text:
Talk:Paramaribo

Copyvios & giant tour list
I removed a large amount of information that appears to be copyright violations. The information was taken from several websites. The differences can be seen here.

I also removed a giant list of tour companies. Wikivoyage is not a substitute for the yellow pages, so we don't try to list every hotel/restaurant/store/tour company that exists - just the ones that stand out. In this case, it's not even clear what kinds of "tours" are being offered. If anyone is familiar with these companies, please add them back in and add a description if you're able:

I've readded the popular tour guides, but I'm not that good in describing their tours.

Tour companies

 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 * <listing name="SUN & FOREST TOURS" address="Gravenstraat 155 Paramaribo" phone="478383" email="" fax="478383" hours="" price="" url="">
 * <listing name="ACCESS SURINAME TRAVEL" address="Prinsessestraat 37 Paramaribo" phone="424522" email="" fax="424522" hours="" price="" url="">
 * <listing name="Oetsi Tours" address="Parijsstraat 40, Paramaribo Suriname" phone="(597)441488" email="" fax="" hours="" price="" url="">

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Fastestdogever (talk • contribs) - It's actually very hard to tell from the history who inserted these listings, but someone did in 2007. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd like to revisit the subject of tour listings, given current policy. It's my opinion that all tour agencies without description should probably be summarily deleted, given that their listings give no rationale for how they add value that would be difficult or impossible for a visitor to obtain on his/her own. The obvious exception is the bike tour, and probably the eco tour, just because their names suggest value added (riding a bike with someone who knows the lay of the land or touring tropical rainforest, not something an inexperienced visitor should consider doing by themselves). Your opinions, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. --W. Frankemailtalk 06:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they must have already been deleted by someone, because the only one I seem to be seeing now is the bike tour. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, there are 4 in a different place now - but I think we should defer to the judgement of those with local knowledge - I think there's a man on the spot isn't there? --W. Frankemailtalk 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the tour companies some weeks ago to Get Around as I think that is the most obvious section. After my opinion 4 is sufficient and I chose the agencies that I know since my last visit early September. And thanks Frank for your textual modifications. WiDi (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC
 * Yes, that sounds about right (although a description of any points of difference would be useful) and that does sound like a logical section. Obviously I assume it's your local judgement that the 4 should remain?
 * In turn, I'd like to thank you, Willem, for your great work in developing the content of our article. I've never been to South America (but I think Alice has had some turnarounds there - I'll do some rubberhosing when voice communications are not so difficult). One thing you can help with is whether 12hour or 24hour time formats are seen more commonly in printed media? I assumed it would be like the Netherlands (and most of continental Europe) with 24hour time formats predominating in printed media, but it would be great to get your view on this assumption, Wim... --W. Frankemailtalk 15:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In Surinamese media 24h format is common. I used 12h as once someone corrected me when I had used 24h. I assumed that 12h was standard for English WK but now reading wv:times tells me to use predominant local usage, which is 24h in Suriname. So thanks for correcting. WiDi (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, Wim. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume that 24h format predominates in written media all over Surinam/e and should, therefore, be consistently used in all Surinam/e related articles. Other things being equal, I prefer the 24h format since it is for most articles the marginally shorter format and, along with the word "OK" and the metric system, one of the most universally understood global, semantic systems. Keep cool! --W. Frankemailtalk 22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

mosque/synagogue
I'm sure that whoever put up the comment about Muslims and Jews was either a Suriname resident proud of their country's diversity, or a foreigner pleased to see such diversity, but it actually kind of offended me to imply that Jews and Muslims are constantly and inherently in violent conflict everywhere in the world every second of every day except in Suriname. I removed it. Please don't put it back.

http://tomyturkey.com/images/Ahrida_Synagogue_2.jpg http://www.sublimephotography.co.uk/eastendphotos/whitechapel/photos/big/synagogue.jpg -- preceding comment was made 00:38, 2 September 2007 by an un-registered or un-logged in user editing from IP address 71.198.168.12

Map problem
This is a system-wide problem, but there was an article (I unfortunately forget which one) where a workaround was found: The problem is that the map is invisible in Firefox unless clicked on. When that problem is solved, I plan on nominating this article for Destination of the Month, because it's a Guide now (I am going to change its status right after posting this message). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This problem affects only logged in users (HTTPS). The Firefox function "block mixed content" is still incomplete, an exception list is missing. However, the following solution is possible:

That's all. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Open the FF advanced configuration: about:config (address bar)
 * Search for: k_a
 * Set "security.mixed_content.block_active_content" to "false" (double click)
 * Thanks, Joachim; I'm impressed with your technical knowledge. While I'm online, it's a lot easier just to click the map, however. My concern is for other users who won't know the procedure you outline. I thought there was an article recently that got around this problem with a dynamic map; I wish I remembered which one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I got https at work without logging in and couldn't see the map that way, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that this will be fixed by the time I return to editing in six months (insha'Allah) -there's a very competent team working on this problem, IK. --W. Frankemailtalk 22:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm not logged in I get HTTP. Please do not previously change to HTTPS mode (eg log in). -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoopeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! It seems the toolservers have been changed now and this is fixed! --W. Frankemailtalk 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Weather
This is the one other thing that I can think of that's an issue in terms of Destination of the Month nomination. It would be good for there to be a subsection of "Understand" that mentions the weather - is there a rainy season or a drought season? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point! --W. Frankemailtalk 06:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the Suriname climate in this article as this is based on Paramaribo.WiDi (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just nominated the article for DotM, but I noticed a problem: What does "water" mean in the climate box? It looks like the average temperature, but the rainfall amounts would be more helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sea temperature is meaningless for Paramaribo. I replaced it with precipitation. Thanks. WiDi (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jungle resorts etc
I'm thinking about how to include the most common excursions from Paramaribo. This country is too small to use "Get out" for nearby towns or so; people typically head out for remote jungle resorts or turtle beach visits. There are, however, only one or two actually popular destinations (Albino maybe, and... Nickerie?). Most other popular trips in the country are typically to remote jungle resorts, or e.g. to Colakreek (a commercially run recreation parc). Although considered by the Suriname people and tourists as destinations of their own, they don't meet our destination article criteria. Redirecting them to the geographically nearest town makes no sense, as they are usually not connected to those tiny, hard to reach bush villages (transport is typically direct, and any village is not necessarily close by either). Do we list them in the country article? Do I also list them under Go next, even though they're individual listings rather than destinations? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to list and explain them in the Suriname Do section and only list in Paramaribo Go Next section. Popular these days is cycling to Nieuw Amsterdam and Frederiksdorp. As Nieuw Amsterdam is seen is part of Paramaribo maybe it fits best here. WiDi (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And then link to the Suriname#Do section from the Go Next section in Paramaribo? I'd be okay with that. I haven't been to Nieuw Amsterdam, can't really judge. If you'd like to add it here in Paramaribo, that seems fine. The article is hardly too long now and we can always separate information later. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Organized tours" subsection of "Get around"
This article is looking a lot better, but Wikivoyage's tour policy, as I understand it, does not allow for unexplained lists of tour agencies. There needs to be an explanation of what added value they provide that would be very difficult or impossible for an individual traveler to obtain on their own. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree, I only left them in since others discussed the issue above and I didn't want to single-handedly remove them all. I must say, in a city with so many tour operators (including not so reliable ones) it would make sense to me to list a few "reviewed" ones, from a traveller's pov. Having visited this place, I know it's hard to determine who you can trust. As a writer, however, I don't see how to draw a line then, as it's not always clear if it's a client or an owner who adds a business. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this, but would suggest we keep the current four until such time as we are able to get some more local input.
 * Julia, while you're here, may I ask you why the tidbit about Sephardic Jews was removed with this edit - was it outdated, false or was there some other reason, please? --W. Frankemailtalk 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Frank, I just realized I entered that info double: it's right there, a few lines down, at the more detailed description of the Jodensavanna I added. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick answer and I apologise for not checking the rest of the article myself. Keep warm (or cool, if you prefer)! --W. Frankemailtalk 20:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Np, thanks for the editorial/language check-ups :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As Ikan said, tour agencies are allowed only when it is hard or impossible to do the thing the tour operator offers you on your own. I think you can get around in the city itself without any tour agencies, but this is probably not the case in the inland jungles. So shouldn't they be moved either to the Get out section or to the Suriname article? ϒpsilon (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea; my suggestion would be the "Go next" section of this article. --W. Frankemailtalk 14:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Now I'm wondering though if we shouldn't just describe the Jodensavanna and Colakreek in the See or Do section of Paramaribo. They're typically seen as a day trip from Paramaribo, I think, don't merit articles of their own but now it kind of crowds the Go-Next section. Also, I tend to think it's a bit "tucked away" in Go Next, since there's no further description elsewhere. What do you guys think? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The easy solution would be to put them in the See section, under a sub-header as they sound more like sights to me. The other solution would be to divide Suriname into Paramaribo + 2-3 regions and write more extensively about Jodensavanne and Colakreek in the appropriate region article(s). ϒpsilon (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sights/Day-trips indeed. The See-section it is then. There's just not really enough around Jodensavanna to make it part of a region here, so they would be mostly empty articles. If we ever would divide Suiname in regions (for which I believe it's too early now) I don't even think Jodensavanna would be in a separate one anyway. But that's fine, I'll move the info. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion long time ago how to split up Suriname (see Talk:Suriname). I thought the suggested regions was a good idea but I already had created the article Nickerie as a district article and piped Nieuw Nickerie and Wageningen to this article. Then this was reverted as multiple items in one listing may not be piped to the same article(!). I'm quite new here so I thought that I had commited a sin and waited for an admins suggestion. That did not come and still a lot of items are marked red, which means (what I think) that these are waiting for someone to create an related article. I agree that separate articles for all those Cities and Other destinations are not needed. My suggestions:
 * 1. remove the brackets and describe it more extensive in the main article(s) (Suriname or Paramaribo),or
 * 2. create region articles as suggested by (WT-en) globe-trotter and (WT-en) Peter and newly by ϒpsilon. Jodensavanne can be describe in region Northeast Suriname
 * I prefer 2. What do you all think?
 * WiDi (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I obviously still think it's just too early (sorry, I'll repeat my rationale here :-) ), unless someone is willing to actually fill those region articles and has enough information to do so. I'm not against regions, I just think we should avoid creating a bunch of half-empty region articles that don't serve the traveller and will only make it look like our Suriname guides are very incomplete for years to come. I'm not sure why we shouldn't make separate articles for the most important towns and natural parks: they do meet our article criteria. Sights in the wider area of such a town, like those you would take on a daytrip from there, can just be described in a destination article. I think we should follow the steps we usually take, creating regions only when the need arises. To quote from policy: Before you plunge forward creating a region, keep in mind that we only add a new level of regions when there are too many cities or too much content in the existing breakdown. (...) Almost always, individual listings (including detailed contact info for restaurants and hotels) do *not* belong in a region or sub-region page. The region-level description is a brief overview only. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the very best solution would be to have separate articles for each destination itself. I'm not a very big fan of districts either. But if there isn't enough information to justify a whole article for the place itself I think a useful solution could be district articles. I vaguely remember a discussion a few months back where PrinceGloria had spotted a bunch of articles of Polish villages that had very little content and the result was to merge the content into the districts so now I was thinking along the same lines. As a side note, ten districts would definitely be an overkill. I was thinking along the lines: Paramaribo, Coast (or Northwest, Northeast), Inland/Inland Jungle. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will surprise anybody to discover that I very much tend towards Julia's view that we should avoid creating a bunch of half-empty region articles that don't serve the traveller and will only make it look like our Suriname guides are very incomplete for years to come if readers (or worse, journalists) find them when they click either "Random article" or a (blue) internal link. In the 7 years I've been editing Wiki travel guides It's rare that I see useful content added to these rattling skeletons where they have been created for "theoretical" hierarchical reasons rather than the natural result of individual editors natural interest. If the content develops to overwhelm the "holding" article, that will be the time to hive it off into a worthwhile article. --W. Frankemailtalk 12:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, I'm a bit torn on this issue. Nice work with the Commewijne part, WiDi. I do think Paramaribo is one of those places where out-of-town sights are okay in the see-section. The city itself you can see in a day, many people stay longer just to take these day trips.
 * However, you are right - we do need some other place to put more information and listings for the Commewijne district (and similar places). Maybe you guys are right after all, and we should opt for some kind of region-like collection article, wíth listings, as Ypsilon suggested. We shouldn't follow the traditional region template then, however, as it'll be hard to really describe different general food, drink and sleep overviews. Ypsilon, is there an example of how it was done in the Polish villages case? I do think we need mentions on all the towns, but I agree I can't really fill a destination article as of now for most. Hmz... I hate being undecided ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To me it just sounded a bit "funny" to have information about Jodensavanne, presumably some 45 min-1 h away by road, in the city article of Paramaribo. I haven't myself been to Suriname, though. About region articles; they're usually empty simply because all the information that could've been in them end up in the city, town, national park articles etc. In this case, however, there isn't AFAIU enough stuff to justify such separate articles. We don't have articles lacking information but rather information lacking someplace to be put. I thought, if there are a couple of destinations that are located in the same part of the country, maybe often visited on the same trip from Paramaribo, they could be lumped together into something like a region article. In those region or "region-like" articles there would also be space to mention other destinations in the region. The Polish discussion is archived at Talk:Kujawsko-Pomorskie. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a perennial double conundrum that is not unique to Suriname. In most cases, once you have found somewhere to temporarily store the information, the solution is fairly obvious. Wait until you have at least one "Sleep" and one "Eat" listing and then hive it off into its own separate article. Until and unless you have enough material to justify more "regions" than 2 pseudo regions of "Paramaribo" and "NOT Paramaribo" then (small) countries should not be split up into "artificial" regions. --W. Frankemailtalk 13:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We share the basic rationale, Frank, but in the case at hand, how would you like to proceed? A place like Commewijne (which is a district, administratively) could have more information than it now gets in the Paramaribo article. There are a couple of villages, some of them have a single guesthouse, most of them will have one of two place to eat. Some larger ones, like Nieuw Amsterdam, are more developed and could get an article of its own, I suppose, but most are small. There will be some sights, but many of those around the villages: say former plantations or a natural sight. We can't go listing the local warung of a village in Commewijne in the Paramaribo or Suriname article. So where do I put that plantation? JuliasTravels (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Since I've neither been to Surinam/e or even read much about it, I'm not the best person to judge. I get the impression that Suriname is not so big in either population or area or attractions that it needs dividing into regions (other than the problematic split of "Paramaribo" and "NOT Paramaribo") so when you add those threshold listings of one "Sleep" and one "Eat" (or "Buy") listing for Commewijne (or wherever) then the new article is just linked to from the Surinam country level article (as it probably is already). If you ever end up with a cluster of such articles, then we can look at creating a region for them? (My understanding is that about 90% of the land area is in just the one administrative area of Wanica, with most of the other much smaller districts fringing the coast and the capital having more than half of Surinam's population.) --W. Frankemailtalk 22:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin task
Julia or IK: please would you delete the silly circular re-direct Jodensavanne (losing the free plugs to the IB website in the process) and then re-create the page as a re-direct to Paramaribo --W. Frankemailtalk 14:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, to Paramaribo, with corrected spelling. Thanks, Frank. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops that 'a' was my bad. Thanks for the fix and the redirect, Ikan. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Thanks, IK. --W. Frankemailtalk 13:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Photos of synagogue
I like the photo of the synagogue and the mosque, but I'm not sure we should have two photos of the synagogue, so I think maybe it's best to leave that one and delete the photo that shows the synagogue only. Your views? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Frank added the image of the two religious buildings next to each other, which is fine, but we should indeed replace the other one then. Any other suggestions for the article as a whole? We're not going to be able to add listing prices for all the restaurants, or at least I'm not. Many of them don't have them on their sites, although we might find a few. Other remarks would be helpful though. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked through the article and don't have much to say about it, as I have never been to Suriname. So the only thing I'm noticing is a small detail: The synagogue seems to me like a "See," rather than a "Do." I'd list it in "See" and still leave the walk in "Do," but the other alternative would be to leave the order the way it is but put an additional bullet on the synagogue entry to visually subordinate it to what is being done, which is to walk. Does that make sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Fort Zeelandia
I've added some material here which may look controversial to some. Here's some background: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/0a4d10d5f037b88ac1256b1700498130?Opendocument

It's obviously a judgement call, but it seems like a breach of Bf now I know about it, not to have some mention. After all, our Auschwitz article doesn't just have the restaurant opening times, does it? --W. Frankemailtalk 17:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think it's very relevant for travellers to be aware of the December murders, actually. I've expanded a bit even, to make the relevance more clear. This is an ongoing controversy and an underlying issue in Suriname politics. We don't need to go into detail but not to have some general remarks was a silly oversight, at least for me. In the Netherlands, this is common knowledge and regularly in the news. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the fort is a placard on which is bluntly described what happened. All the names of the victims are mentioned, however, not the man who was responsible. The Surinamese I spoke shrugged and said: "Oh, things happen, we have to go on with our lives." I think we should be carefully with reporting such controversial information. I can give many examples of abuses in other countries that are not named. My opinion: This is a travel guide. I would not describe it. WiDi (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. As Dutch people, we have the base of this information in the back of our minds. We know that there's some extend of controversy around the president and an uncomfortable history behind Fort Zeelandia. That's not the case for many other foreigners, I expect. I do believe it's helpful to be at least a bit aware of such matters when you're visiting. I've encountered a few of the same responses you mention, but I've also had very different, heated debates about it in more personal settings with people I got to know better. I agree with Frank it would be awkward to have no mention of it at all. I would be okay making it less detailed though, and I was even thinking if we should make it another infobox or something, rather than part of the See-listing. It's not really of influence on the fort as a sight, it's just... a side note. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Half of the Fort Zeelandia information is now about the December murders. I think that is too much for such a controversial topic. It is still actual as you have experienced yourself. I think we need to be restrained. Can we name it on a other way? Maybe in a respect section in the Suriname article as for instance in the Turkey article (Things to avoid/Politics). Then it is named, but not as strongly as in an infobox. WiDi (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the information while extending the history a bit. It's now only 2 sentences in a longer description. Let's also keep in mind that the fact that the murders took place there, and the fact that the president is an official suspect, is not controversial at all (he has self-confirmed his political responsibility). The controversy is about whether he actually pulled any triggers himself and whether it's acceptable that he is in office. This last part should be off limits in the article, I agree. I don't think it compares well to the Turkish situation, as it's not something you necessarily "should avoid". Suriname people do talk about this, and will engage in discussions. I'm not saying it's correct, but the Dutch Wikipedia goes as far as stating that "in the Suriname community you can't talk about Fort Zeelandia without talking about the December murders". The events made the fort far more well-known than it was. Almost any online source on the fort mentions the events. I think we should mention it at least briefly. Anyway, have a look at what I made out of it now, is it any better? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is mentioned less prominent now and the adaptation of Frank makes it as part of a logical chronology. The reference to the Turkish article was cited as an example as how we could deal with this. I have no problem with the current description. Thanks to both of you. WiDi (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor does not load on main page
Can't edit. 2017 Nov 28 —The preceding comment was added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs)

 * The Main Page can only be edited by site administrators. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please fix and insert this info and table into Climate section.
Below is from Wikipedia on Paramaribo climate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramaribo#Climate

The weather table is especially useful. It would not display properly on my screen. Help, please, to get it to display correctly.

Paramaribo features a tropical rainforest climate, under the Köppen climate classification. The city has no true dry season, all 12 months of the year average more than 60 mm of rainfall, but the city does experience noticeably wetter and drier periods during the year. During "autumn" (September through November) is the driest period of the year in Paramaribo. Common to many cities with this climate, temperatures are relatively consistent throughout the course of the year, with average high temperatures of 31 degrees Celsius and average low temperatures of 22 degrees Celsius. Paramaribo on average receives roughly 2200 mm of rainfall each year.

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

 * We don't use the weather box template on our site, we don't allow verbatim copying from Wikipedia in most cases, and this isn't the right type of tone for our site. The information currently in Paramaribo is sufficient for travellers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paramaribo


text:
Talk:Paranam

how to get the visa of your country?where is your embassies in the world? try to answer my as soon as possible.thanks

(Left on the page by anon. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 11:19, 18 May 2006 (EDT))

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

title: Talk:Paranam


text:
Talk:Paranapiacaba

Comments
Paranapiacaba is part of Santo André, and I don't see much reason for it to be a separate section. --(WT-en) Edsonaoki 14:51, 5 March 2012 (EST)

title: Talk:Paranapiacaba


text:
Talk:Paraná

City Listings

 * Wow... do all those cities really need to be listed? (WT-en) Ilkirk 08:46, 23 Aug 2005 (EDT)

 * No, Parana should probably be broken up into regions, and these towns should be put in those regions. I just did some research, and couldn't come up with any regions, though. --(WT-en) Evan 10:16, 23 Aug 2005 (EDT)
 * Doesn't seem like anyone's gonna do it any time soon. That huge list spoils the article reading, I think it should be moved to the talk page or something if it can't be deleted. Anyway, I'm removing duplicated cities and the listing markup so that the article requires less rolling down until a proper solution is found. (WT-en) Rmx

Link to map from state tourism board
This map shows the official regions of the state and exactly what cities belong to what regions, for future reference. Note that in our map, "West" and "Central and South Central" each combine two of the official regions. Texugo (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Texugo, that link seems to be broken (at least today), however I have found other two links that show what you mean:
 * From the government touristic site
 * From another source
 * That said I would agree on split those two regions ("West" and "Central and South Central") into the official ones. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regional breakdown
Are the divisions too tiny? Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Regions, 2023
Here is the state of the regional articles for this state:
 * Northwest — 0 articles
 * North — 1 article
 * West — 3 articles
 * Iguaçu Valleys — 1 articles
 * Central and South Central — 3 articles
 * Campos Gerais do Paraná — 1 article
 * Grande Curitiba — 7 articles
 * Coast — 8 articles

Would this work better by merging the first six regions? Ground Zero (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Northern Paraná — 4 articles (North, Northwest, West)
 * Central Paraná — 5 articles (Iguaçu Valleys, Central and South Central, Campos Gerais do Paraná)
 * Grande Curitiba — 7 articles
 * Coast — 8 articles
 * -- your thoughts? Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Better than region articles with few to no articles categorized beneath it. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 08:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Ibaman (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've completed the merger, but I don't have the skills to update the static map. Ground Zero (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Dynamic map
I'm going to try to build a dynamic map showing the new regions here. Ground Zero (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I don't know if this will work, but 's Wikivoyage Districtifier tool might help. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 23:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. The approach I'm using above is not working well because the boundaries of the old regions font conform to any modern boundaries used by Wikidata. I will have to play with the Districtifier to figure out how to get it to work. The other thing I might do is redefine the regions so that they are more in line with modern administrative regions. Ground Zero (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That would also help with mapshapes for the five region articles, too. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Districtifier tool didn't work for me, but I am realizing that the map above isn't going to work either. Argh. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Should the boundaries perhaps be redrawn to be in line with modern administrative regions (which should make it easier for me to draw a static map)? The districtifier helped me with the mapshapes of South Australia, which in turn helped me trace the static map. I think that's much better than trying to work with the older administrative which are out-of-date, even if both have little relevance to travellers. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything like "modern administrative regions". I think there is no administrative layer between the State of Paraná and the municipalities. I'm working from this list. Ground Zero (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This article list intermediate and immediate geographic regions of Paraná, which would be useful, but some of the intermediate geographic regions are not defined in Wikidata, i.e., those in the central area. Two of the municipalities are also not geographically described there, which is why there are holes in the map above. 16:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Ground Zero (talk)
 * At least the mapshape does its job, even if there are holes – it's enough info for me to draw a cheap static map (i.e. without roads and other important information marked). Thanks for doing this tedious process (I've done something similar for NSW two years back and it took me over 2–3 days to finish). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance. Ground Zero (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I mentioned that I'll finish this map yesterday on Talk:Minas Gerais, but I completely forgot about it today – sorry for that, . I'll try my best to finish a presentable map on Sunday (AEST). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're contributions are hugely appreciated. Don't stress over deadlines here. When you have time, this map will improve the article. Ground Zero (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure thing (side note: have I inherited a bit of Canadianess by overapologizing?) SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I award you a Butter tart for that. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the butter tart! It's not my best map – it was partially drawn while on a train last night before finishing it tonight, but one thing it lacks is city labels. Any way I try and incorporate it and the map becomes too crowded. We do have mapshapes, though, so users can always switch to the dynamic map if they like, but it's certainly far from ideal (please don't mind me passing my self-imposed Sunday deadline by two minutes, tho). --  SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 14:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Five regions now
Here are the five regions we have now (with the former regions indicated): Ground Zero (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Northern Paraná — (North, Northwest)
 * Central Paraná — (Central and South Central, Campos Gerais do Paraná)
 * Cascavel region — (Iguaçu Valleys, West)
 * Grande Curitiba — as before
 * Coast — as before

title: Talk:Paraná


text:
Talk:Paraty

Green maps
I removed this external link from the main article, but it might be useful for data-mining. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:59, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

 * Green Map System Parati is an ongoing mapping project that connect travelers to sustainable options in the local community. This volunteer project is implementing a web-based Green Map  which locals and students contribute to in order to present historical, ecological, and cultural points in the community.

Casa Azul
I removed this entry from Sleep section, since it doesn't fit Wikivoyage's rules for lodging announcement. (It's a private house for rent).

 * Rent a holiday house with swimming pool in Paraty. Two floors modern house with tropical garden, swimming pool, squash, jacuzzi, sauna. Ideal for a family or for a group of friends. Maximum 9 people. 2 bicycles available. Located in a quiet residential area, 20 minutes walking to the historical center and to the Jabaquara beach.

Little tuning for Drink & Eat
Since Drink & Eat sections are meant for bar and restaurant listings, I moved cachaça description from Drink section to Buy section and removed Camarão casadinho entry from Eat section.

 * Cachaça - Paraty is one of the famous producers in Brazil, as in fact a century ago cachaça was known as parati. Dozens of excellent brands are available.

 * Camarão casadinho - a regional shrimp dish

Removing few pictures
There was too many pictures in article compared to small amount of text and thus the pics broke the article template. I removed few pics at least temporarily until the text body can handle those better.

Distances
Removing this list. (WT-en) Texugo 09:18, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Distance from other Brazilian cities

 * Angra dos Reis - 95 km
 * Belo Horizonte - 572 km
 * Caraguatatuba - 126 km
 * Rio de Janeiro - 236 km
 * Sao Paulo - 330 km
 * Ubatuba - 74 km

title: Talk:Paraty


text:
Talk:Parc Astérix

I don't think this quite crosses the destination threshold...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:08, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Parc Astérix


text:
Talk:Paricutin

I'm not completely convinced that this justifies an article, owing to the you-can-sleep-there issue. However, the volcano has a certain notoriety, so let's keep the article around until it's determined whether it should be merged into something else. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:34, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Paricutin


text:
Talk:Paris

Possible shift from arrondissements to named neighbourhoods?
Hi all, back in the day I argued for using arrondissement boundaries for Paris districts on the grounds that they're well defined and are how Parisien(ne) editors themselves see the city, however, in hindsight maybe it really isn't the best way to do it. Maybe we should reconsider, especially as some neighbourhoods cross arrondissement borders? -- (WV-en) Mark (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

 * I'd like to bump this up. Should we consider switching from the Arrondissements to named neighbourhoods, like say "Montmartre", "Bourse", "Belleville" ? There are good arguments on either side, and it might be interesting to have a discussion to give them a good airing. Originally the decision to use arrondissements was pretty much a fiat choice by none other than myself, so there's never been a real discussion. Thanks! -- MarkJaroski (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I think it would be an improvement to se the named neighborhoods, as they have cultural relevance and travellers will recognize them. The problem is just that it will be a gargantuan task to change them all... --Globe-trotter (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Named neighborhoods are almost always smaller than arrondissements: Montmartre is a part of the 18th, etc. It could make sense to group some arrondissements (1–4, 5—7, 8–9, 10–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–20 would be my feeling), but such groups don't have readily-understood names. Arrondissements have the benefits of being unambiguous, marked on all maps, indicated in street addresses, present on street signs, and known by locals.

Lamellae (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, keep it by arrondissements - it is how the city is actually organised and how most people (residents and visitor alike) see the city. Some neighnourhoods such as Montmartre are well known, but would somewhere like the nearby Goutte d'Or be as well known to readers - I think not.  212.64.86.253 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. As Lamellae notes, arrondisements are shown on all maps. There couldn't possibly be an easier way to divide up Paris. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * OK. These are all the same arguments I made back in the day. Looks like a consensus. -- Mark (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Banners
OK now, due to me having too much and getting bored this weekend while planning my trip to Paris, all of the arrondissements now have custom banners (better or worse, feel free to judge and replace or request different ones if you feel so).

While adding custom banners to the arr's that didn't have them, I change "pgname" to "ZZth arrondissement". I found it looks much neater than "Paris/ZZth arrondissement", but this might get confusing when other cities that are split into arrondissements, like Marseille or Lyon, get districtified one day. On the other hand, "ZZth arrondissement of Paris", "ZZth arrondissement in Paris" or "ZZth arrondissement, Paris" and such seem to long to me and make banners look ugly, not to mention very hard to find graphics that would work well for them.

So, in short, I was wondering if you have any ideas how to pgname our arrondissement banners in a uniform way (for now they aren't and it depends on who placed them there). I was thinking of maybe "1st arr. of Paris" or something to keep it short... Moreover, I was pondering the current general banner and the banner for Paris/4th arrondissement. I must say I am not a fan of the latter, why I majorly am of the former. That said, the current banner for the main article strikes me as very appropriate for the 4th, focusing on the islands and prominently displaying the old, medieval and small city of Paris. I would very much like to replace the current banner for the 4th with it. On the other hand, I believe that the main article banner should reflect the unique character of Paris more. Unless you know Paris (which many people do, but just as many don't), the main banner is not very "Parisian" and has a similar feel to many other French / Western European cities with a medieval town core and lying on a river. Paris is not only that, but also the subsequent population boom and the 19th century Haussmannian redevelopment, boulevards, parks and champs, as well as indeed being the "City of Light". Finally, cliche as it is, I couldn't believe our banner for Paris does not include the Eiffel Tower :D Therefore, I was thinking whether we could use some of the splendid panoramics of Paris available in the Commons, e.g. my favourite. I even made a banner of it for your consideration and to spark this discussion. What do you guys think? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Great piece of work, looks good. I tend to agree with you that the current Paris main page image should go to the 4th arrondissement, it represents that area well. The Paris at night I also agree would be good for the main Paris banner but then I think other pictures on the page should be changed, there is too much emphasis on the Eiffel tower. As for pgname, I think it should contain the word Paris but not the actual page name with the / . Alternative is 18th arrondissement, Paris. Traveler100 (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Should I plunge forward and replace the banners then?
 * As concerns pgname - 18th arrondissement, Paris is still very long, I was looking to shorten it to reasonable length. I drop "Paris" when pgnaming now, but perhaps we could go with 18th arr. of Paris, or does it look stupid and confusing? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Traveler100. The night banner looks good, and I would keep the long pgname. Long isn't necessarily bad, even if it does cover some of the photo. Most wouldn't understand what "arr." means. It could mean a Parisien district, a musical arrangement or a pirate's interjection! James A ▪ talk 05:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Crime section racism?
Hi, I apologise in advance that I edit this while I don't have an account here, and that I only do it in a critical manner.

I was surprised by the tenor of the 'Stay safe' section. Is it really necessary to denote the assumed continent of origin of the finger-tying scammers?. Or the likely ethnic background of pickpockets in the underground? "It is important to know that a majority of these pickpockets are almost never French." I wonder how it is important to know where your thief is most likely to be not from when your money and passport are gone...

I'd be quite sure that the visitors will be safe if warned against the scams and dangers themselves (not that they should trust people doing these tricks if they look European!), no need to make us wary of racial minorities.

Also, I never saw that wikivoyage articles ever warn against criminals indicating their race or national origin when they are white or western, so why single out Africans or Romanis? Other than this, thanks for the great article :-)

—The preceding comment was added by 87.198.57.52 (talk)

 * Hi, thanks for taking the time review the article and leave your comments here. You are quite right, this section did contain quite inappropriate bits, and I acted to remove the most blatant racism. Please indicate if there is anything else that needs changing.
 * That said, it would be brilliant, if you like Wikivoyage, if you registered and started editing yourself! There is no special requirements, and editing is really easy, everybody can do it and is encouraged to do it, that's how it works. Would be brilliant if you chose to join the community and help other travellers with even smallest edits!
 * Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Time for a warning box?
Bonsoir tlm. There have been three acts of terrorism in Paris in as many days and there could be more on the way. Admittedly, the Charlie Hebdo attack was directed at the magazine employees, but the shooting in Montrouge and the hostage situation this afternoon in Porte de Vincennes implicated seemingly random members of the public, so there is certainly an increased risk to the traveller at this time. I also know that both the French authorities and the Foreign Office of my country (the UK) are advising vigilance to those currently travelling in France and Paris in particular.

Not being sure of the procedure / threshold for the addition of a warning box (such as the one currently adorning the Ukraine page), I am asking the community if we think it is appropriate for one relating to the ongoing incident in Paris? Or would this just be a case of Captain Obvious strikes again, given the level of coverage this story is receiving in the world's media? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Unless national governments are issuing travel warnings, or travelers on the ground in Paris are reporting disruptions, I'd be opposed to warning boxes - I think Wikivoyage is at its worst when we overreact to the latest headlines instead of focusing on what is actually relevant to travelers (the attempt to add ebola warnings to our US articles was a recent example). At this time the US state department does not appear to have issued any warnings for France, and random violence can occur anywhere in the world, so I don't think there is any point to a warning box aside from making people aware that editors are watching the news. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Ryan, for your opinion; that's exactly what I wanted to check. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

New Banner?
Just throwing it out there. I think the sky is very dramatic, and the Louvre is a top tourist site. Has the "lights" you'd expect in the City Of, and this pic is from 2013 while the current is from 2008 (if that argument holds any water for you). Anyways, this isn't a picture of the Eiffel Tower, so it could be a no go on those grounds alone. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * This is not as spectacular as the current banner, in my opinion. Is there anything obviously dated about the view? Anyway, I would say some article should have this banner, but I'm not sure which, as Paris/1st arrondissement has part of the Mona Lisa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm in favor of it, but you might get some pushback from others over copyleft issues re: the Louvre pyramid. See Votes for deletion/March 2014 and Votes for deletion/September 2015 for a similar case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Eh, not a big loss. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrondissement clustering
Let's discuss this edit. I think the resulting wall of text for each super-arrondissement is user-unfriendly. Also, it's not the South Seine or North Seine but the Right Bank and Left Bank, and I don't think of a neighborhood like Montmartre as on a bank at all, as it's hilly and well beyond the Seine. Perhaps it would be best simply to revert; what do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree about the wall of text. I was hoping it might inspire some editing! The current map is better than the old one (I think, but who knows), and I didn't put any of the made up "cluster names" onto the map, so someone with more knowledge than me could hopefully help out there. FWIW, the way it was before was also unhelpful. Just a list of stuff in each arr. with no context as to why it's important or cool.

 * I'm fine reverting too, but I think we could do a lot better with this article, especially since Paris is so evergreen. The lead in particular needs help along with the district sections. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * In theory, I don't mind arrondissement clustering, but in practice, I think it would be difficult, and not only because we'd have trouble agreeing on names for the clusters but also in large part because the primary division of Paris into arrondisements is so ingrained in Paris. But please tweak the descriptions of each arrondissement in whichever way the spirit moves you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Totally agree with all the issues you present. I've made another minor update using some suggestions further up the talk page. I also tried to make the names of the "clusters" super generic (since they're made up anyway) so readers can infer the arrondissements are the real stars here. Trying to keep edits to a minimum to make it easier to roll back. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I still really dislike the format. Not only is there a user-unfriendly wall of text in the description of each super-arrondissement, but if you don't read carefully, it looks like "Central Paris" is the 1e, "Left Bank" is 5e, etc. - in other words, whatever arrondissement happens to be first in the description gets overemphasized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I was hoping someone with greater knowledge than me would come along to distill the "greatest hits" from each "cluster". When I visited as a tourist, I found trying to parse 20 districts to be initially overwhelming. It could be nice to start out general and get more specific from there, but perhaps this idea is barking up the wrong tree entirely. Maybe roll it back? I have no problem with that. Thanks Ikan! --ButteBag (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your copyright is being infringed
Please see Wikivoyage_talk:Non-compliant_redistribution for details, but in short there is content on several, if not all, of the arrondissement articles that has been republished elsewhere without observing the terms of our CC Licence. Your input on what we should do next is requested on the talk page of Non-compliant redistribution. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Replace train time map
I suggest in the aim of being as current with times as we can to replace over a decade old map with  moderately younger map. Unfortunately, the current French government seems to be not interested in slashing rail travel times further, but let's not get side-tracked here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The most obvious advantage of the older map is it transcends France's borders to cover much of western Europe. Most people reading this article don't live in France and comparatively few international visitors are going to be coming to Paris from somewhere else within the country's borders. More often, people enter the country via one of Paris' airports or rail / coach terminals, and then travel to their regional destination.

 * Plus, the new map's meaning is very unclear without reading the legend (which would be on a completely different page to Paris so far down that you can't read it without scrolling past the map entirely), and then you have to read a whole paragraph in order to understand what you're looking at. By contrast, the existing map needs no key because it's colourful and simple to instantly grasp.

 * Not only that, but there are no city names on the new map, leaving anyone who isn't intimately familiar with France's geography needing to look elsewhere to check which indistinguishable blob is the city they need to navigate from / to. Oh, and the limited written information (all irrelevant to the map's purpose, of course) is all in French. Bloody marvellous!

 * Overall, the new map is severely deficient for the needs of our readership, who are predominantly English-speaking travellers whom we must assume don't know France well if at all and are not expert cartographers. For these reasons and more, I would oppose its insertion into this article. Is the current one actually outdated in the information it presents? If so, we should look at getting it updated in its current form or something similar, rather than replacing it with this useless monstrosity. If not, I counsel against change for change's sake. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Several new HSLs have opened since ca. 2005. The two phases of LGV Est, cutting travel time to Strasbourg under 3 hours, the new Madrid Barcelona line, the Barcelona Perpignan line, something in the Southwest of France, too and there are still plans (though some of them killed by Macron [shakes fist angrily]) to better integrate the international connections into the HSL network. wikipedia for reference. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another example of outdated information on the map...fails to include the addition (last year?) of 6.5 hour TGV service between Paris and Barcelona...from/to Gare de Lyon. Also, departures/arrivals from it are not reflected in the list of places it serves.  This observation stems not from personal experience, but by reading, with intent to use that TGV.  Hope this proves useful.  Hennejohn (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Overdoing it with cautionboxes
If Notre Dame were the only reason, or even the principal reason, for going to Paris, it might make sense to let people know at the top of the article that it had burned. By Notre Dame isn't even the only or principal reason to to go to the 4me arrondissement. Paris has art galleries, museums, architecture, restaurants, and shopping that rank among the best in the world. And there's the Eiffel Tower, and that cemetery that people seem to like. Festivals, cafes, beautiful parks, the list just goes on and on and on and on. Notre Dame is just one of the amazing things to see in Paris. We mention the fire in its listing, and don't need to put a second caution box, in addition to the one about the on-going yellow best protests that could actually disrupt a traveller's plans. It is just de trop. Ground Zero (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I take your point, but aren't you going too far the other way, at least in your rhetoric? What is the principal reason for going to the 4th, if not to visit Notre Dame? I'm looking at Paris/4th arrondissement, and there just isn't anything that remotely stacks up to it. The Centre Pompidou has some great classic modernist holdings, but I can't believe it's more of a draw than Notre Dame. So what else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The atmosphere of the 4me is amazing. I stayed at an Airbnb's there for ten days a number of years ago. Place des Vosges is sublime. The Pompidou is great. ND is definitely a highlight, but I think would be a mistake to put a caution box about one site at the top of an article, especially when there is so much more on offer. Ground Zero (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 * What purpose does a caution box serve in this case? This cultural tragedy is all over the news, so any traveller going to Paris with even a remote interest in Notre-Dame will know what has happened. By contrast, the Gilets Jaunes protests are far more complex and most travellers will not have a particularly sound understanding of what's going on with them. Besides, caution boxes are not there to report significant current events, they exist to let travellers know about non-life-threatening threats to safety or travel plans. Of course it is likely that the public won't be able to visit the vicinity of the cathedral for the foreseeable future, but other than that, there are no restrictions on where in Paris the traveller can go - from what I can see, not even the Cité Metro station is closed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Private aviation
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would restore some of the details removed in this edit. For example:

Paris Le Bourget Airport is a 24 hour airport dedicated to private jets and business aviation, as well as military and government flights. 11 km northeast of Paris, Le Bourget has been the busiest executive airport in Europe since 2007. As result, there are three runways to accommodate planes, and seven private terminals for fast and discrete travel. Companies like Air Charter Advisors and Priority Jet offer access to a variety of aircraft rentals based at Le Bourget and around the world, ranging from economical single and twin engine props, to luxury Gulfstreams and business jets.

became

Paris Le Bourget Airport is a 24-hour airport for private jets and business aviation 11 km northeast of Paris. Companies like Air Charter Advisors and Priority Jet offer access to a variety of aircraft rentals based at Le Bourget.

I would suggest:

Paris Le Bourget Airport is a 24-hour airport for private jets and business aviation; it's 11 km northeast of Paris. With 3 runways and 7 private terminals, Le Bourget is the busiest executive airport in Europe. Companies like Air Charter Advisors and Priority Jet offer access to a variety of aircraft rentals based at Le Bourget, ranging from economical single and twin engine props to luxury Gulfstreams and business jets.

I also want to push back against this part of the edit summary a little: "private aviation will be of interest to only a few readers, so let's keep it brief":

(a) It's already brief. (b) Wikivoyage should cover private aviation in any way that's reasonably useful to this particular type of voyager. (c) We risk chasing away a valuable contributor. See User talk:ReadyJetGo for more on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I've made a couple minor adjustments to the final suggestion ("11 km northeast of Paris" was stated twice), and I think it's the best choice. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 * piggy-backing on this topic to ask another question regarding aviation - for pages like Augusta, GA with airport details pulled from Wikipedia, should I leave all of the wiki data being populated, or replace it with unique content? ReadyJetGo (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 * If all the detail from Wikipedia is relevant, it's OK to copy it, providing that you credit your source in your edit summary. Credit is required per Wikipedia's Creative Commons Copyleft and Wikivoyage's Copyleft policy. I would suggest crediting your source in an edit summary even if you summarize or do a broad paraphrase. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is in the article about Paris. Come on. Paris is one of the great destinations of the world! The article is going to be one of the longest we have, because there's so much to see and do in Paris. Do we really have room to go into detail about private and business aviation? What percentage of readers going Paris will arrive by private plane? Is it less that 0.1%? Or is it less than 0.01%? I am not suggesting deleting it altogether, but the number of terminals and the number of runways and the services provided by companies based there risks boring the hugely vast proportion of readers who will never, ever travel by private or business planes. Let's keep it short enough to scroll past quickly for almost everybody who ever reads this article. Ground Zero (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's OK not to include those details here, but only if they can be included in the article for Le Bourget. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ikan Kekek, they are included in that article. Ground Zero (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Le Bourget definitely deserves its own article; I enjoyed researching for its one paragraph on Aviation history, and will happily contribute on the construction of a full article. Ibaman (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started the Le Bourget article. Thanks to User: SelfieCity for the banner and temporal anomaly correction. Further contributions would be welcome. Ground Zero (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Média Manif
The map added by User:GNUtoo showing live protests and other incidents in Paris will probably be reverted by someone due to it falling foul of our external links policy. But I think might be useful for travellers in this one-off case. Non-Francophones can't find about protests by following local news or keeping track of the Préfecture de Police's Twitter feed, but most people can read a map.

What does anyone else think? It would be useful if GNUtoo could tell us a bit more about the service, if (s)he has used it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I agree. Tell us about that, and maybe we can make an exception from the guidelines for it if it's really useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't know who is behind the map. It looks like a map made by and for protesters. It seems to be accurate as it's usually updated at the time where the protests take place, at places where they do take place. As the executive government is doing everything it can to crush down the protests by every mean possible, the protests are at least some of the times not legally declared. The various police forces are also used to fight against protests, blocking some roads, etc. Both makes it hard to predict in advance where the protests take place, especially because protests can move. It's also very hard to predict how violent they can be, as people in the protests could be surrounded by the police at any time and prevented to leave, while receiving tear gas. The individual police units are at least in some cases, not aware that they are preventing protesters to leave as there are only aware of the order given to them precisely and do not always have a complete view of the situation. That kind of situation also happened the first of may, which was typically a peaceful protest. GNUtoo (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Templated Listings
There shouldn't be any in a huge city article, to my understanding. Should we put a "movetocity" template on the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * If you put a template there, you might as well just move it... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I lack the easy setup to do so while I'm on my iPhone, but let's at least have an agreement about what the policy is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oh, still? That's terrible. I still think just putting a template up is counterproductive, so I can just move them into arrondissement articles when I'm next on my laptop. Presumably we're talking about the listings being added by User:ParisYank? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * And some preexisting ones. I am back in my apartment and do have some access to my computer now, but I was visiting relatives yesterday without my laptop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Certainly I am a nooB so thank you for your interest in my recent entries. My biggest question is the philosophy of city v districts. I understand the point of separating a city because of the length of the article. From a visitors point of view, they would be forced to look in 20 districts in Paris for one activity, e.g., photography. Is there a reference or something I can read about separation of city v districts? ParisYank (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 * First, no they wouldn't, because if these are really highlights of sights in Paris (and that's a very high bar), they can be summarized in Paris, with a link to the relevant district where their full listing is provided. To answer your question, please have a look at Huge city article template and District article template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic map
It's ugly and is taking up space it shouldn't be taking up. The few numbered points on the dynamic map that aren't yet on the static map should be added to the static map, and then the dynamic map should be removed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed my mind about this. I have a good mind to try removing it if nothing's happened by the next time I come here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Agreed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Gilets jaunes cautionbox, for reference
I removed this from the article; all of these protests have stopped and would be against the law during the pandemic. As they are liable to resume once normality ensues, I'll leave it here for reference:

--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2020 (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) 07:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LouvreParis.jpg

Stay safe
I notice that Paris in English is much, much, much longer than voy:fr::Paris#Sécurité. I think, too, that some of our content is very much out of date. The sentence about "unrest" making global headlines likely refers to events of almost 20 years ago. I wonder whether some of our French-speaking colleagues such as Omondi or Huguespotter could help us figure out what's real and what's history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * So i think that a first problem is that voy:fr::Paris#Sécurité is too small and not Paris that is too big. I think that Omondi and I are both belgian. So even if I have already go to Paris as a tourist, I am not a specialist of that city and so I am not sure I can say what is true and what is not in Paris. --Huguespotter (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been a really long time since I've been to metropolitan France, but I can certainly confirm that most of what's in § Crime is true. The only thing I cannot confirm is the "Danger for identifiably Jewish people" section, only because I was never concerned about it but I'm not the best person to comment since it's been a really long time since I've been to Paris (or metro-France for that matter). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also a long time, I didn't go to Paris (2016). You can have some informations about "Stay safety in Paris" on Embassies web site:
 * Australia
 * Belgium: "Petty crime is particularly high in the Paris region", "Always keep your identity card or passport with you but leave your valuables in the hotel safe".
 * Canada
 * United Kingdom
 * USA: unfortunately they only have a link to the Paris Police Prefecture which is the most exhaustive but only in French, I'm sure "Google translator" is already behind the corner Face-wink.svg
 * --Omondi (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paris


text:
Talk:Paris/11th arrondissement

I've really concentrated on the Oberkampf area, since people there are usually friendlier with me for some reason. For this reason our coverage of the Bastille bar scene is kindof lacking. I'd love it if a Parisiene Wikivoyager did some diging around Bastille to figure out the best places to boire un verre. -- (WT-en) Mark 15:20, 7 Feb 2005 (EST)

Get In is empty
This section is inexplicably empty! There are many metro stations in this area, including Bastille.

Can someone with good knowledge add them to this section? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Added Get In métro lines and eliminated Get Around because it is rather obvious being in Paris. We could add a sentence about the métro lines that run through the 11th. ParisYank (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Map Mask
This was placed in the article, even though there is no dynamic map to use it yet. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Too many maps
The static map is per se clearer, though I don't know whether it's been kept up to date or not. But there's really no sense in having both a static and a dynamic map. The map of quartiers is useful and should be kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. I removed the static map. Ground Zero (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paris/11th arrondissement


text:
Talk:Paris/18th arrondissement

Chao-ba
We had a really bad experience in the Chao-ba cafe. After we ordered from the menu for Eu 15.00, we were given a bill for Eu 160.00. We refused to sign, but our account was still charged for the Eu160.00. I also found out that the check card was used to withdraw Eu600 at an ATM station near this restaurant.

We did file a police report and are waiting for further investigation.

 * Sorry to hear about that. I find it sort of embarrassing that this is our only Eat listing in the neighborhood.  I'm thinking about taking a trip up to Paris just for the purpose of remedying this situation... -- (WT-en) Mark 16:46, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

 * Hello Moderator. Please email me at bovik@ece.utexas.edu regarding this restaurant. The problem goes beyond credit card fraud - armed robbery for example by the bouncers, using guns. See the review I posted on Yahoo travel and email me for more details. Chao Ba is an organized crime owned business and a disgrace to Paris.

External link
This link was removed from the article in accordance with Project:External links but may be useful for data mining: Site officiel de la butte Montmartre - official site of the hill of Montmartre. -- (WT-en) Ryan 16:27, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

Deletion
Hi, I deleted these listings:

 * Jazz.

 * Jazz

As I could not find any info on them, and they seem to be areas, rather than bars. --(WT-en) MarinaK 18:38, 21 November 2008 (EST)MarinaK.

Lack of interesting info on the 18th arrt Paris page, especially on restaurants, and generally on 80% of this site
I regret to say this article lacks good, up to date info on restaurants.

For instance, the person who deleted Les Trois Frères was wrong : this is a correct restaurant and one of the good local clubs. See

Another example : no mention of the Routiers rue Marx Dormoy. They are affordable, serve huge, typical French food portions and are extremely welcoming if you are polite.

Dalida's bust and the Passage des Brouillards are not mentioned either.

I could go on.

Dear Wikivoyage founders and salaryman (Evan, Maj, IBobi, do I forget somebody ?), I'm sorry : I've been reading, updating pages from your site all evening and my conclusion is that while the content here can be helpful (e.g. the page on Hospitality exchange), it is partly a made-for-Adsense (MFA) site. The truth is, Wikivoyage pages rank very well on Google. In other words, Wikivoyage pretends to be what it not really is. Or very partially.

Of course, Wikivoyage displays some beautiful, interesting pages, such as the ones you adertise on the home page (e.g. the page about the Danish Sydfynske Øhav archipelago), the Galapagos page or the Tiburon page (thx, Maj).

But I mean, some 80% of Wikivoyage pages could not compete with the worst paper travel guide in the world. And your *project* may be to create a «complete, up-to-date, and reliable worldwide travel guide», but you're far from it :
 * content pages lack details and update, so they are not that much complete
 * the site does not offer any map on which restaurants and other places could be vizualised -- with Google Map this is not difficult any more
 * IBobi does much of the work on the site, the founder Evan is known to be no longer very present here (see Peter's remark at the Traveller's Pub )
 * another sign : when you look in the various discussion pages, you see a very limited number of people discussing
 * the site started in 2003 but it contains only 26000 articles. With 196 countries in the world, that makes only 133 articles per country in average. Whatever the reason, Wikivoyage's community is not big enough. Or not interested enough.

Please don't tell me I then should par-ti-ci-pa-te/do the work which is not done instead of complaining. Because all free work done on this site goes to a commercial business, a private property owned by Internet Brands. Which is what Wikivoyage is. The Creative commons (CC) licence is not interesting since most of the content, as I wrote before, is not interesting either. So the service given to the community here is limited to a minority of really good pages.

Signed : Emmanuel B., a Parisian who has been living in the 18th since 1997 and lives near the Butte Montmartre [I'm sorry, I won't create an account on a site I do not value enough to do so and I won't state my real name since I know what it's like to be nearly-bullied on the Internet]

title: Talk:Paris/18th arrondissement


text:
Talk:Paris/1st arrondissement

There's a sandwich place called Nils?? I'll have to try it next time I am in Paris. :D -- Nils

Musee de la mode et du costume
If someone can verify that this exists, feel free to put it back (also for the decorative arts museum listed in the same section). --(WT-en) Wandering 14:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Samaritaine
Archiving listing here for a few years... (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Redundant article
Found an other article in the no-links section for the 1st arrondissement: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Paris/1st_arrondissement.new

Maybe there are interesting extra's there to copy here so the redundant one can be deleted?

More attractions to list?
I never visited this church, but it seems to be of some interest. See.

Any other places worth mentioning in this arrondissement? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Feel free to add as many as you like. I will look into my Paris guide books when back home next week, by then our sister Wikipedia and especially its French version has some laundry lists to go by. That said, it really isn't a big district and a large chunk is taken by the park and the Louvre, so it is not that there is much more to be covered. It is a good guide IMHO, and I've spent quite a bit of time within the district itself due to my work at fashion weeks. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I added a basic listing for this church. It seems interesting enough to add the Featured Picture by Diliff that I linked above. Can we find space for it? By the way, there is a very brief en.wikipedia article about the church, and perhaps this is interesting enough to include in the "content" for historical reasons: "During the Wars of Religion, its bell called 'Marie' sounded on the night of 23 August 1572, marking the beginning of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Thousands of Huguenots, who visited the city for a royal wedding, were killed by the mob of Paris." Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Brilliant, thanks! I also believe we should add more info on visiting the Louvre, perhaps even give it is own section. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Good idea. Thanks for all the great work you've done on this article! I fleshed out the entry on this parish church a bit and added that image. I hope we don't have too many images. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 * There is no such thing as too many images in a travel guide! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I think there is. Have you seen articles with so many photos left, right and center that they look chaotic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 * How much I love to have many pictures in articles and find articles where you can scroll down for pages and pages and pages without a single one, ugly, I think pics should never drop below the status box at the bottom and they should never be shoehorned in by using left-alignment. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. I think having a lot of photos is great, as long as they are pretty photos and don't mess up the overall look at feel of the article, such as in the ways you describe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I do not think those cases apply here, so let us enjoy and add more quality content and perhaps pics if there are more things left to be illustrated. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * If you create a nice mini-guide to the Louvre, more photos of great artworks from that museum could be added, such as for example something from their Egyptian section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I am quite afraid it's not me, I purposefully avoided the Louvre for many years and have never been in, despite spending a fair share of my professional life in the immediate vicinity. Perhaps a call to action in the Travellers' Pub? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I thought when you mentioned that "we should add more info on visiting the Louvre, perhaps even give it its own section", you might take the lead. I haven't been to the Louvre since 2002, so I'm not sure how much I could add, except by consulting their website and such. I do strongly recommend a visit or three, as it's one of the world's greatest art museums, and though La Gioconda is a great painting, there are many other paintings there, some of comparable greatness in my eyes, that aren't so mobbed. And their Egyptian section is fantastic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Business photos
Keeping in mind the guidelines at Listings, I would say:

(1) The photo of the restaurant at Le Meurice shows the room to be beautiful and obviously an attraction in its own right.

(2) The "Thrill is Gone" photo, which strikes me as per se uninteresting, and the caption "The Thrill is actually Never Gone when you enter Colette" look promotional and should be discussed here. On the face of it, I would support their removal, but I'd welcome an argument to the contrary.

(3) The photo of the restaurant at Hotel Vendome occupies a bit of a middle position, as the room doesn't look so unique; however, it's a pretty space and the photo is very good - certainly a Quality Image, if nominated on Commons - so I support keeping it in the article.

What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Colette is an institution, it means a lot to people in the fashion industry (and those into art, design and such as well), and the mural is actually an acclaimed work of art. Think of it as Fortnum and Mason in London, who could be a "See" listing just as much as "Buy". Visiting the store is an experience, and not everybody actually buys anything there.
 * PS. For the record, I am not a big fan of Colette so I would have no probs with this being removed, but to me the place's prominence is obvious and it just felt natural to have a picture from there to portray its gist. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS2. If anything comes closer to beautiful, it's the Place Vendome restaurant actually - the Le Meurice one comes across as vulgar, but it's a historic monument. And the food is good :) Anyway, I wanted to use the pics to spruce up the section to show the diversity of styles and found pretty much every upscale hotel there to have a story in its own right so that I do not feel bad about "promoting" them that way.

 * Thanks, Prince. I'm satisfied with your explanation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I would delete photo (3). The restaurant does not look like anything special, seems to be a promotional picture from the hotel itself and contains clearly identifiable people. Plus, there are also already many much nicer and more useful pictures on this page, so I think there is no need to keep it. If you still think it is useful for the traveler, then a brief explanation in the image subtitle of why this is the case could help. But as it is right now, I don't see its usefulness. Xsobev (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Xsobev - Regarding your third point, there's nothing in our image policy that specifically prohibits photographs of identifiable people. Instead, the WV policy page refers the reader to Commons' policy, which states, in part: "The Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded." A restaurant certainly qualifies as a "public place" per Commons' definition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information about identifiable people in images - I'll keep it in mind. I still think my first two points hold: "the restaurant does not look like anything special" and "seems to be a promotional picture from the hotel itself" (author of the picture is "Hôtel de Vendôme"). On a related note, the recently added image "File:Restaurant,_Louvre,_Paris_2010.jpg" is not useful for the traveler in my view either, it mostly shows chairs and could be anywhere (at least here the image caption is more helpful than for the Hôtel de Vendôme picture). These points together with the fact that there are so many other nice and useful images on the page, I would remove the two. Xsobev (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 * This is the sleep section, and yet there are two "eat" pictures. Commons has a photo of a bedroom of the same hotel (and some of others) which would be better. I am also suspicious that the File:Restaurant 1 Place Vendôme.jpg photo could be posed by hotel staff rather than show genuine customers - nobody is eating, and the people don't look "right" for what I assume is an expensive restaurant. AlasdairW (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I just thought it's a nice photo and provides balance to the voluptous one from Le Meurice. Please feel free to shuffle around and replace. I checked the description and it is indeed a promo photo and probably posed. Still a nice one though :D I believe images are to give a sense of the place we are describing not just plain information, otherwise we would best post copies of menus. Look at the choice of photos in relevant sections of Eyewitness guides, which I believe excel in the world of print travel guides. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Too many images?
As per the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy, are there too many images on this page? Some can probably be removed without damaging the article. Which ones are not needed? Also, feel free to plunge forward and remove some if you don't think it will be controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 * I deleted a few thumbnails. The rest should be redistributed so they're not all in a row with photoless screens. There are probably still too many images. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 * More work. If you feel like I deleted the wrong image or removed too many images, restore one or two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Good work. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 04:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing Claus from the map
Apparently Claus has closed permanently (https://www.facebook.com/clausparis/photos/a.211785898842484/3248604511827259). I've removed it from the list but I don't know how to remove it from the map.109.49.135.208 00:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Hello! Thanks for removing the listing. I don't see a static map showing attractions in this article. On the dynamic map (the one we can click on to zoom or move), the marker for the Claus listing would have disappeared as soon as you deleted the listing. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paris/1st arrondissement


text:
Talk:Paris/4th arrondissement

Comments
Don't want to sound rude, but does this artcle deserve star status. (WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 05:30, 6 February 2007 (EST)

TO DO
This article was declared a star before the current star nomination process was implemented, and when our standards for a star article were more relaxed... it's needs several things to get it up to par, including the following:
 * Get In is simply a list of subway stations
 * Get Around is sparse
 * Listings need to be templatized (drink and sleep sections are only ones left to do)
 * The last two sleep listings have no prices mentioned
 * The eat/drink sections need opening hours and meal prices, and all listings should have descriptions
 * The closest Metro station should be mentioned for every listing, in a city like Paris you can never be more than 400m away from a station.
 * Punctuation is a bit lousy at places.
 * Buy - should be expanded and descriptions, hours, etc for all listings
 * The "Do" section needs informative descriptions for the things listed

I'm copying this in from the CotW page, let's get this article perfected! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Notre-Dame de Paris
This is a very sad moment in history. With regret, would a warning notice be in order? JRHorse (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Very sad indeed! The listing has already been changed, but before we change more, we should probably at least wait for the fire to burn out. Then, we'll know the full extent of the damage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For now I've move the closure to the operating hours section. JRHorse (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paris/4th arrondissement


text:
Talk:Paris/Maps

What's the point of this pseudo-article? Why do we need it at all? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:27, 27 November 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Paris/Maps


text:
Talk:Paris and the Ile de France

FYI: there is already a Paris page. I'm not sure if the world is ready for two of them ;-)(WT-en) Majnoona

title: Talk:Paris and the Ile de France


text:
Talk:Paro

I see that Tatabot has deleted some valid additions made by me. (A few made by me without signing in - inadvertent). Have reverted it to the version that I believe is more accurate and complete. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Pradyot (talk • contribs)

 * You're misreading the history. Tatatabot only added interwiki links, it was this anonymous user  who changed the content. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:51, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Mea culpa :-) (WT-en) pradyot 12:47, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Paro


text:
Talk:Paros

DO
I've removed the information about changing money since 1) it doesn't belong in this section and 2) it's inaccurate. I've also removed the statement that a rental car gives "total freedom." It's fine to point out the relative ease of getting around a place by car or by other transit, but I don't think Wikivoyage should encourage one choice or the other. And in fact Paros is one of the easiest islands to get around without a car. (WT-en) Sailsetter 10:09, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

By Sea
I've deleted the references and links to http://www.paros.la/, http://www.hellasdirectory.com/travel_greece/ and http://www.aegeanstyle.com/paros/travel.html/, which are aggregator travel agent sites. I've left in the one to Greek Travel Pages, which is a ferry schedule site, since I understand that whether to include such sites is under discussion, and I've seen that site on a number of other pages. (WT-en) Sailsetter 09:08, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Sleep listings
Why does not a single one mention a street address? I'm tempted to delete every single one of them because I think they are not very useful and suspect all of them of being various forms of touting, including linking to consolidators, etc. Any non-self-interested person who is more familiar with Paros should please scour these listings and delete all the chaff, or I may just wipe the entire slate clean. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems they don't use street addresses there(?!) I deleted some listings and moved most to new articles (Parikia and Naousa). Jjtk (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article looks a lot cleaner now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paros


text:
Talk:Parque Nacional Ciénaga de Zapata

Looking at the page for Florida, I see links to pages for eight national parks and national forests. Put a flag to merge the Everglades National Park page into the Florida page and see what people say before you try to merge the Parque Nacional Ciénaga de Zapata into the Matanzas page.--(WT-en) Chapayev 23:11, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Ah, didn't realize it was a national park, I thought you were treating it as a region breakdown for Cuba. In that case, the article should be moved to Ciénaga de Zapata National Park and should be formatted to use the Project:Park article template – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 00:20, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

 * OK, but I'm not sure if the article name should be "Parque Nacional Ciénaga de Zapata" or "Parque Nacional Ciénaga de Zapata (National Park)." It shouldn't be "Ciénaga de Zapata National Park." I looked at [Language_version_policy] and didn't see anything about translating local names into English. I put "Bay of Pigs" after "Bahia de Cochinos" because many Americans have heard of the Bay of Pigs--(WT-en) Chapayev 12:53, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Bird watching guide and his wife photo?
Looks like the wrong photo is linked (going by the caption). Does someone know which photo was meant to be linked? Magedq (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like its a result of a bad import from WT. Will remove the photo, since originals quality is pretty bad. Magedq (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parque Nacional Ciénaga de Zapata


text:
Talk:Parris Island

vfd discussion

 * Delete. This is a military base. Information needs to be moved to nearby city. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:18, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * Keep like? (WT-en) Traveler2006 13:20, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect to Beaufort. This is a close one.  Some quick googling reveals that you can sleep there, at the Osprey Inn, but only if you are active or retired military.  I could imagine that it would be useful to have the redirect for family members of US Marines looking for info, who might not know that Beaufort is the nearest city.  (Which I didn't until aforementioned googling.)  -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:36, 28 March 2006 (EST)
 * Redirect. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 16:47, 28 March 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Parris Island


text:
Talk:Parsa (district)

Some links that may be applicable to this page: http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/wildlife-parsa.asp http://www.nepaltourismdirectory.com/nepal_travel_destination.php?id=7&did=13&title=Nepal+National+parks

title: Talk:Parsa (district)


text:
Talk:Partizánske

This is written like a book, not in the short, bulletted lists that Wikivoyage strives for. Too talky, not informative enough.

The information is mostly interesting, but your comments are to the point. Feel free to plunge forward and improve the article, by adding information and by formatting the information to better fit the Manual of Style. Otherwise just leave it and some day someone will find the time to get on to it. In the meanwhile the information is better than nothing. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 11:18, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Partizánske


text:
Talk:Pasadena

Comments
Removed greyhound station from page. The greyhound station on Walnut has been abandoned for as long as I can remember. http://www.greyhound.com/en/Locations/locations.aspx?state=ca There are no Greyhound stations in Pasadena. Street-view of location: http://goo.gl/maps/9Sb2

title: Talk:Pasadena


text:
Talk:Pashto phrasebook

i don't think the words given here are pashto, or even anything like it at all —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 81.158.30.240 (talk • contribs)

 * Given, the script most definitely is not Pashto, but the romanization does seem fairly close. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:47, 13 December 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Pashto phrasebook