text:
Talk:Chesapeake Bay

After some discussions with my friend (WT-en) Jonboy, I've decided to try something different with this page. I vacation quite a bit on a sailboat on the Chesapeake Bay and was looking for somewhere to share interesting destinations, which includes both cities and harbors and creeks. There is a site called wikicruising but it is (a) almost empty; (b) trying to be a commercial venture which turns me (and apparenly many others) off. Hope the masters of WikiTravel will like this idea and support the concept. It will probably take a while to develop, but I think it will fit in well when done. Thanks. --(WT-en) Wwc 13:44, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * We don't normally do bodies of water. See Project:Bodies of water. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:58, 8 March 2006 (EST)
 * Just another note, you might want to look at changing this to something like "Sailing the Chesapeake Bay" and make it an itinerary. See Project:Itineraries. Also, I would suggest the links under "Other destinations" be de-linked as these are bodies of water also. Good luck. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 14:07, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * Ok, I will try to cast it more like that. --(WT-en) Wwc 14:17, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * I thought it might work well as a region (which would cross other regions). (WT-en) Jonboy 14:38, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * So, the problem I'm having making this an itinerary is that the important thing is not the order in which you visit places. There is no fixed "route" when "Sailing the Chesapeake Bay", so I don't think it is an itinerary.  I understand the reason to not generally have bodies of water as articles, as they are often attractions to see while travelling to a destination city, but when the travel destination IS a body of water, I think it would make sense to have an article.  Think of the Lake Tahoe example.  I guess I'm wondering if that works to group a bunch of places that might be traveled to as a destination, why not the Chesapeake Bay?  Maybe some of the other destinations should be in the "Stay" or "Do" sections..... -- (WT-en) Wwc 15:43, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * I guess I missed what you are wanting to do. I thought you were wanting an article about things to do "on" the Bay. A regional article like Lake Tahoe covers places "around" the lake. If you look closely at Project:Itineraries you will see it does not have to be structured end-to-end (i.e. One month in Southeast Asia). So, it is really up to you. It could be a collection of different things to do "on" the Bay or differnt iteneraries grouped together in a unstructured itinerary format. Or you could make it more like a regional article that has things to do "around" the bay. Just trying to help you fit this in and do what you want to do. I suggest you continue and see where it takes you. We can always move the article to a new name later. I was just thinking sooner then later. Maybe others have different view and will add their comments. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:12, 8 March 2006 (EST)

 * Frankly, I'd prefer that people write good articles and we worry about fitting it into templates later, if the alternative is that we scare away information because we can't find a template to fit it into. I know nothing about Chesapeake Bay, but if Sailboating on Chesapeake Bay is an article worth writing about, then I'd say go for it. If nothing else, it would make a good travel topic. --(WT-en) Ravikiran 17:30, 8 March 2006 (EST)

I have taken this advice into account and filled in a bit of the article structure. Any comments would be appreciated, but be gentle I've just become a WikiTraveler today! I have much more I'd like to add but want to get feedback before doing it. -- (WT-en) Wwc 18:46, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Article status
The main guidelines for this article, although it is somewhat a hybrid of a region and a park template, is at Project:Region guide status. To get to usable, I think that all is needed at this point is to get the main destinations up to usable status. The remaining ones are, IMO: Solomons, Deltaville, Cambridge , Smith Island , and Hooper's Island.

Tons more work would be required to get this article to guide status, and that would likely require help from someone with a lot of knowledge of the area. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:05, 6 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Happy to say it's now at usable status! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:18, 2 November 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Chesapeake Bay


text:
Talk:Chesapeake Beach

This is an orphaned region -- does anyone know if it should be moved, deleted, or given parents? (WT-en) Majnoona 00:21, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

 * I've always been in favor of euthanizing orphans, but that's why they won't give me a job at Health and Human Services. ;) I've found the parent of this one, and it's an actual city on Chesapeake Bay in Southern Maryland.  Though upon further investigation, it seems to be short on overnight public accommodations, and being a satellite of Chesapeake Beach (which doesn't have an article yet), I think I'll move the article there. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:08, 23 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Growing up in Maryland, I always get the two confused (despite knowing people who have houses in each). This article calls them "Twin Beaches", so it's probably appropriate that they have only one listing between them.  With the only B&B listing for North Beach going AWOL, this seems like the right move. (Although, since the Maryland regions are by county, technically North Beach is in Central Maryland, but I don't think anyone will care.) -- (WT-en) Jonboy 07:48, 24 July 2006 (EDT)

 * And, after many years, I learn that they're actually in the same county, so even better. --(WT-en) Jonboy 16:40, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Merge
Despite the discussion above, it appears we have the two connected beaches covered in two separate articles. Should we merge them as Twin Beaches and redirect both articles to the new one? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:22, 2 November 2009 (EST)

 * North Beach is just a redirect here. I'm fine with leaving it like that, unless someone opens up a B&B in North Beach.  :-)  I don't think "Twin Beaches" is a common enough term to use.  --(WT-en) Jonboy 11:13, 3 November 2009 (EST)

 * Ah, my mistake. The existing North Beach article is actually at North Beach (Maryland). Should we merge the content to this article and make it a redirect as well? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:17, 3 November 2009 (EST)

 * I think so. It wouldn't bug me to have them as separate articles, but there's probably little enough in North Beach (and Rose Haven) to merit a separate article.  --(WT-en) Jonboy 19:06, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Sometimes it takes a good year to actually get around to a merge... but it is now done. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:08, 4 January 2011 (EST)

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

title: Talk:Chesapeake Beach


text:
Talk:Chester

The content of this page is very poor.

 * The content of lots of the pages is poor. Wikivoyage is a work in progress, so please go ahead and improve it. Thanks (WT-en) Shep 06:57, 3 January 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Chester


text:
Talk:Chesterfield

Added some coursory sights for the Town - more details will follow

Added an Understand section - I felt it was needed (KH) I will reference it when i get round to it :)

title: Talk:Chesterfield


text:
Talk:Chestnut Hill

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Comments
I am the author of this work. I created this page for a project. It is okay for you to use my work.

title: Talk:Chestnut Hill


text:
Talk:Chhitkul

Chhitkul is indeed spelled with a double 'h', for those wondering if it's a mispelling... chh is a letter in the Hindi alphabet... (WT-en) cacahuate 13 October, 2006

title: Talk:Chhitkul


text:
Talk:Chiang Mai

By population - 5th largest city, not 2nd?
I believe Chiang Mai is the fifth largest city in Thailand, and not the second largest. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 172.185.158.27 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2006

 * According to WikiPedia:List of cities in Thailand by population that is correct, so I've updated the article. ~ 203.147.0.48 07:50, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

The article has now been changed back with the edit summary: Change from "fifth-largest" to "second-largest" in accordance with Lonely Planet (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/asia/thailand/chiang-mai ). However LP Thailand 11th edition (September 2005) credits Khorat with "pop 215,000" (P.438) and Hat Yai with "pop 191,200" (P.610), but only "pop 170,300" (P.276) for Chiang Mai; similar situation in the 10th edition. So I've reverted the article back again to state that Chiang Mai is 5th largest (which will probably need updating to 6th largest before too long). ~ 58.8.8.141 17:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

 * I think the problem is how they count city and metropolitan area. --(WT-en) jeffmcneill 03:23, 3 January 2010 (EST)

According to a 2000 Thai census report located at, the population in 2000 was 248,479 people for Amphoe Meuang Chiang Mai. Khorat or Nahkon Ratchisima, via the same set of documents, came in at 430,053 people. These are government sponsored documents, not a guidebook's guess or estimate. The entry page to view these documents (in English and Thai) is located at. The 2010 census is not complete but I imagine next year the data will be available and this page can be updated then. --117.47.147.49 05:59, 13 February 2010 (EST)stan_pressman@hotmail.com

Chiang Mai is now the sixth city proper (after Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Pak Kret, Hat Yai and Nakhon Ratchasima), and the second largest metropolitan area (after Bangkok). See. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 21:56, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Spellings
Can someone double check or confirm the spellings of streets (and anything else)? I'm looking at a tourist map of Chiang Mai (which isn't exactly reliable) and it differs on a few of the street names, but I'm not sure if what's here is any more reliable than this is. For example: Nimmanhemin or Nimmanhaemin Road? Chaiyapoom or Chiayaphum? -- (WT-en) psychofish 01:23, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

 * The names are in Thai, so they can be and regularly are spelled in English in dozens of different ways. Wikivoyage attempts to follow RTGS, so eg. ชัยภูม should be rendered Chaiyaphum -- see Project:Romanization for the gory details. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:40, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Unfortunately, I can't speak (or read) Thai-- so for the benefit of myself and other non-Thai-speaking writers, perhaps we should keep a list of "confirmed" or "nonconfirmed" spellings back here for our reference. -- (WT-en) psychofish 17:25, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Jpatokal is correct. There are many variant spellings of street names (and everything else), and unfortunately you can get a different one for the street sign, for Google maps, and for local maps like Nancy Chandler's. Thai people themselves don't necessarily even use street names, they use landmarks, as map use is not commonly taught in the schools and is not widely used in the local culture. Enjoy nonetheless! --(WT-en) jeffmcneill 03:33, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Porn Ping
Dammit, the Porn Ping website does work, but the spam filter just blocks http://www.p*ornpinghotelchiangmai.com/. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:51, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * The URL you(?) had there was an IP address, and it did not work: I clicked on it and got an error. At the time I edited the page it was Porn Ping Tower -- try it: Porn Ping Tower. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:04, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * The "dammit" was directed at the spam filter, not you... the site remains perfectly accessible at its real URL, but obviously the numeric IP has changed and I can't access it either.  Sigh. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:06, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * It's 203.147.62.173, but it looks like the hotel site is on a virtual host in which case the IP address can't work as the webserver is looking for the hostname in the request. Meanwhil, maybe we should tone down the language, since we have some very young contributors from time to time. ;) -- (WT-en) Mark 05:09, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * Yes it is, but you cannot access the site by IP. Try it: http://203.147.62.173/ . They're probably using some kind of virtual hosting (multiple sites sharing an IP) so you need to request it by name to get the right site rather than the error. This is the second peril of linking to IPs; the other being that they change :( -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:13, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * Oops, sorry Mary, my update to my remarks above collided with your posts (twice I think), so now it looks like we are saying the same thing, I guess I ought to have added an addendum instead.. -- (WT-en) Mark 05:18, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * It's OK. For folks in future -- I didn't make an entire comment simply repeating Mark's comment, honest I didn't ;) -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:20, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * I tried to find the real URL before removing the link entirely but Google was not helpful. I guess I should have looked at the page history. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:10, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * It's fixed now. Sorry for the problems. I'm still trying to work out how to make the Project:spam filter work best. Input and comments very welcome. --(WT-en) Evan 15:19, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

"Cosmopolitan"
White trash and cosmopolitan are not the same thing. A gazillion "steak buffets" (including Sizzler), cheap Aussie backpacker bars, restaurants serving "international Thai food" (NOT SPICY!!!!), and hangouts for teenagers called Marijuana, THC, and Cannabis do not make Chiang Mai cosmopolitan. This city is garbage.

Chiang Mai has been consistently voted 'one of the most livable cities' in South East Asia. There is a huge range of culture and cuisine available, from the sublime to the cor blimey. It is telling that many Thais dream of living here because of the cooler climate, Lanna culture and the influx of expats regarded as more sophisticated than those found in other areas of the kingdom. The presence of 'backpacker' and 'hippie' culture is balanced by the large contingent of five star accommodation and eateries. Chiang Mai is a superbly civilised city. Cosmopolitan, classy and classic.

TEFL
Is the point that people will end up in Chiang Mai and decide to stay if they can get a job teaching English? Otherwise I see no real reason to include these courses on the page.(WT-en) Shep 02:31, 3 January 2010 (EST)
 * I think the point is that you can Learn things in Chiang Mai along with Thai Massage, Thai Language, Thai Cooking and Buddhism. Definitely people do want to stay and getting a job teaching English is one of the more popular approaches. --(WT-en) jeffmcneill 03:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)
 * OK. I'm convinced. It's a nice place to want to stay!(WT-en) Shep 04:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

Maps needed
Anyone out there good at making maps? We really need a few for this page. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 86.96.227.91 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 July 2010

Bus robbery?
Hi, just heard about this kind of crime, while having my breakfast at a fruit stand. I was talking to another traveller about the cheap busses to Bangkok (350 THB), and was wondering why they are so much cheaper than the offers you get in Bangkok. He told me, that this may be because of the following (template to improve):

Busses are also a common way to get in and out of Chiang Mai, but there are rumors (confirmed by locals), that some exceptionally cheap companies would intoxicate their passengers with sleeping gas and then take their money or other valuables.

I thought to put this in here, because the fruit lady confirmed that this happens. So i thought it may be a good thing to inform others about this. But since this is Thailand, and information from a singel source is inappropriate quite often, i decided to put it here. Also because i could not decide wether this should be put in the "Stay safe" or "Get out" section.

Anyway, i will now take a train since i heard quite often, that these should be more safe (and convenient).

Greetings, K

____________________________

Hey K,

Well I can confirm that robberies do occur on the 350thb bus. This bus is targeted specifically at tourists - it is dangerous, old and theft is common. The big tell tale is that Thai people do not take this bus, they go to the Arcade bus station and pay ~500thb to Bangkok on one of the proper government approved services. If this article doesn't already include information on this it probably should. The intoxication story I can not corroborate and would lea towards that being made up, or an isolated incident.

The train has now derailed 11 times in 2013 and I wouldn't consider this a safe option either. Nakhon Chai Air buses are the best (and have online booking), followed by Sombat tours and then the next best option is flying Nok air. After adding baggage, Nok usually comes out cheaper than Air Asia on the CM > DMK route and you even get a snack included in the price.

I am new to Wikivoyage, but I am currently considering becoming a contributing member so I will look at including more info on this topic.

Cheers,

J

Dabloodymess (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Parked" listings
I live near these establishments and have visited them. In my judgement they are not worthy of inclusion in WV. Thus I have removed them from the Chiang Mai page and placed them here. Anyone with strong views to the contrary can replace them if so inclined. Seligne (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Removed The Olde Bell from here as it went out of business 2013-06-28. Seligne (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Seligne (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I visited this restaurant last evening. I found the premises to be dreary, the help indifferent, the food tasteless, and the bill high. There are much better options available. I am parking the entry here in the event that there is strong support for listing it.

Seligne (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Seligne (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I visited this place last week. No customers. Seems to have lost its way, so I removed and parked here in the event I am mistaken.--Seligne (4 tildes not working)

Is there someone actively updating this page?
I have been living in Chiang Mai for a couple of years now and I have noticed that this page is quite badly out of date. A number of the businesses listed are shut and new ones have popped up in their place (amongst other things).

I joined up just now to say this and am considering helping out with this and other pages relating to Northern Thailand, but I don't want to go stepping on any toes.

Cheers,

J

Dabloodymess (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, there are two of us regularly contributing. I would be happy to learn what is out of date as I have taken great pains to make it up to date. The way WV works is that we don't consider improvements "stepping on people's toes". Please familiarise yourself with style guidelines and then go to town! If you have questions, pose them here. All of us have the right to review each others efforts and improve things if warranted. So, as we say here, plunge ahead! Seligne (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Seligne, I will be making some changes in the next few days as I have already seen some places that have shut and also a lot more that are worth adding in. I will be sure to post up here as I make the changes and of course I will do my best to follow the style guide.

One thing that may be considered for the future is adding Burma/Myanmar in the 'Go Next'. The rules wilou could feasibly leave CM for Burma by crossing a land border and then leave by land at another point, or by air from Mandalay or Yangon. On that note is there a reason why Luang Prabang and Vientiane aren't included in this section? There are direct means of getting to both of these overland (and boat in the case of Luang Prabang) from CM.

I look forward to talking with you more about improving this and other articles. Dabloodymess (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Welcome! As Seligne said, the lifeblood of this site is editing, so please plunge forward with any additional relevant content, including additions to the "Go next" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 * There is no end to what we can do to make this article, this site, better. As I see it, there are fundamentally two types of editing: adding original content, as you are suggesting with regards to crossing to Myanmar. This requires specific knowledge. I have no experience in this regard, but if you do, great! Add it. The other type of editing is the scut work: cleaning up formats, spelling, grammar, observing WV standards, checking URLs, adding coordinates, etc. This requires knowing how to spell, what WV standards are, etc., even if one does not have specific site knowledge. Please make contributions in both areas. There is no way that a person can know everything about Chiang Mai, but if there are several of us, we can come closer to that ideal. I am very keen to learn what you think are current article inaccuracies. Seligne (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 * When posting here, don't forget to sign off your entry with 4 tildes (~). This will add your username and timestamp. Thanx. Seligne (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

One more point I forgot: At the top of every article you will see "View History". It will show you who is making changes, what those changes are, and when they were made. Seligne (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely prefer the current banner, which is colorful and gives a Buddhist flavor. The new banner seems rather nondescript to me, I'm sorry to say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the existing Doi Suthep banner. Colourful. I don't consider literal banners very important. Maps on the other hand...Seligne (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If a banner with a subject that is more centrally located would be desirable, I would suggest Tha Phae Gate. But the present one shows one of the main attractions. So let us keep it. --FredTC (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ikan above. In general, I think most cityscape or skyline shots are rather boring. Pashley (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer current banner. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The top banner is FAR better than the bottom one to me. No contest. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Current banner Matroc (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

One organisation having two listings
Both have: at their website. --FredTC (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "86/2 Kaew Nawarat Rd",
 * "+66 53-266295",
 * "Copyright © DSS International Language Services Co., Ltd. 2005-2014. All rights reserved.".

Chiang Mai Zoo
I was just there a couple of days ago, and there were no queues whatsoever, so "Extremely popular with Thai tourists, and so expect long queues" seems a bit too negative to me. Anyone have experiences to back this claim up? Perhaps it only applies in certain times of the year?

Noddam (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wording
I hate to use this page to discuss English usage, but there is a disagreement about which of these phrasings is best. I don't know what form of English there is in which using "are" at the end of a sentence is considered "bad", but I'd like to avoid the problem of "there is/are a number". If anyone has a phrasing not ending in "are" that's better than either phrasing at the link, please insert it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with "there are a number" because, to quote, "Some singular expressions referring to more than one person or thing are commonly used with plural verbs, 'a number of' is one of those expressions. ‘There are a number of people in that room.’" (Reference ) Should printed evidence be required then refer to Fowler’s Modern English Usage and The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. —The preceding comment was added by 171.5.251.41 (talk • contribs)
 * I still think my phrasing is better, regardless. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not consistent with accepted usage and recognised authorities. —The preceding comment was added by 171.5.250.89 (talk • contribs)
 * Does anyone else have an opinion about which wording is better? I appreciate the documentation that "There are a number of people in that room" is acceptable, but acceptable does not equate to optimal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable as currently written.
 * Considering that the Tone is "conversational and informal", both wordings are fine. In themselves, I find it difficult to say whether one is better than the other. But as the older wording is the same as on WT, and as there is a desire to differentiate WV text from WT text, the newer wording seems better on that score. Nurg (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and I do see that both changes are acceptable, but for the record, I'm guessing this change changed the words that are in the WT article, and this change is also different from the WT article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter change was a reversion to the WT wording, except for "it's" instead of "it is". Nurg (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Surprising. I accidentally happened to use the same wording as on WT! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I found that surprising too at first, but on thinking about it, I suppose there are not many ways to paraphrase it. Nurg (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Elephant Jungle Sanctuary listing
It's 60 km out of town. Isn't that a little far to list in "See"? What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All venues are far outside Chiang Mai. A listing like this:
 * Elephant Nature Park, 1 Ratmakka Rd (Approximately 60 km N of Chiang Mai), ...
 * ... has its "address=" and "directions=" not used as usual, "Ratmakka Rd" is not "60 km N of Chiang Mai". However, the "address=" brings you to an office where you can make your bookings for the elephant show, which is OK for an average tourist I think. Having them in de See section could be changed into having them in the Do section. --FredTC (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved here from general listing on yoga
Just in case any of these places aren't listed separately, I've moved this here, because it's become a magnet for touting. It seems to me, every yoga place can have one listing of its own, and that's it; it should receive no mention or link anywhere else.

Yoga studios such as Freedom Yoga, Wild Rose Yoga, Sattva Yoga, Mahasidda Yoga, Kaomai Lanna, Blue Garden Yogaand the Spa Resort for residential yoga retreats all are worthy of your patronage.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Breaking up the accommodation listings
It's a big suggestion, but a city as heavily touristed as Chiang Mai the number of listing for accommodation is daunting. The size of the city probably doesn't justify breaking anything up into neighborhoods, but what about breaking off a section for accommodation outside the city center/old city

I figure most people will know if they want to stay in backpacker central in old town of not, and this could make people's lives easier maybe there would be a better way of doing this, I'm not sure.

Willthewanderer (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't think it makes sense to district just the "Sleep" section. However, this is a fairly long article, so if you have a proposal to district the city, please make it and put it here for consideration. "Sleep" is not the only long section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 * At the Dutch WV I used the map I just added. Maybe that helps defining areas the way tourists experience them. --FredTC (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for posting that. So it focuses on the centre of town. But how many districts are you proposing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I would think about 4 areas: Night Bazar (grey), Old City (pink), Huay Keaw/Nimmanhaemin (purple) and "other". --FredTC (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, and then shouldn't the map extend further? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, an extension to the west would define the Huay Keaw/Nimmanhaemin area better. I think it should cover the area until Canal Road (Rd 121). --FredTC (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I've never been to Chiang Mai, but since you have a clear idea of how to do this, here's what I think I and anyone else who might be reading this discussion would want to see: (1) the map; (2) a rough idea of how many listings in each section there will be in each district article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Could this be the map? --FredTC (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Maybe, and thank you. I don't like the fact that no-one else is participating in this discussion, though. I will post a pointer at Requests for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I do not know the city, but I am a bit worried that attractions not typical for a specific district can get harder to find, especially those in the "other" district. As only part of the listings have coordinates it is hard to assess how problematic this is. I suppose this is a common problem, and partly depend on carefulness in the main article to mention specific pearls and to hint on what one should look in each district article for. --LPfi (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 * I would agree that that's the purpose of the overviews in sections like "See", "Do" and "Buy" in articles for districted cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for not following the discussion more closely after starting it, I'm still learning how to use the notifications system. Breaking down the city into colour coded districts seems to be exactly what's in order and I like the map a lot

I'm unsure where the balance lies between order and fragmentation, certainly I see merit in separating the old city from external neighborhoods but since those neighborhoods don't have nearly as many listings splitting them up from each other might not be as usefull

I'l bow to more experienced editors here, but my gut feeling was that splitting "see" and "do" listings into districts would be very annoying since people usually travel to them anyway it would be more conveniant to just read them as a list; whereas the distances in accommodation and eateries are much more relevant. for that reason just splitting the "sleep" section might be neater, it's not like Bangkok where the city is huge' there are just an awful lot of listings Willthewanderer (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Bike-sharing and electric kick scooters
Early 2018 the Mobike bike-sharing was introduced with the placing of at least 500 bicycles in Chiang Mai. These bicycles have become very popular, you see them everywhere, both parked and riding. In november electric kick scooters appeared in the old center of Chiang Mai. Both systems have a link to an app on a smart phone.

Is this a trend to be mentioned in the Chiang Mai article? --FredTC (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Sure, I can't think why it wouldn't be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chiang Mai