Important: Wikitravel is exploring a license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, please give your consent or refusal here.

From Wikitravel

[edit] this section moved to here from Talk:Mandarmoni

We have visited Leisure N Luxury (locally known as Sana Beach Resorts or Sandipan Babu's lodge.

Though it is not fully functioning but we feel within a month or two i,e. JAN'07 this would be a pride of Bengal.

The Beach certainly the best in Bengal

Suggestion: to put signboard then it would be easier to locate. —The preceding comment was added by 59.93.215.5 (talk • contribs) 2 Jan 07

[edit] Is this an article?

This article was initially described as a beautiful virgin beach resort. The word resort was removed in a previous edit by another user. Does this mean it is only a beach or is there a resort on the beach too? If it is only a beach, then maybe this is not an article, but only an attraction.

All indications are that it is just a beach some distance from Digha. I think it should just be redirected there and unlinked from Digha.

No - if it is some distance away the article guideline suggests it be a separate destination. I can point to other articles where this precedent has been set for a beach. I would rather wait and see what evolved. At least 2 people think it is a destination to go to because the edits on Digha for the link were some time ago in November 2005. -- Huttite 07:24, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

This is actually a generic problem for India. I think I had better raise it in Wikitravel talk:What is an article? --Ravikiran 08:23, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

Mandarmani is a separate destination. The beach here is virgin and there are only a few resorts to stay ( as of June 7 2006).

[edit] Candidate for protection

One of the few accepted grounds for protecting an article is to stop edit wars, which this article certainly seems to be experiencing. Folks, please try to reach consensus on article contents, consistent with the Wikitravel:Manual of style, including Wikitravel:Don't tout, and so on. This is a warning that protection is starting to be considered. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

[edit] hotel demolition

Anyone know anything more about this? Is it ALL hotels they are trying to demolish, or just a few? – cacahuate ^talk 01:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

This is hysterical! It sounds like squatters set up "hotels" on some beach and then went after Wikitravel? This whole spam saga is the weirdest I think I've seen. --Peter ^Talk 02:49, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Well no. Pretty much all construction in India is illegal, because there are so many regulations to keep up with that it is impossible to do anything lawful. So the only way to build anything is to go ahead and build it, and then pay bribes to regularise it. The spammers are not hotel owners. It is some booking agent who has been trying very hard to get his phone numbers on Wikitravel. Worse still, he is getting annoyed that Wikitravel has started listing actual phone numbers of hotels and has been removing the numbers, replacing those numbers with his numbers or when everything else fails, removing those listings entirely. — Ravikiran 03:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I suppose, then, the truly strange thing about this spammer is his persistence? --Peter ^Talk 13:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. — Ravikiran 08:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems that today our dear friend has given us his company name? --Peter ^Talk 02:32, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

It looks like his latest stunt is to add legitimate hotels, but insert his own number in the phone number field. — Ravikiran 05:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I feel some system should be made to stop the illegal and wrongfull editing. sandy

Hi Sandy, we prefer to keep the Wiki as open as possible, the whole idea is that anyone can edit a page... unfortunately sometimes people abuse the site, but we've got enough regular users around who can pretty quickly revert any unwanted edits, so I don't think we're near a point of having to protect the page yet. The anonymous editors who are trying to add weird things here will probably get bored pretty soon anyway, they usually do! Thanks! – cacahuate ^talk 14:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Bad press

Interesting article on the current controversy in Mandarmani. Stay out of the sea, travelers! – cacahuate ^talk 15:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

[edit] My recent experience at Sana Beach resort Mandarmani

I Visited Mandarmoni with my friends on the 12th of April,2008. Sana Beach resort came highly recommended, how ever we had a frightful experience of getting beaten up by the Resort staff as they did like us complaining about their attitude and service.I feel sad that the owners/promoters of the Resort have built such a fine place but has kept hoodlums to run and manage.

Beaten up, huh? Given the relentless touting on this article, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't devote this article to simply dissuading anyone from ever going here. If Wikitravel experience is anything to go by, this whole beach seems a den of thieves! --Peter ^Talk 16:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Phone # spamming & article protection

I've protected this article again for another month... I hate protecting articles, but the reverts aren't happening fast enough, and the wrong phone#'s are spending as much time on the website as the right ones.

To the phone# changer... BAS! We won't accept travel agent phone #'s for hotels... they MUST be to the hotel direct, and they MUST match the phone # listed on the hotel's official website. Thanks – cacahuate ^talk 15:39, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, point taken. I will mention, though, the fact that the spammer loves this page makes it easier to catch when he hits other pages. But then again I think I've already watchlisted all his faves though... --Peter ^Talk 01:58, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I love this article. Wikitravel wouldn't be the same without the Mandarmani phone spammers. Gorilla Jones 23:10, 25 December 2008 (EST)

a new spam. In the hotel listing "Mandarmoni Beach Resort" entry was pointing back to Debraj Resort which was also in the listing and the phone number also pointing back to DebrajResort. I have deleted the "Mandarmoni Beach Resort" entry. Cacahuate and Peter please verify. 23.09, 13 March 2009 {EST}

[edit] Mandarmoni?

Correction: The spelling of Mandarmani is not correct this will be MANDARMONI. Pl. correct —The preceding comment was added by 59.93.175.2 (talk • contribs)

This appears to be at least somewhat correct—I get 45.5k en google results for Mandarmoni, 40.9k for Mandarmani. Move? --Peter ^Talk 13:30, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

This is also to inform that in the Central Govt. published map name of Mandarmoni is officially written as MANDARBANI

Follow our larger cousin? - and whoever wrote the bulk of that guide, obviously has some knowledge of the city. On the other hand, most of the websites linked from our guide, uses Mandarmoni... and then again, the links from the Wikipedia article uses Mandarmani - so this could still go either way, hmmm, tricky stuff --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 14:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

The official tourist agency West Bengal Tourism uses Mandarmani. So I think we should follow their lead. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 14:12, 19 March 2009 (EDT)