text:
Talk:Pangasinan

Towns

Radical changes needed
This article needs more fixes as I saw many problems like long lists of "See", "Do", and "Sleep" listings that should be better placed in their respective articles. I also considering cleaning up the "Municipalities" and change it to "Other destinations" (many municipalities better correspond to Cities), and dividing this province to subregions, where all the less important towns can be better covered as breadcrumbs. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 * ,, Any ideas to fix this up? The article is all messy and badly written; listings here are better moved to their respective cities and replaced with an overview. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely: the long list of things to see, etc., with no explanation or comment can probably just be removed. It does no good. Ground Zero (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that this problem was not resolved. I'll move some long lists here later today. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Long lists from "See", "Eat" and "Sleep" moved here below. For the time being, I have left "Do" and "Buy" alone, but both sections also need some edits.

Churches

 * Nuestra Senora de Manaoag is a large church located in the town of Manaoag. It houses the "Our Lady of Manaoag" which is believed to grant wishes and miracles. Many Filipinos visit the church as pilgrims.
 * Shrine of Senor Divino Tessoro is a shrine located in front of St. Peter and Paul's Parish in the town of Calasiao, Pangasinan. In the inside of the said shrine, there is a statue of Jesus nailed on his cross. It is the second pilgrimage site in the province.
 * Parish of Our Lady of Purification is located in Binmaley Pangasinan.
 * Cathedral of St. John Evangelist is located in Burgos St, Downtown District, Dagupan, Pangasinan.
 * Epiphany of Our Lord Parish Church located in Lingayen.
 * St. Peter and Paul Parish is located in Calasiao.
 * St. Andrew Parish is located in Bugallon.

Museums

 * Lingayen Gulf War Museum in Lingayen
 * Bolinao Museum in Bolinao
 * Binmaley Museum in Binmaley

Other places

 * Antong Falls in Sison
 * Cacupangan Cave in Mabini
 * Mount Balungao in Balungao
 * Manleluag Spring National Park in Mangatarem,Pangasinan
 * Urduja House in Lingayen.
 * Narciso Ramos Sports and Civic Center in Lingayen,Pangasinan.
 * Oceanographic Marine Laboratory in Alaminos
 * Bolo Beach, Telbang, Alaminos, Pangasinan
 * Rock Garden Resort
 * Treasures of Bolinao
 * Coca-Cola Plant in Calasiao
 * Pista'y Dayat (Feast of the Sea) in Lingayen
 * Puto Stalls in Calasiao
 * Lipit Falls in Sta. Maria, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
 * Pinsal Falls in Cacabugaoan, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
 * Waterfalls in Agpay, San Felipe, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
 * Pila Falls in Natividad, Pangasinan
 * Red Arrow Monument, Sta. Maria, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
 * Villa Verde Trail, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
 * Malico, San Nicolas, Pangasinan (Historical Place)
 * Bangus Festival in Dagupan
 * Umbrella Rocks, Agno, Pangasinan
 * Sigay Festival in Binmaley, Pangasinan
 * Bagoong Festival in Lingayen, Pangasinan
 * Patupat Festival in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan
 * Talong Festival in Villasis, Pangasinan
 * Pindang Festival, Mangaldan, Pangasinan
 * Sunflower Maze in Tayug, Pangasinan
 * Darayat Festival in San Fabian, Pangasinan
 * Mango-Bamboo Festival, San Carlos City, Pangasinan
 * Dipalo river of San Quintin Pangasinan
 * Goat festival in (Balungao)
 * Swordrubio in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan
 * Theology Seminary at Brgy. Palapad, San Fabian, Pangasinan

Eat

 * Gibbs Restaurant in Lingayen
 * Uson Pigar-Pigar in Lucao,Dagupan
 * Gibbs Restaurant in Lingayen
 * Uson Pigar-Pigar in Lucao,Dagupan
 * Gibbs Restaurant in Lingayen
 * Uson Pigar-Pigar in Lucao,Dagupan
 * Gibbs Restaurant in Lingayen
 * Uson Pigar-Pigar in Lucao,Dagupan
 * Uson Pigar-Pigar in Lucao,Dagupan

Sleep

 * Lidsong Inn, Tonton Lingayen

Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Classes of municipalities
"X is a first class municipality"; "Y is a third class municipality"....Does that mean that X has plush seating? Non-Filipino readers will have no idea what this means, I doubt it's important, and I suggest deleting such minutiae, but I'd love to see a counterargument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Agree we should be removing that as completely administrative terminology relating to their local revenues. The ledes of articles about Philippine municipalities should normally start with "X is a town/rural municipality/suburb/city/etc.", depending on how travelers would think about the location in question.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of rural municipalities, are there any "rural area" articles about places in the Philippines? If so, there is a new rural area article type that might apply. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've created rural area articles to cover towns or municipalities that are too small to be covered in a single article (e.g. Southwest Pampanga). I'm fine with using "rural municipality" for places designated as such where listings are scattered beyond the town center, but I'm open with using rural area as well.
 * Rural area is just the technical name used in the template, so it's definitely acceptable (and encouraged, if it's local terminology) to use "rural municipality" otherwise. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * TagaSanPedroAko, if you'd like to change the descriptions of the municipalities in the "Cities" section, I'd be much obliged to you, because I'm not personally familiar with them, so I wouldn't know what the best descriptions would be.

Copyright violations in Pangasinan
A number of new users seem to be creating articles in the Pangasinan region with text entirely copied from various sources. With so much copied text, I don't see how these articles can be edited over time without being 'fruit of the poisoned tree' (to contort a phrase), so my instinct is to propose all for deletion.

What is the preferred way to tackle these? Copyright violations of text content does not seem to fall in the listed criteria for speedy deletion. Nominating every page for a discussion on deletion seems excessive given the clear case, but I'm happy to do it if that's considered proper.

Gregsmi11 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anda_(Pangasinan)
 * Agno
 * Aguilar
 * Asingan
 * Balungao
 * Bani
 * Basista
 * Bautista
 * Bayambang
 * Binalonan
 * Binmaley
 * Bolinao
 * Burgos_(Pangasinan)

 * Copyright violations are a reason for speedy deletion; these may have to be nuked given the nature of these copyvios. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 13:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I deleted all except Bolinao, where I reverted it to its last copyvio-free revision. I've also given all users warnings. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 13:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're quick; thank you! Gregsmi11 (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was definitely another reason for me to stay up until 23:00 :-). -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Copied text just keeps popping up in this region. I've removed text from Manaoag and Mangaldan, and left messages for @DimasalangPH. Now there's new text at Natividad, Mapandan which I've left in place for now and tagged; maybe it'll get noticed this time. Gregsmi11 (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say this, but what kind of terrible article is Pangasinan? How can a small region have so many city listings? ... WV is not suppposed to be a database to list each and every city!
 * Also, many city articles say "Known for its agricultural products, including vegetables and rice" or similar or Balungao Hilltop Adventure (touting) ... wtf cares about rice? Probably the whole region can be classified like this.
 * Could we at least remove the listings that have no or bare articles and no tourist relevant mentions?
 * Cheer Ceever (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you should go ahead and do that. Ground Zero (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 🤝 Ceever (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pangasinan


text:
Talk:Pangmapha

Soppong
Does this article cover Soppong? Should Soppong have its own article? ~ 58.8.5.62 03:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

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

title: Talk:Pangmapha


text:
Talk:Texas Panhandle

Panhandle image
Hi, I created this image and would love some feedback. Bad colors? Don't like the 3D part? I just thought this would be more interesting than the normal everyday maps. Is there a city you want to add? Just let me know on my user talk page and i'll put it in(WT-en) Troy34 15:57, 29 March 2006 (EST)

Change to "Texas Panhandle"
WV:Naming conventions states "it is important to remember to use the common name and to avoid the temptation to create a region with a name like "Northeast (Ohio)". Given that advice, "Texas Panhandle" would be a more appropriate name for this region than "Panhandle (Texas)".  Any objection to a rename? -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * This is a good change. There should be a disambiguation page under "Panhandle", but otherwise, the Texas Panhandle and, for example, the Oklahoma Panhandle and Florida Panhandle are all recognized regions and seem more intuitive as regular phrases as they come, rather than names with parentheses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't panhandle redirect to begging? K7L (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * No. Instead, that meaning of "panhandle" should be included in the disambig page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I am all in favor of the move. It just comes more naturally; especially as a search term... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * ✅ Thanks for the feedback. I've renamed the article to Texas Panhandle, added Begging to the Panhandle disambiguation page per User:K7L, and also renamed the awkwardly-named Panhandle (Texas, city) article to occupy the old Panhandle (Texas) article name, with a confused hatnote at the top pointing to Texas Panhandle just in case someone accidentally goes to the city article page thinking they are going to the region page.  All-in-all this seems like a solid cleanup. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much, Wrh2 Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Texas Panhandle


text:
Talk:Panmunjeom

Confusing Page
The experience of visiting Panmunjeom is completely different when done from the South or the North. I find mixing the two really confusing. I propose breaking the page into two separate sections. Comments? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture Of North Korean Soldier
I'd like to add this image to the article, as it's an iconic and memorable sight in the DMZ:

http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Korea/Panmunjeom/Soldier_South_Closeup.JPG

The catch is that under a strict interpretation of Project:Privacy rights this isn't allowed, because I don't have a model release. However, it's not possible to obtain a model release — you're explicitly allowed to photograph the guards, but you're equally explicitly not allowed to talk to them. The guards all look identical and unidentifiable behind their huge shades (which is of course very much the intention) and I note that Lonely Planet also has pics with South Koreans standing guard and North Koreans goose-stepping around.

Opinions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:16, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * Bump. I really think this article is missing out without these pics. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:52, 26 March 2006 (EST)

 * The problem is that to anyone who knows this guy, he is recognizable in this photo. Hypothetically, his girlfriend thinks he joined the Peace Corps and doesn't know he's actually guarding the DMZ, but then his photo shows up on a pamphlet at the tourist info office in Seoul....  I'd be more comfortable using the from-the-back photo from your web site, which has the added benefit of also showing a little bit about the place. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:00, 28 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Reluctantly, I agree with Todd. It'd be nice to show that close-up, but the exception to the model-release policy is easier to justify if you can't see the face. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:12, 3 May 2006 (EDT)

Very entertaining article! 71.97.74.56 11:01, 14 December 2006 (EST)

Disputed?
Sir/Madam 70.188.247.141, what part of the article do you wish to dispute? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:17, 14 Dec 2005 (EST)

Regarding dress code
"From the South, a strict dress code applies for all visitors, particularly in the JSA: for men, collared shirts and long trousers are mandatory, while T-shirts, sleeveless shirts, short skirts and such are out. The purpose is twofold: one to make sure you don't end up on a North Korean propaganda poster, and the other to to make sure you can run if somebody starts shooting."

How does having a strict dress code help in either of those cases? - WhisperToMe

 * Damned if I know, but that's what I was told. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:23, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * I guess if the tourists all look like file clerks, Pyongyang can't use them as examples of capitalist deviance and depravity. The run-for-safety reason would make more sense if it involved a ban on high heels, or the sagging trousers that are (bafflingly) popular among the hip-hop crowd in the States. {shrug} - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:00, 28 April 2006 (EDT)

Location
Is Panmunjeom closer to Kijong (about an inch) than Taesong (about four inches or so away)? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 21:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

 * Yes, I think so. Taesong-dong is not visible from the JSA, but Kijong-dong is.  (Then again, Taesong-dong doesn't have highrise apartment blocks or one of the world's tallest flagpoles.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)

So called NPOV
Under DMZ and JSA there is a reference to the "pompous propaganda palace" the north has on the demarcation line. Well no fan of communism this seems like a clear NPOV problem, I'm going to delete it.74.120.34.172 02:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * We don't have a NPOV policy! We prefer calling a spade a spade. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 02:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * ...and if you read to the next line, the South also has a "pompous propaganda palace". Which, really, is the only possible way to describe these — they serve no point except to show the other side that "I am capable of constructing a large building". (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Lenses
I went on the tour yesterday, and when we were exiting the blue conference room, the Korean officer started talking to our tour guide and pointing at me. I was asked how long my lens was, and when I told them that it's 300mm, was told to stop taking pictures. Everybody was told that lenses of up to 90mm were permitted, so I switched to an 85mm when we got back to the bus.

 * Interesting. I took a 70-300mm zoom along the last time and even asked the tour guide, and she said it was OK, but tripods aren't.  (Said lens even almost caused an International Incident, when I left it on a table for a second when changing lenses in the conference room.  Eek!)  Then again, this isn't going to stand out in a crowd...  but alas, at f/4-5.6G, it's useless without a tripod when zoomed out. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:13, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

 * Oh cool, people respond! Yeah, mine was a 70-300mm as well (with IS, but not the white L one). I think what gave me away was the hood that added another 15 cm to the size of the lens. I'm surprised you could bring a lens to change. I specifically asked our tour guide if I can bring a small pouch with an extra lens with me, and she said that people aren't allowed anything in their hands or on them, other than a single camera. Hehe, I wonder if it's after your incident that people aren't allowed a change of lens anymore :)

 * I suspect the interpretation of the guidelines also depends on your tour operator. Eg. the USO site doesn't mention anything about photographic equipment. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:32, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Y Redirect from the DMZ?
Why has this been redirected from the DMZ? Other tourist attractions such as Imjingak, Cheorwon, the 3rd Infiltration Tunnel, etc. are all surrounding the DMZ. The DMZ and its surrounding attractions are the main focus of people's interest not Panmunjeon. Why not put DMZ as the main article?(WT-en) Paula 04:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)

 * The other sites are not in the DMZ itself. (Geographically speaking, they probably shouldn't be in the "Panmunjeom" article at all, but since they're usually advertised as DMZ tours, this seems the best place.)

 * Also, the DMZ is a large region of territory, while Panmunjeom is a single destination. There are "DMZ-themed" tourist attractions all along the line (2nd and 4th tunnel, Uiji and Kosong observatories) etc that are quite distant from Seoul.  Maybe it would make sense to create a DMZ travel topic, and link that to all the sites...?

 * Other than Panmunjeom and the JSA nothing's in the DMZ. But they are all related to it. That's my point bout Panmunjeom. If we have an article about it, shouldn't we have an article about the JSA and all the other points of interest of the DMZ area? But then there's just too little information to make an article on each one. I think it would make more sense to title it DMZ and link it to the other places.(WT-en) Paula 04:21, 11 February 2009 (EST)

 * BTW, I've changed DMZ into a disambiguation page, since there's another well-known DMZ in Vietnam at DMZ (Vietnam). (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Warning box
This warning box is totally hysterical. There hasn't been a shot fired near Panmunjeom since a defection incident in 1984. If there's any real risk of war, the tours will be suspended, and they haven't been. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:23, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

 * Thought so, but wasn't quite sure about removing it, so i just added the supposed launch dates. Well, i'll go to the DMZ tomorrow, hope the UN won't arrest me for wearing the wrong clothes... As far as i've read the North doesn't require any special dress code. Hmm, very democratic indeed *lol* ;-) 22:17, 26 March 2009

 * I'll tell you what -I almost lost my shit going into Panmunjeom from the North. Getting death stares and bayonet/ gunshot finger signals from my second "guide" and the top brass himself. No shit, I don't know what the fuck I'd done to have them tripping but EVERY guard was checking me out. At the time I thought I was being paranoid, but everyone else on the tour (and who were staying the fuck away from me during the tour) all agreed they had me in their sights. What a terrible trip I had in the North. 119.161.71.12 07:37, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

This is a potentially dangerous place. Warning doesn't seem hysterical to me. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Explore Nort* Kore*?
Why is explore*orth*orea dot com in the spam filter? 203.161.145.1 22:19, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Create separate DMZ article?
Presently the whole DMZ for South Korea is contained within the article for Panmunjeon. To be fair, Panmunjeon is the most important and obvious destination for DMZ tourists, however the DMZ itself extends across the peninsular from the Yellow Sea to the East Sea (Sea of Japan).

There are also a lot of potential places to visit and activities to do in the DMZ area without having to visit Panmunjeon. Would anyone have any objection for me to create a DMZ article with the National Park template? This would not result in any significant changes to the Panmunjeon article itself. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I am trying out DMZ_(Korea) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Kijong-dong
Kijong-dong is a village near Panmunjeom controlled by North Korea and apparently 'fake' according to many sources. I saw this except from a new book claiming the same and thought it interesting.

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/08/north-koreas-creepy-fake-civ.html

Travelers can't actually visit this place either from North or South, so I haven't added it to the article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Panmunjeom


text: Talk:Pantanal

title: Talk:Pantanal


text:
Talk:Paonia

Please Plunge Forward
I have fleshed out the basic information for Paonia. But if you are a local or there is anything else you'd like to see added, please do so! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 18:30, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * Looking good! (WT-en) Texugo 18:34, 21 January 2009 (EST)
 * Thanks! (WT-en) WineCountryInn 18:42, 21 January 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Paonia


text:
Talk:Paphos

i don't understand why links to external sites such as directories is not allowed ... surely "real world findings" is what this site is about so providing link(s) to sites that give opinions on the topic in question is relevant !!!

 * We do not completely disallow them, they are fine to add for relevant listings. Mainly the rationale is that we want the content here - as this guide is also meant for people to print at bring on their trip, and have something useful without having to find a internet cafe at every stop. You can see more details on this page Project:External links - (WT-en) Sertmann 09:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Hi Sertmann ... my website Paphos-Eating has over 1000 user submitted reviews of Paphos restaurants so whilst i can understand bringing content "in" to wikivoyage there is a lot of content relevant to Paphos for online viewers. Obviously a full "reproduction" of these reviews into wikivoyage would over power this page so a link is a logical alternative !

Research
Paphos Eating was listed on the main article, can be used to harvest some information on eating options on Paphos.

title: Talk:Paphos


text:
Talk:Papua

Region name
I'm really not happy with this name — we should be using the most common name, and while this may be the most "correct", it certainly isn't the most common. (How do you say "Western New Guinea" in Indonesia!?) I could be argued into either of "Papua" or "Irian Jaya". (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:15, 1 January 2007 (EST)

 * Suggest you convert the existing Papua article from "province" to "region" and move it to Irian Jaya, remove the two province links from Indonesia, and redirect the following to Irian Jaya:
 * Indonesian Papua
 * Irian Jaya Barat
 * Netherlands New Guinea
 * West Irian
 * West Irian Jaya
 * West Papua
 * Western New Guinea

 * Papua should then be redirected to Papua (disambiguation).
 * ~ 203.144.143.2 13:03, 1 January 2007 (EST)

 * "Irian Jaya" is politically loaded and semi-obsolete. I think "Papua" is a better term, with a disambig-link to Papua New Guinea up top. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:49, 1 January 2007 (EST)

 * "Papua" is ambiguous and confusing as the region we're trying to describe officially contains two provinces and "Papua" is the official name of one of those two provinces. The fact that the other province is "disputed" makes things even more ambiguous and confusing, not less. Hence "Papua" would be my last choice.
 * I agree that "Irian Jaya" is less than ideal, for the reasons you cite.
 * Hence "Western New Guinea" - as you say, it's the "most correct", but in addition it's also a clear geographic description, and the most helpful and easiest to relate to for those who are less familiar with the area and its language and history. I don't believe "Western New Guinea" will pose any problems for those who are more familiar.
 * I rehashed Western New Guinea thus - suggest that intro and province summary or something similar be incorporated into the Papua article and then for the Papua page to be moved to Western New Guinea. ~ 203.144.143.8 07:53, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Bump. I'm still not happy with this pointless split, and will merge this back into Papua unless there are loud complaints. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:52, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

 * I don't think it makes sense to split this article into two subregions. Irian Jaya is the name I know, but I'm not an expert. Either way, it would be better to de-muddle this section of the Indonesian regional hierarchy with a poor name choice than to not do it at all. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:59, 12 December 2008 (EST)

 * Everything finally merged under "Papua". (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Fanaticsm
The "fanaticsm" part of the page is incredibly messy and hard to read so I have deleted it, if you believe it contributed to the article please tell me. Bobbbcat (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2017 (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) 03:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Karta ID RajaAmpat Isl.PNG
 * Not visible on the page, doesn't matter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Papua


text:
Talk:Papua New Guinea

Hello, the Western Highlands link is pointing to the western highlands in Guatemala... maybe theres some way to differentiate the two? - (WT-en) The_Snackmaster

For future reference the CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Papua New Guinea/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

Great start! You might want to delete some of the extra CIA facts and add a stub disclaimer. (WT-en) Majnoona

Thanks. Er.... what exactly is a 'stub disclaimer'.... :?) -Rex

Regions

 * Somehow, I doubt the practicality of dividing PNG in only 3 regions, especially when the whole coastal area is packed into 1 region, as are all the islands. This site divides the country into 7 regions on the main island and 4 other island regions. So, taking this as a base we could have:

 * Bougainville
 * Highlands (Enga, Chimbu, Southern, Western and Eastern Highlands)
 * Huon Gulf (Morobe)
 * Madang
 * Manus Island
 * Milne Bay
 * New Britain
 * New Ireland
 * Port Moresby (region) (Port Moresby, Central and Northern Provinces)
 * Sepik (West and East Sepik Provinces)
 * South-western Provinces (Western and Gulf Provinces)
 * (WT-en) DhDh 04:03, 20 Dec 2003 (PST)

Project:Plunge forward! This looks great to me. --(WT-en) Evan 13:07, 20 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Reviving a 7 year old discussion :). I think the split as described is pretty logical. I would though suggest a little streamlining:
 * combining Madang and Huon Gulf into one region called Madang-Morobe.
 * Port Moresby (region) (renamed as South?) should include the small area of the mainland which is officially in Milne Bay region. For travel purposes that makes no sense. It would then make sense to rename Milne Bay to Milne Bay Islands.
 * I think Manus and New Ireland could sensibly be one offshore region, Manus and New Ireland.

 * That would give us 9 regions (5 mainland, 4 offshore). A lot, but logical enough. It is a very big country.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:12, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Here is the map and region scheme with my suggested amendments. As it involves changes to an existing scheme, I will leave it here for a while, hoping for comments.

--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:52, 1 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Thanks for all your work. One thing, the map seems to be missing. A clarification: SW PNG; South PNG and Milne Bay (and, I think, Oro) make up Papua. I would prefer to see as regions, using your nomenclature, SW Papua and S. Papua. However, while I see a good case for separating Milne Bay, given all its islands, I am not sure of the need to separate SW and S Papua. One option could be:

 * North Coast
 * Highlands
 * South Coast
 * Milne Bay and Oro. Cheers (WT-en) Shep 15:33, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Thanks Shep for your feedback. I must say first that I am no expert on PNG, although it is an area that has always interested me greatly. I think the clearest provincial map comes from the UN here, and I would suggest having a good look at that if you have not already done so. Let's do the easy bit first:
 * Are you happy with the four offshore regions? The only change I suggested was to merge New Ireland and Manus into one region.
 * Mainland PNG is more tricky I think. I do not understand your point: "SW PNG; South PNG and Milne Bay (and, I think, Oro) make up Papua". Could you expand on that please?  What does Papua mean in the context of just those provinces?
 * If we create one south coast region, it will be truly vast (about 700 miles across). We would also need to split Western Province, as some of the most unexplored, inaccessible hinterland anywhere on earth could not logically be in a region called South Coast.
 * I would strongly suggest that mainland Oro and Milne Bay should be in the same region as Port Moresby. Otherwise we end up with Moresby, Kokoda and Tufi in different travel regions.
 * Milne Bay mainland and Milne Bay Islands are not very related from a travel viewpoint, and it makes sense to me to have the islands dealt with as a separate region.
 * I can see the sense of a north coast region which consists of both Sepiks and Madang. But where does that leave Morobe? The Huon Gulf area cannot really be thought of as north coast which is why I suggested the Madang-Morobe and Sepik scheme to cover this part of the country.
 * I knew this one was going to be tricky :).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:04, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Re: point 2, I think Shep was suggesting calling "Southwestern Papua New Guinea" to "Southwestern Papua," and so forth, as Papua is the name of the mainland. I think the problem with that, though, is that Papua is the name of the entire island, with West Papua lying in Indonesia. Lovely map, by the way. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:21, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Ah. If that is the case then there is massive scope for confusion. I actually thought the "mainland" island was called New Guinea? Wikipedia agrees with that view. On the Indonesian side of the island, there are two provinces: West Papua (The Bird's Head Peninsula) and Papua (the rest of it), which were formerly jointly known as Irian Jaya. Further provinces called East Papua and Central Papua are proposed. So, I would say, let's not go down that route!--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:47, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Well, my understanding when I used to live there was that Papua was basically the south, while New Guinea was everywhere else. But I agree that the Indonesian province now causes great confusion. In answer to Burmesedays questions:
 * Happy with the "offshore" groupings;
 * Answered above
 * South instead of South Coast??
 * Combining these makes sense. Eastern PNG?
 * Can't agree to splitting Milne Bay from its islands. One, you would split a province into two regions: two, the mainland and the islands must be treated together because you cannot reach most of the islands without going through Alotau on the mainland.
 * Morobe, point taken.
 * So my next query is: do you really need to create arbitrary regions? Why not just go with the existing provinces of PNG? (WT-en) Shep 01:14, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Creating arbitrary regions that make sense to the traveller is exactly what we do! Do you really think 20 top level PNG region articles to correspond with the 20 provinces would be useful to anyone, when we only have a handful of destination articles? All that being said, every boundary line suggested in this particular scheme follows an official region boundary.
 * Point taken and I will concede on Milne Bay - so it will be a region with onshore and offshore elements. I have amended the map already to reflect this.
 * The South and Southwest are still problems. I think it needs to be two regions and you don't :).
 * Whenever possible, we try to avoid bland region names when an interesting alternative is available. Don't you think that Madang-Morobe is a better name than Eastern PNG?
 * We are getting there :).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:20, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I think "Southern" and especially "Southwestern Papua New Guinea" are too cumbersome, it would be a grandoise task to type those every time when creating wikilinks etc. If possible, they should be shortened to easier, yet as inclusive names. And Wikipedia maintains that "Papua" is (amongst some other places) a name of those two regions combined (see this and especially this article). So, if there will be no confusion with Indonesian regions/provinces, I suggest they are renamed "Southern Papua" and "Southwestern Papua". – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:29, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I am not sure that use of Papua is terribly well known or understood, and there is great potential for confusion with the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua (soon to be joined by more with similar nomenclature). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:41, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Just noticed that they should rather be named "Eastern" and "Western Papua" instead of S and SW if we are to use "Papua", so that would result in a mess with Indonesian articles. However, there were situations like this before, and disclaimers at the top of articles (for example, Western Macedonia and Southwestern Georgia) seem to fix that. – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:36, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * OK, you are the one who knows the area well, I will follow whatever is decided. – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:58, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I certainly agree that Southwestern Papua New Guinea (and Southern) are far from ideal, and there may well be a better name(s). I am just concerned about confusion, especially as travel to Papua (Indonesia) is distinctly on the rise. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:12, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
 * I'd be happy to see Southern and Milne Bay merged into, perhaps, Eastern. Could we solve the name length problem by using PNG instead of Papua New Guinea? (WT-en) Shep 14:05, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

 * What is wrong with the conventional four-regions division of Papua New Guinea into Papua Region, Highlands Region, Islands Region and Mormase Region? I don't see the 700 miles region of Papua as a problem, we also have Western Australia als a first-level country division. Anyway, most important I think is that the islands are grouped as one subgroup. Now there are too many unnecessary island regions. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 16:13, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

 * From a travel point of view, I think there is lots wrong with that division - it was actually the first option I looked at when seeking to adjust the over-complex structure that is already in place.
 * It would I think be both a very lazy and impractical solution. Australia is surely different as it was always clear that we would have 2nd level regions. PNG has them at the moment but that is a bit silly for a country with so few articles. If we divide sensibly at the top level, all the lower level regions can go, and there should never really be any need for further division in the future.

 * The islands as one region? Have you really thought that through? They bear little relation to each other as travel regions. Wikivoyage has erred on this front before by lazily sticking islands all in one region with no regard for geography, logistics or culture. Remember Hong Kong for example? It made no sense having all those completely unrelated islands in the same region, and the same would be true for Bougainville, the Trobriand Islands and Manus (for example).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:21, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I think any Islands Region would exclude the Milne Bay islands, leaving them in Papua. As I noted before, you can't split up a province into two regions. (WT-en) Shep 01:13, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Yep, Milne Bay islands are now part of a mainland region, that is agreed (one of the few things that is!) :). As an aside, we split provinces (or their equivalent) all the time when regionalising. They often make no sense when you are setting up travel regions. In the case of PNG though, I do not think we need to. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:19, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

To show willing :), I have redone the map using the four regions as suggested by Globe-trotter. I think this makes no travel sense, and makes sub-regions inevitable. It is actually the scheme that was in place before user DhDh made the first comment above, all the way back in 2003. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:43, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

 * My knowledge of PNG travel is clearly outclassed here, so I'll keep quiet ;) But I will at least say that I support the purpose of flattening our regions hierarchy wherever possible (avoiding additional layers of intermediate regions), to help keep the article structure simple, and to avoid having too many blank outline regions. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:08, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I feared this one would be a bit of a slog and so it is. Perhaps we could a least decide whether we want these four huge regions and then lots of sub-regions sitting below them, or as I prefer (and as Peter has indicated he believes is a worthy aim), smaller top level regions and then no sub-regions?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Bump. Anyone?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:48, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I'd be in favour of keeping what you have done here and amending the regions if and when we get a lot more material. Right now we have nothing like enough for nine cities and nine attractions in any of these five regions. (WT-en) Shep 06:15, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

 * That's a bit of a cop out. This needs sorting. Currently there are 11 regions with a host of sub-regions. I am proposing 9 regions with no sub-regions.  The other proposal is 5 4 regions with a host of sub-regions inevitable. We have sensibly regionalised many countries with less content than PNG (see most of Africa for example). That's the aim of this expedition - carve countries up into a region scheme that makes sense to the traveller, and draw a map which shows that scheme. We can't just say leave it until there is more content. There are very few countries left to regionalise that are not tiny islands. PNG is one of that small number. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:11, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Isn't the whole idea that we first start with some logical reasons and then expand them when more destinations become available? I don't know exactly how many destinations PNG currently features, but for now I think 4 would be enough for the country. More regions can always be added later, but 9 now seems to overstretch it. Especially as the 4 regions do make sense I think. Even an enormous country such as DRC only has five regions.
 * And about the islands: in Hong Kong we also still feature the Outlying Islands region, but instead of making it encompass every island of HK, it is similar to the Islands Subdivision of Hong Kong. I think the same logic could be followed here in PNG. Only the islands together that form the Islands Region of PNG, excluding the Milne Bay Islands for example. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:48, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Could you please explain exactly what you mean by "islands together"? In this specific case would you have all the islands other than Milne Bay in one region? Bear in mind that Bougainville to Pelunun is about 1,000 miles and the people are as different to each other as Swedes and Mauritanians :). When you are dealing with island groups, more regions often make sense. We have 11 regions for the Seychelles for example - (pop 80,000); six for Palau (pop 20,000). And those make perfect sense to me. I am only proposing three regions for all of the PNG islands. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:33, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I'm not saying these regions should never be created, but for now it doesn't make sense. Bougainville is just one article, how can it function as a region? There is nothing to put in it. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:40, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

So are you saying we should map them and colour code them and not create the articles? This is the case with half of the 11 regions of the Seychelles for example. On Bougainville, there is a far bit of discussion about that article here and here. The fact is that it functions as a travel region - travellers go there specifically and spend a long time there. I could have created a region article with at least two articles underneath it (Buka and Bougainville Island), but as you will see from the discussions, I have tried something different. I am wondering why PNG is being singled out for different treatment from our usual approach. All over the world we have empty region articles and nobody questions it. And I would again make the point about island groups often requiring more regions than might otherwise be the case. Another example is the Falkland Islands - superb job done with 8 regions. Why should the far more substantial PNG islands be lumped together as one region when we do not normally do that (or when we do, it has to be changed later)?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:32, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Not really wanting to labour the point (although I know I am), I have just started drawing the Solomon Islands map. Very interesting country, but insignificant compared to its giant neighbour of Papua New Guinea. And it has 9 regions. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:15, 14 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I did not mean that we should not create the articles. They can be created. I meant, for travellers, regions in Wikivoyage have the goal of cutting a country in chunks so its destinations are easier to find. Making 4 regions with each about 5 destinations is better than making 10 regions including about 2 destinations. Bougainville should not be a region, because there is only 1 destination article for it. Thus, it is a destination (not a region), and can more easily be grouped among other destinations inside a region. In case Bougainville splits up into, say, 5 destination articles of different towns of the island, then Bougainville could be bumped up and function as a region.

 * When most people divide PNG, it is into these four regions . I think they are recognizable for most and that the islands could easily be a sub-region under the Islands region. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:24, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:24, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * I don't see why we should rule out Bougainville as a region on the map simply because there is nothing below it—what is the problem with a bottom-level region? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:03, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

 * The fact that a country is usually divided a certain way should not concern us. I am almost out of energy trying to keep some consistency in this matter but I will have one more go.
 * I am bemused as to why there are objections to treating the PNG islands in the same way as we treat other highly dispersed island groups? I have given lots of examples above so will not repeat them. Nobody has answered those points.
 * Is it not desirable to avoid low level regions if possible? Or is it only Peter and I who think that?
 * For the mainland regions, I could just about live with those very large unwieldy regions, but still believe my first suggested re-jigging of the existing scheme is better, and will avoid the need for further divisions in future.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:55, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

This one still remains outstanding. PNG is probably the most major of all regionalisation work which is yet to be resolved. It has been a very long debate. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

 * Well, I'm not sure exactly how we'll move this forward. I'd like to reiterate my strong support for Burmesedays' preferred version, as it will avoid the need for any further regioning, and thereby avoid ever more weak mid-level region outlines. I also think it simply does a better job of explaining PNG's travel possibilities cartographically. I guess I'll rfc this and see if anyone else wants to chime in? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:46, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

 * No one has responded to the rfc... I'll try a stranger tack—would anyone object to letting the creator of the beautiful map above make an executive decision and go forward with his preference? As Burmesedays moreover seems willing to tackle the hard work of regioning, allowing this to move forward would see our guide improve by leaps and bounds quickly, while it has simply stagnated over the past year+ of deadlocked and cast-aside discussion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:15, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

 * I will give this 14 days from the date of Peter's latest suggestion and if no objections in that time, I will get on with it.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:24, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
 * Greetings all. I've been overworked for some time and can't return seriously to WT until the end of September. Which of the two beautiful maps are we being asked to approve? My preference is for the four region one. (WT-en) Shep 15:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Actually, preferences weren't being asked—we've been deadlocked with the exact same even split we had before. What I was asking was whether anyone would object to letting the mapmaker use his preferred version as a way to move forward and improve the guide, as there appears to be no hope of coming to an agreement on preference. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

 * And not to labour the point, but the four region split will be a disaster. This was pretty much was WT moved away from in 2003. Good luck with writing the mass of 2nd level region articles it would require.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I am fine with letting the mapmaker use his preferred version (eventhough it appears to be way to many regions, 11 regions for 27 destination articles, in my opinion the perfect solution would be 3-5 regions and no 2nd level regions), --(WT-en) ClausHansen 05:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Claus, if you really look at the option of 3-5 regions you will see that 2nd level regions would be inevitable. For example... say we have a nebulous "Islands" region. Logically, linking all the city articles straight to that would make no sense for the traveler whatsoever (the region would be 1,000 miles across). Additionally, how on earth could you write Get in, Get around, or just about any of the sections (!), for that region?
 * So the article would have to go, for example, PNG -> Islands (a region article which would be impossible to write) ->New Britain (sub-region) -> Rabaul (city) or Embe (city). The version I am proposing cuts out one layer of region articles: PNG straight to New Britain. A key motivation here is as I expressed early in the discussion: "If we divide sensibly at the top level, all the lower level regions can go, and there should never really be any need for further division in the future." The future consideration is an important one - please do not look only at the number of articles which exist today. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:29, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

My country PNG is an extremely diverse place both geographically & culturally, so the task of regionalising it is particularly difficult. However, it isn't that difficult. PNG embarassingly still doesn't have a map, we just need to plunge forward with something and go with it. I support Burmesedays' divisions into 9 regions.

 * 1) Southern (NCD, Oro & Central Provinces)
 * 2) Western (Western & Gulf Provinces)
 * 3) Milne Bay (Milne Bay Province - mainland & islands)
 * 4) Madang-Morobe (Madang & Morobe Province)
 * 5) Sepik (East Sepik & West Sepik/Sandaun Provinces)
 * 6) Highlands (Eastern, Southern, Western, Enga, future Jiwaka, future Hela, Chimbu Provinces)
 * 7) New Ireland & Manus (New Ireland & Manus Provinces)
 * 8) New Britain (East & West New Britain Provinces)
 * 9) Bougainville (Autonomous Region of Bougainville)

You might think 9 regions is too many for so little destination articles, but this isn't sensible. Tourism is a growth industry here. There will be more destination articles in the future. I can and will add at least 5 to the Madang Province alone. Burmesedays is spot on when he expresses this above. I support him just going ahead and publishing the map (albeit fixing a few things like adding Kavieng, Goroka & Kerema). Let's finish this! --User:(WT-en) TourismMadang 17:39, 20 November 2011

 * I also think any solution now is better than the current state. I also think Burmesedays should just go ahead and implement his proposal. --(WT-en) Globe-trotter 15:32, 20 November 2011 (EST)

 * Yay! Wikivoyage's longest ever regional saga is coming to a close. I will set about the regionalisation task this week. Special thanks to user TourismMadang for the local input - I am  pleased my plan made sense to you. --(WT-en) burmesedays 23:54, 20 November 2011 (EST)

interesting facts
new britain points to new britain in the USA!!

Visa requirements?
Could someone elaborate more on the visa requirements for tourism in PNG? Thanks in advance

Kava
Any reason why the kava paragraph was deleted ?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:10, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
 * Yes. In the three years I lived there I never heard of anyone consuming kava. They get their highs from betel nut and the usual drugs. But just to confirm I was not living in an ivory tower I did some checking before deleting. See http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=MD1S1TktmjsJLRNKvkLcnrxNvcYv7nY83yL3nspKZmBxpwRK3WZp!1748356985!-2083947951?docId=5000644259 in which it clearly states that kava consumption is very patchy in a few isolated areas. You would probably have to go to remote parts of Western Province to find people drinking it. I know that a web search finds PNG companies selling the stuff overseas, but that is not the same as local consumption. (WT-en) Shep 10:01, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

 * Ah OK. I do know that Kava consumption is fairly large in the Eastern islands which are famous for growing what is regarded as the very strongest strain of the stuff anywhere.
 * There are plenty of references to Kava consumption in PNG, and documentation of the westward spread from Vanuatu and elsewhere in Melanesia. Erowid.org is as usual the best place to look for such references but the site is down right now. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:48, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

PNG Other Destinations
swept in from: User talk:(WT-en) ClausHansen

Don't understand the logic of your recent edit. On the United States page there is a link to Grand Canyon. There is also a link to Grand Canyon from the Arizona page. By the logic of your deletions on the PNG page we should delete Grand Canyon from the US page. What is Other destinations for if not to highlight interesting places for people to learn about without going through the whole sequence of Country-Region-, etc.? (WT-en) Shep 02:01, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Other destinations are national parks and other destinations that are not cities. Grand Canyon is a national park and, therefore, listed as an other destination.  The ones I deleted in PNG are cities, which should be in the list of cities, regions which should only be in the list of regions, and itineraries which should be in the see section, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 02:10, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I can agree to New Britain going out. I didn't put it there. But Tufi is not really a city, more an area. You don't visit Tufi town for the sake of the town but for the attractions in the area. I will think of other ways to steer people to Bulolo and Wau, perhaps by refering to them in the main text of the page. (WT-en) Shep 06:32, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Islands are valid Other destinations. It is a moot point if an island which is a region could also be included as an OD...... this has been done several times in other articles. I will put a copy of this on the PNG talk page, which is where the discussion should really be happening.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:52, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I have added to the ODs Louisiade Archipelago and Kokoda Track (is there a policy which says an itinerary cannot be an OD?). --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:02, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I do not think there is a policy of not allowing itineraries (or regions) in the list of other destinations. But I think it follows from the description of what can be in other destinations, namely destinations like national parks which are not really cities.  Itineraries are not destinations.  Further, I do not see any reason to list a region/itinerary in both the regions/itinerary section and in other destinations.  Those were my thoughts behind deleting items from the other destinations section, but I am fine with whatever you guys find appropriate to include in the PNG list of other destinations, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 01:19, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

 * Agree with ClausHausen's interpretation of ODs. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:16, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

 * It surely depends on the nature of the itinerary? The Kokoda Trail is a destination. It just makes more sense to write about it using the itinerary format. I think that the Kokoda Trail is exactly the sort of place that the other destinations section was intended for.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 07:53, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Would it not be a better solution then to use the park template to avoid confusion? Also, the itinerary template misses sections for eat and sleep, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 08:05, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

 * I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the use of templates. The template used should be whatever is best suited to the destination—not simply matched to the name or type of destination. While the park template is most often best for articles about parks, sometimes a city, region, or even itinerary template (or some combination thereof) might fit the destination better. Islands are an even clearer example—we generally use city templates for them, even if there are no cities on the island! The Appalachian Trail in the U.S. is most certainly an "other destination," albeit an exceptionally long one, as well as a park, but is best covered in an itinerary. Bougainville is indisputably a region, with sub-destinations (villages) to boot, but for our purposes the city template actually works best.

 * For picking ODs, I think it's best to just include those non-city destinations which a) a traveler would want to find immediately at the top of the page, b) are not cities, and c) are not listed prominently elsewhere on the page. So Bougainville would be out if listed as a region, but otherwise should be included. Kokoda Trail would be fine, but not if listed in the "itineraries" section of "see." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:53, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Huon Gulf
While regionalization remains unresolved can I at least change Huon Gulf to Morobe? Why have a region that covers just one province and not call it by the name of the province? Better still, lets merge Huon Gulf with Madang (region). (WT-en) Shep 00:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Map doesn't reflect region name change
I see there was a big discussion on whether to use Southwest Papua New Guinea or Western Papua New Guinea and it apparently came down on the Western side. However, the country map still reads "Southwest." It would be good for that map to be updated. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Currency, time and spelling conventions
Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 * as someone who has lived in far north Queensland, it's best to keep the format the same as Australia. Since Australia uses 12 hour then PNG should also do that. Pre covid, there was free entry from PNG and people have come here for shopping, BBQing etc.

 * But with the 24-hour clock, I'd want Australia to have a 24 hour clock, but that's influenced by my former environment so, it's best to keep both as 12 or 24 but not separate. SHB2000 (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your local knowledge, of course, but when I Google Australia and 12-hour/24-hour clock, sources seem to suggest that 12-hour is most common., , . I'm curious: would you say to a mate, "let's meet at 17 o'clock", or "let's meet at 17 hundred"? It doesn't really sound right in English. Ground Zero (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC

 * Colloquially, in North Queensland, yes we did use 24hr. But after moving to NSW, it's mostly 12. SHB2000 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Overall I’m just saying that we should use 24 for North Queensland and Papua New Guinea and 12 for the rest of Australia SHB2000 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the PNG and Aus conventions should be the same.
 * Do you think its avhood idea to carve out N Qld from the rest of the country?
 * I'm still curious to know how non-military people talk about times in English with a 24-hour clock. Ground Zero (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In North Queensland, yes, people use 24hr and the rest of Australia doesn't. I sometimes feel that North Queensland is its own country. But most places in N Queensland are written in both 12 and 24. (not too sure about this now as the last time I went, they only showed one, not both. But I now think having two different formats for the same state is confusing; especially when there's no barrier or anything indicating that x is in South Queensland and y is in North Queensland. SHB2000 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Racial Taxonomies in the Understand section?
The following is from the History subsection in the Understand section:

"With rugged terrain, inter-tribal mistrust, and diverse languages, intermarriage between the peoples has, until recently, been very limited. Physical and facial appearance varies significantly throughout the country, even 5 km apart from those who look almost Polynesian in some coastal areas, through the short, stocky Highlanders, to the tall and statuesque people of the area around Rabaul in New Britain and the dark-skinned inhabitants of Bougainville, who could almost come from Africa."

This content and tone of this paragraph feel very reminiscent of the colonial-era drive to taxonomize different races and ethnicities based on surface-level pheontypical difference, an association I'm sure Wikivoyage wants to avoid. I can't see why the physical differences between Papua New Guineans is relevant to the perspective of the traveler, when there are other aspects of the inter-tribal isolation described by the first sentence that are vastly more relevant to the traveler. I suggest that the paragraph is deleted or rewritten-- I would delete it myself, but I think that someone with more knowledge on Papua New Guinea than I have might want to rewrite this paragraph into something better. Amyanycoder (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 * How about deleting the second sentence? I agree that the tone is wrong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it was added by Brendan. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 22:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, easily could be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So in that case, let's delete the whole paragraph. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed; thanks for doing so. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 07:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Papua New Guinea


text:
Talk:Papua new guinea holidays

The contents of this page were copied word-for-word from the "Background Information" section of our page of PNG public holidays (http://www.qppstudio.net/publicholidays2009/papua_new_guinea.htm).

title: Talk:Papua new guinea holidays


text:
Talk:Paracas

''I'm not sure if this destination fits our Project:What's an article?. If it doesn, I've moved some of the content here to be reworked following our Project:Manual of style''. (WT-en) Maj 00:38, 24 September 2006 (EDT)

A boat tour to the Ballestas Islands will be the perfect deal for those in search of marine life. Touring around these small islands visitors may easy spot hundreds of birds, Humboldt penguins and dozens of sea lions, resting on the shores of the Islands. In addition, visitors will also see a huge figure etched on the slope of a hill known by the locals as El Candelabro. Paracas was also home of one of most important ancient civilizations in Peru, The Paracas Culture. By exploring the Paracas National Park by land you will not only enjoy a gorgeous landscape, with unique rock formations, such as the famous Cathedral, but also will learn about the ancient people that lived there between the desert and the sea 2000 years ago.

title: Talk:Paracas


text:
Talk:Paracel Islands

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Paracel Islands/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:59, 28 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * Should this even be an article? There are no accommodations at these islands. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:54, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Categorize under China?
Although China has claimed these islands with some controversy, they are nevertheless in de-facto control. I believe since the comment above resort style facilities have been built.

Should we put formally under China? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Under those circumstances, yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paracel Islands


text:
Talk:Paradise Island

What is the weather like during the Vancouver, British Columbia's winter months (October - December)

title: Talk:Paradise Island


text:
Talk:Paraguay

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Paraguay/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 17:13, 1 Apr 2005 (EST)

Stay safe
What's this "fund-raising for Al Qaeda" thing about? Do they have weapons of mass destruction beneath the Iguazu falls too? There is no evidence of any connection between the tri-border muslim community and terrorist groups and CNN has been sued in 2002 for spreading this hoax that's had a very negative impact on local tourism. Brazil and Paraguay have no history of islamic terrorism nor any known occurences of violence or discrimination aginst American citizens because of their origin. I'm removing that from the article. Let's keep paranoia out of Wikivoyage.

There is no substance to the claim that Ciudad del Este is the "money laundering" capital of the world. What ever happened to the major financial centers of the world and offshore havens? I'm removing this from the article. - Mariscal8

Copying from es:
es:Usuario:(WT-es) Arwenavery has placed some info in English at the es:Paraguay article that could be more useful here. I'll copy some of it now. (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 15:53, 4 March 2006 (EST)

Coyote vs. antelope
I haven't been to Paraguay, but the following doesn't sound likely. Then again, I've been wrong before. --(WT-en) Evan 18:53, 19 December 2006 (EST)

 * Paraguayan peole do not get much sleep because they mainly hear wild cyotes and antelope fightning for each others lives during the night. However if you are there touring you can find some nice hotelsmainly away from all that commotion. Night time isn't very pleasant in Paraguay

The forgotten country in Latin America?
Anyone who wrote any negative comment about Paraguay is very wrong. I can assure you that Paraguay is not " The forgatten country in Latin America" ,I can not understand why some people just believe that they have the right and the power  to describe the most negative things about some countries ; in this case about Paraguay,so they just  feel free to write negative things about Paraguay .I truly believe that the person who said only the worsen things about Paraguay is not a well-educated person,because only a person who is not well-educated, full of frustration and hatress can write negative comments  about a country that has welcomed immigrants from many countries such as korea,Japan,China,Australia,Germany,Middle east countries , Brazil ( the latter ,lots of them lately!) and from many other countries!!!!.If Paraguay was "The forgatten country in Latin America" why then those immigrants found a life in Paraguay ???.For better or for worse they chose Paraguay to emigrate and many of them are doing better in Paraguay  than in their own country.There are many wealthy people in Paraguay as well as  middle class ,working class and those people that can be categorized wrongly " as poor" ,because they grow their own potatoes,in their own land ,because they ride their own horses ,because they work in agriculture ,and so because they use as a transportation a"carreta" ,(for those who don't know what is it ,it's a  wooden carriage with two oxes).I don'think are that poor those people in Paraguay who falls under the category of "poor" , because just think ! if they own their own land ,animals and they grow their own legumes,I don't think they are poor!! they are not homeless or anything,and there are not people in Paraguay who are facing starvation either etc. What else ??Paraguay is not the poorest countries of South America ,and it's in fact one of the country with a better economic and political situation in South America .I recently came across an articule on line, that mentioned that Paraguay is not the poorest country of South America.I read it in WIKIPEDIA ,by the way a very reliable source .The article said that Chile,Uruguay and Paraguay are  the three countries in South America with a better economic situation than other countries in South America.Anyone who want to know more about Paraguay or about any other countries around the world should first read ,read and read about the country ,and if possible visit the country and then write about the country if they have to.Sure ,they can write but not before they do a lot of reading about the country's population, history,culture,economic and political etc.So, People should be more careful about  what they write about Paraguay or other countries ,because other people can get offended with their stupid comment.Like the one who said that he or she has seen beggers in Paraguay??? like there are not other countries with the same problem!! .I've seen beggers in other countries too!!.I've seen beggers in those so called well-developed countries too.Again a well-educated person don't go and write just negative things about a country ,instead they analize the whole picture first ,they analyze the facts that was obatined from a reliable source first and then they go and write positive things plus highlight the negative points  about a country.I'm glad I clarified that people who are not well-educated are the one who wrote the wrong thing about Paraguay. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 70.4.200.99 (talk • contribs)

Greetings from Wikipedia
Hi all, there's an [article on Wikipedia] about the Paraguay River that's up for deletion because it's written like a travel guide, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. But I thought I'd give you a heads-up to see if there's anything there you might like to rescue. (WT-en) Reyk 22:52, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

 * Thanks! I pulled it out of Deletionpedia and used it as the basis for a new Paraguay River article. --190.128.166.18 13:03, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Regions

Here's a proposal:

 * Gran Chaco (Paraguay) — an obvious, big, but relatively barren region; everything west of the Rio Paraguay.
 * Paraná Plateau — the forested eastern part of the country's eastern half (Paraneña).
 * Northern Paraneña — basically everything north of Cordillera Province & the Paraná Plateau.
 * Southern Paraneña — the remaining area of Asunción and the southwest.

This looks pretty good to me, so I'll give a few days for comments and then plunge forward if there are none. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:01, 20 January 2010 (EST)

 * Looks very good to me and I would just plunge as I am with Uruguay. The chances of any comments are very slim indeed. As an aside, the colour scheme you have used is exactly the same as I chose 5 minutes ago for Uruguay! Extraordinary. I will change at least my purple to blue :)  Great minds... :) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:25, 20 January 2010 (EST)

 * Done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:54, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Water potability
A couple references were added to the main article, as it appears there may be some dispute, to show that water is potable in Asunción and Ciudad del Este. I am copying them here, as references do not belong in Wikivoyage articles:    --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:31, 2 July 2010 (EDT)
 * OK, that makes sense. As you may have guessed I'm from Wikipedia, so lack of references surprises me :-). Putting them in the talk page is a good compromise, which will not clutter the article. --190.128.166.18 11:27, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

New Banner

I don't like replacing banners for the sake of it, but I find Paraguay's existing banner to be particularly uninspiring. Does anyone like these options, or please provide your own candidates! --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer the 2nd alternative (the 3rd banner here). What does it show? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is of the Ybycui National Park. The Commons didn't have many other great options, but again anyone can propose. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Added options #3 #4 --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I can't decide. Cmasi, do you have an opinion about which of these banners most typifies or best represents Paraguay? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm going to vote for #4, even if for an interim improvement. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 * I'll make it #4 for now, just because the current banner is not really good enough to be at country level. Happy to change again when a better suggestion made. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

 * If I'm not mistaken, #4 is a picture of the border between Argentina and Brazil, nearly 20 kilometers away from Paraguay. So I don't think it's a good choice for the Paraguay banner. I would support #2 or #3. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 * That is a pity! A closer look at the Flickr source suggests it was tagged as Paraguay, but perhaps that particular shot is not inside the country. I'll change to #3 for now, but anyone feel free to propose another. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi there! Option #3 it's definitely better than the previous one. --Cmasi (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Currency denotation
No idea why we opted for ₲ as currency denotation, but this is not what is used in Paraguay at all.

I noticed it when being in the countryside yesterday. And today I took some arbitrary pictures in Asunción: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Paraguayan_Guaranis ... and likewise, they only use "GS".

Hence, if there are no objections, I would like to move the currency denotation to "GS." without space and before the amount.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the official banking symbol and used by the central bank on the web site, but agree makes more sense to show what is used in shops on Wikivoyage. Maybe a little explanation should be kept in the Money section. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It makes sense to use GS. - easier to type, too. Ground Zero (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Paraguayan Currency.png

 * "Paraguayan currencies are presumed to be copyrighted." So merely a presumption. Anyone object to uploading it locally? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paraguay


text:
Talk:Along the Paraguay River

VFD Discussion

 * Delete - this is a river across several regions. Some of the info might fit in other articles, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 01:47, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
 * Merge into Paraguay, since the information is largely Paraguay-specific. Modes of transport and destinations in particular should be retained. Alternatively: Rewrite into an Along the Paraguay River page in the style of Along the Yangtze River. --190.128.166.18 02:07, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
 * Maybe we could turn it into an itinerary. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:34, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
 * Any further comment? My inclination is to add a merge tag to the article. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:48, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
 * Keep, but turn into an itinerary, as it clearly falls afoul of our content organization policy on bodies of water. I don't see any way that this information could be usefully merged into a country article. If it never develops, then we could delete it under the "outline for a year" criterion for itineraries. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:36, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Converted to an itinerary. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:15, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Along the Paraguay River