want to make a Driving the Irish Riviera itinerary that is basically all the cool stuff along Route 3A. But I think there are also opinions about whether or not roads (or bits of roads) are deserving of itinerary pages, so I would ask about that.
 * To sum up: you should delete the content under "Driving", or (preferably), move it to wherever it lives. For example create a listing for Widgeon Pond in the town where it is located. (Could just be Plymouth?). This will be a pain. If you want, ask at the pub if an itinerary along a segment of US Route 3A is cool to have. Or just do it if you have the time and inclination.
 * Also, you should sign your posts with 4 tildes ( ~ ), it makes it easier to figure out who said what.
 * Thank you again for all your fantastic work! --ButteBag (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks so much for the feedback and advice! I had checked out the "itineraries" page as well and also found it pretty unhelpful. I'm thinking to clean up the Plymouth page I'll pull the driving section out and mention any highlights/landmarks mentioned in sections where they are actually located - I think a lot of these are already in their respective see/do/eat categories anyway. I can see a bigger Boston-Cape Cod 3A south shore itinerary being created for those so inclined but that sounds like a project for a different time and place. Thanks again (and for the signature protip)! Allegro8032 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 * No problem! Thanks again for your edits. Let me know if you'd like me to do a little mos cleanup sometime. There are so many rules here it's impossible to learn them all. On the flip-side however, everything always ladders up to tcf, so if you do anything in good faith, it's the right move. --ButteBag (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Section Edits/Cleanup

 * I've gone through this page and done a lot of clean-up work, re-organizing, and adding/removing work on the listings to try and hit the most uniquely Plymouth aspects for potential travelers. If anyone with more wikivoyage editing experience has any suggestions on missing sections or ones that need more fleshing out, please let me know as I have gotten to a point where I think I've pretty much covered most of it but am happy to do some more re-tooling if any of these sections read as incomplete or weak. I've also taken my best stab at sticking with the mos but I'm sure there are items that could use improvement there or some things I've missed after re-reading it too many times. Allegro8032 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for all your work on this article! I think it's safe to say no one on here knows as much about Plymouth as you do! I'll do a few minor mos things, but I think you got most of it. --ButteBag (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks really good! The only other thing you could do is split up the See section a little more. You're only "supposed" to have 5-9 things in a section. Maybe Plymouth Plantation could be a subhead? You could do it like a complex attraction? Like how I did Quincy Market for example. Or not. Whatever you think makes the most sense and gets things into the 5-9 count. --ButteBag (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point! Maybe I can group the Plantation-owned attractions into one section. I'll take a look at it. Allegro8032 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so I think I came up with a good subcategory solution, especially since the list was long on old houses. Allegro8032 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Plymouth (Massachusetts)


text:
Talk:Plymouth Barbican

This article should certainly be merged with Plymouth. The whole town has a population of about 250,000 and is quite compact. Lovely place and much under-visited, but not a districtification candidate.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:33, 6 March 2010 (EST)
 * Yup. Totally agree. (WT-en) Texugo 03:03, 6 March 2010 (EST)
 * I have copied all useful information and re-directed page to Plymouth.(WT-en) Chris1515 11:09, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Plymouth Barbican


text:
Talk:Podgorica

Taxis
The statement about taxis is not true. Podgorica has an amazing taxi service (better than any major city in the world). Usually, the cabs show up 2 minutes after you call them and you can get from one end of the city to the other for about 2 Euro.
 * I, on the other hand, am dissatisfied with the statement: Probably the best option to move around Podgorica are cheap and reliable taxi service.
 * Many travel guides point out that in Montenegro you generally shouldn't just hop in and off in a cab, but that you should haggle out a maximum price beforehand. Which could be difficult if your Montenegrin is a little rusty. Maikel (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Stay safe
There is no Stay Safe section... Is there anything worth worring about, besides the same thing as in all big cities? --(WT-en) Gungner 20:52, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Added some things concerning the Trg Republike (see), the problem of the taxi meters and Cetinje (Get out). But there must be some grammar mistakes because I am French and I am not used to write English touristic vocabulary. If someone could correct my mistakes...
 * Pas de problème, thanks for your edits! (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:44, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Usable?
This article is at least close to usable. A dynamic map and some Mosing would help. Maybe it's best to concentrate on making it a Guide, with Usable status attained en route. In that case, more prices in listings would be helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Abandoned prison
Could someone please tell me something about the abandoned prison right next to the train station? What was it used for and when, and when was it abandoned? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Counterfeit brands
I spent a few days in the city and didn't come across any. I think it's not a problem anymore. So I've removed the respective warnings. Maikel (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Podgorica


text:
Talk:Pohnpei

Pingelap Info?
I would appreciate seeing any details on travel to and accomodation available on Pingelap - the neighboring "Island of the Colorblind".

title: Talk:Pohnpei


text:
Talk:Pointe-a-Pierre

Is this really big (or interesting) enough to be a destination? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:59, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Merge with San Fernando
I dont think there is anywhere to stay here and its main attraction is already listed in San Fernando.

Should articles be merged? Jdlrobson (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't personally know about either place, but based on the amount of content in the articles, your suggestion looks right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pointe-a-Pierre


text:
Talk:Point Fortin

Explanation of blanking of "See"
I blanked the "See" section from the initial contributor because: -- (WT-en) Jonboy 18:03, 17 January 2007 (EST)
 * 1) It contained a reference to an external web site that wasn't the official town one (but apparently a regional one).
 * 2) It appeared to be a copyvio from an older version of  (accessible through the Google Cache, at least for now).

title: Talk:Point Fortin


text:
Talk:Point Pleasant Beach

Tower Cottage
It's actually a beautiful inn, and I was going to argue that it was a close case whether it should be deleted as an advertising image or kept as a photo of a notable sight. However, when a photo of the Colonia Motel was substituted, there was no longer any question whatsoever that had to be deleted. Outside views of motels are not interesting.

(WT-en) Ikan Kekek 21:58, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Point Pleasant Beach


text:
Talk:Point Reyes National Seashore

WikiOutdoors link
Hi there. I added the WikiOutdoors link to the Point Reyes Natl Seashore category in WikiOutdoors. Detailed hikes will continue to be posted there. (WT-en) Kirasw 00:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Point Reyes National Seashore


text:
Talk:Poipet

The neutrality of this article should be disputed.

 * We're not neutral, we're fair. Go on, I dare you to find one good thing to say about this shithole. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:07, 2 September 2006 (EDT)
 * Poipet sucks, yes. But the "go by plane" part is simply bad advice for anyone with a limited budget. There's plenty of money to save by going overland instead of flying, and you don't stay in Poipet for very long if you do go overland. Anyone who panics over a few minutes in Poipet should probably stay at home. I'll modify in a few days unless anyone objects (or I forget the whole thing) before that./Jake73

 * Go ahead! (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:07, 2 November 2006 (EST)

Gordon Sharpless says that...
Who, m ay I ask, is this character? His poetic talents have been underappreciated. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 07:15, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

 * See, which used to be awesome, but is pretty bad these days (getting kids and running a hotel will do that to you). (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:40, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Er, I'm not being able to access the link. 1 off-topic q to you if you don't mind, do you hate kids? :) (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 09:25, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Oops -- URLs work better with a .com at the end. And as WC Fields said, "I love children, if they are cooked properly." (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:11, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Hey, I'm kinda scared of cannibals, you know :) (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 07:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

 * That would be the point, yes. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sharpen my extensive knife collection... (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:21, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

 * deindenting. I'm really really scared. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) •

And if this place is really that bad, do we need to have an article at all? (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 07:24, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

 * It's the main border crossing between Thailand and Cambodia, so yes, we do. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:40, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

 * I see. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage • ( Talk ) • ( (WT-en) Travel ) • 09:16, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Inappropriate Language
This article helped me a lot by crossing the border without gettng cought in one of the traps. I know it is very annoying with all the touts and that monopoly, but words like scumbag are not the proper language.

I am not a native english speaker, therefore I don't want to change it, but it would be great if someone could look into this. 203.223.38.117 09:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I just rewrote a few of the words. Better?  --Inas (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured article?
What would it take for this article to become Off the Beaten Path? /Yvwv (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Poipet


text:
Talk:Pokhara

Image syntax
Gar, anyone know why the thumbnail isn't working for Image:Lake_pokhara.jpg|thumb ? Thanks... (WT-en) Majnoona 13:45, 31 Oct 2004 (EST)

 * → Project:Bug_reports_1.3.5. Grab hubby by the ear and tell him to fix it =) (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:50, 31 Oct 2004 (EST)

Shurely shome mishtake?
I assume someone hit the revert button in error here?

(The revert amongst many other ostensible errors introduced, changed Enfields and other Indian manufactured, "modern vintage" motorcycles. to Enfields and other vintage motorcycles ;  ₹35,000 to  35,000 Rs, (₹40 and ₹10 pieces), Samosa (₹10 each) or Fried noodles (₹50). 07:00-08:00, children walk the streets with trays of pastries; chocolate croissants, cinnamon rolls and other cakes. Each cost about ₹15 to (40/- Rs, 10/- pieces), Samosa (10/- Rs each) or Fried noodles (50/- Rs). Between 07:00 & 08:00 children walk the streets with trays of pastries; chocolate croissants, cinnamon rolls and other cakes. Each cost about 15/- Rs, ₹180, good Nepali Khanna (Dhal Bhat) for ₹130 to 180 rupes, good Nepali Khanna (Dhal Bhat) for 130 rupes , ₹110 for a Daal Bhat to Rs 110 for a Daal Bhat , USD3 pizzas to $3 pizzas in violation of wv:$; around 20:00 to around 8pm in violation of wv:tdf; changed the spelling of Prices are moderate to Price is modarate ; changed Free Wi-Fi to Wifi contrary to Abbr) --118.93nzp (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please stop it. You can see that "someone" who is actually me has reverted your edit by mistake but you can't see it was later undid by that "someone"? I'm sure your eyesight is not that weak and you just love to fill the talk pages, but this is like being very immature. --Saqib (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I started this discussion page comment at 21:30, 22 November 2013 UTC. You reverted your own mistake nearly an hour earlier. Unfortunately, at the time I made my comment, my New Zealand ISP had not updated the cache of our article page, so your revert of your own revert was not visible. I'd very much appreciate it if you did not characterise me as nitpicking and childish in future - especially after your earlier accusations of sockpuppetry - when I raise topics of legitimate concern.

 * Feel free to remove this entire section if you feel that both your comments and my own are unfair/redundant. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I joined WV, I always tried to not involve myself anything controversial here or argue with fellow editors, rather I always focused myself on content improvement but I'm seriously upset with whats been going on here lately so I've deiced to take a firm stand against those who're against WV or against the community so I must caution you be very careful from now on because you're the one who's in my watch-list. Now lets back to topic, I reverted your edit by mistake at 19:27, 22 November 2013 and it was later undid at 19:27, 22 November 2013. You started this discussion at 21:30, 22 November 2013. This is really very strange that your ISP had not updated the cache of article page even after two hours. And yes I had accused you of Tony sock puppet but actually you're a sock puppet of *****. Better lets leave this topic here and no, don't try to delete this discussion. --Saqib (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Amusing; first you accuse me (without evidence) of being an Australian professional writer called Tony using an undeclared secondary account, then you revert my extensive (and correct) copyedit to this article. Now you're practically saying I'm lying when I write that my ISP (New Zealand Vodafone) caches web pages. You should know that Internet charges are relatively high in New Zealand - perhaps because there is only one monopoly cable firm connecting us with the rest of the world. Now you're accusing me of being "a sock puppet of *****".
 * I have no problem with you correcting my edits by behaving in a collegiate way and editing any mistakes I make. Just don't abuse that revert button or your administrator tools by deleting shortcuts in Wikivoyage namespace.
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I'm neither "against WV or against the community" - if I was, I'd hardly have been wasting my time trying to improve these travel guides for the last few years. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no attention to fill this talk page (which is reserved for discussing the article) with other nonsense stuff but I must say please emend yourself or at-least try to. Your current state is completely unacceptable to me but I don't know why w're still tolerating you. --Saqib (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you concentrate on edits rather than editors. If we'd both been concentrating more we might have realised that, although there are a lot of Indian rupees circulating in Nepal, especially near the border, most of these prices were probably expressed in NPR rather than INR, anyway. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Manual of style
People shouldn't judge a book by its cover - but they invariably do.

Because we want to be taken seriously - especially by reviewers, journalists and other opinion formers - that's just one reason why we strive for a consistent and unambiguous house style.

If you can't be bothered about the little things, then just keep adding great and up to date content and perhaps another editor will do some copy editing to fix your little mistakes. If you don't want to cause other people extra effort, then you may wish to know that, currently, wv:$ suggests that you should prefix currency amounts with the three letter ISO 4217 code for the currency in block capitals and no intervening space.

eg: NPR100 in Nepal, not NRs 100, 100 Rs nor 100 Nepali rupees

However, don't knock yourself out "correcting" USD95 to US$95 - there is more important work to be done in plunging forward and writing an up-to-date and accurate free Travel Guide! --118.93nzp (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Splitting listings
As far as I know when the number of listings in a particular section reaches double figures, we should give consideration to splitting them into sub-sections or just doing a bit of pruning.

The "Eat" section now has 30 odd listings, so somebody that knows Pokhara well and recently (it's years since I've been there) might want to group these into price bands or types of cuisine or whatever... --118.93nzp (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Negativity
Have a look at this edit summary. We all greatly appreciate an update, but being negative is not bad if it's warranted and important for (prospective) visitors to know about. So along with my thanks, the question I have for 27.34.18.56 is: Did you delete anything that remains accurate, just because it's negative, and if so, what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Most of the negative additions were added in one edit earlier this year in April. I have no idea about how Pokhara is in reality though some of the language seems excessive, such as saying the new airport will be the final nail in the coffin for Pokhara. To me, it sounds like the original editor wanted to say that Pokhara is losing its small-town charm and natural beauty and is slowly morphing into a big metropolis and was discouraging people for visiting Pokhara because of this. Gizza ( roam ) 04:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Reorder
Pokhara has evidently changed a lot in recent years, lakeside is now very developed and heavily touristed. like many pages, this means the list of restaurants and hotels has become very large - and I'm concerned such a list is ultimately unhelpful and difficult to maintain.

I would propose several changes to make the article more usable 1. Delete the listing's of hotels or restaurants that only contain the venus name /address- but no comment and arent notable based on cuisine. I understand this might undo the work of other editors but I'm concerned we are creating a "white pages". 2. Attempt to delete venus which no longer exist, arduous. 3. Break a whole section off for "the old city" or "outside lakeside". Tourists never go there but it's 2/3 of the city, sectioning it off I think strikes a balance without making district templates on places nobody will ever go. 4. Changing the very negative tone of the article, maybe pokhara isn't the oasis it used to be but that's no reason to discourage visitors

5. Revising the budget groupings, this might be controversial.. Nepal is very very cheap, and the poor performance of the Indian rupee has only exaggerate this. This means the lakeside restaurants are all mixed in with dirty local places in the "budget" section. It's unhelpful no matter which you are looking for. Could we make a "low budget" section for restaurants to separate them?

These are relatively large changes, so I would like feedback before moving ahead with them Regards, Bill. —The preceding comment was added by Billbarrelrider (talk • contribs)

 * Welcome, Bill! Just an organizational style note to start with: At the end of a talk page post, it's the practice to sign your username by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row.

 * That said, and keeping in mind that I have yet to visit Nepal, I have some reactions:

 * (1) Go ahead and remove any listing you consider not to be worthwhile. If you think any of the deletions could possibly be controversial, you could always move those listings here. But anything that's out of business should be removed right away, and if there's insufficient information, remove those, too.

 * (2) Definitely change the price ranges for each budget category in whatever way will be of most help to the traveler. It's completely understood that "budget" in Nepal will be different from the same category in London.

 * (3) If you think it would help to subdivide sections geographically, by all means do that, too.

 * (4) Also go ahead and edit the tone in any way that you feel makes the article more accurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ikan, I'll try to remember my tildes. Hopefully tomorrow I'll find an internet Cafe and do some serious updating, on mobile it's just too hard to editBillbarrelrider (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Yeah, unfortunately, the mobile user interface on this site sucks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pokhara world peace pagoda.jpg
 * Seems like obvious copyright violation, but not visible on the page, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pokhara


text:
Talk:Pokolbin

Winery
Dear Sir:

On January 23, I toured your winery and purchased what I thought would be a fine wine to take back to my daughter and grandson. It was a Shirah priced at $33.58 American. To my dismay, the wine was almost undrinkable, smokey and strong and a bit sour, not at all what I tasted at your winery. I hand carried the wine on the plane from Australia to Las Vegas. I just thought you should know what a disappontment yuour wine was to me and my family.

Sandra Patterson sandyp129@aol.com

Dear Sandra,

I'm sorry to inform you that Wikivoyage has no connection to any wineries, good or otherwise. We hope you have better luck with your purchases in the future. (WT-en) Majnoona 16:16, 26 February 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Pokolbin