We really need a map. There's a name for the Big-C complex besides "Big-C complex." More on the cabarets.
What are the criteria for "Budget", "Moderate", and "Splurge" hotels locally? I've been using as a guide < 1000 baht for budget, 1000-2000 baht for Moderate, and > 2000 baht for splurge.
"Clear extlinks"? A bit drastic, yes? Perhaps you are a bit of a control freak. Anyway, it's your site and I really wouldn't want to fight over it so I cede it back to you. Thanks, it's been fun.
Instead of asserting that there's "nothing wrong" with prostitution, I'd like to stick to the facts, which are that a) prostitution is illegal in Thailand, b) it's a great way of picking up venereal diseases and c) no, it's not normal or socially acceptable to pay for or get paid for sex in Thai society. Long debates about whether it's OK or wise for the traveller to indulge or not belong in Stickman Bangkok, not Wikitravel.
Manual of style, future Destination of the Month
So I just went through the article (once again) and tried to changed it into the Wikitravel:Manual of Style format. Contentwise, I think this is shaping up to be one of the best articles on Wikitravel — it's getting good enough to be nominated for Wikitravel:Destination of the Month candidates, and only needs a better map to qualify as a Star. Jpatokal 22:19, 29 Nov 2005 (EST)
I rolled back a number of listing edits that changed Manual of style-compliant listings into more prose-y listings. See restaurant listings, attraction listings, accommodation listings and bar listings for preferred formats. --Evan 19:06, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
Better, but still...
Mr/Mrs Anonymous, will you please sign up for an account already, so we can actually a) identify your edits and b) have a civilized discussion?
Also, the Get out section is way too bloated now. A basic listing of places to go and short summaries of why they're interesting should suffice, the nitty-gritty info on how to get there and how much to pay should go into Get in and the respective destination articles. Jpatokal 22:13, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
And again (sigh)
Why, oh why, have you changed every bleeping phonenumber in Thailand to use the utterly perverse "66 (0) xxx" style? Good luck punching "660xxx" into any phone and getting it to work. Please follow the Wikitravel:Phone numbers standard and and format phone numbers as they would be dialled internationally: that is, +66-xxx. Jpatokal 21:04, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)
re: phone number format
For clarity and comparison, here's a summary of the overall change:
Before - all phone numbers (including all prefixes/suffixes) as they were at Revision as of 22:45, 29 Nov 2005
(03 842 1428)
After - all phone numbers (including all prefixes/suffixes) as they were at Revision as of 06:07, 7 Dec 2005
tel. +66 (0) 38421428
The format applied was not considered to be unequivocally correct.
Applying it was considered a reasonable and worthwhile change given the following facts:
1) Wikitravel:Phone numbers states "...format phone numbers as they would be dialled internationally but in a way that shows the part that can be dialled locally"
2) any consistent format can be replaced by any other consistent format in a matter of seconds (ie the multiple individual manual edits necessary to make this change would mean that in future, a simple find-and-replace could update the entire article in a single edit)
3) consistent format was previously absent (see summary above)
4) no alternative format specifically for Thailand could be found to have been declared (numerous Talk: pages were reviewed)
5) no consistent format could be found to have been applied to any other Thailand article (ie no precedent to follow - numerous Thailand articles were checked, eg Bangkok, etc; all pages with multiple numbers were found to have a mixture of formats)
6) definitive format would be confirmed/applied when phone number markup/template is introduced, and making this change now would simplify the switch to markup/template, regardless of the actual format used
re: "you changed every bleeping phonenumber in Thailand" - comment is incorrect; the < tel. +66 (0) 12345678 > format was only used in nine other articles (a grand total of 13 phone/fax numbers).
re: "Good luck punching "660xxx" into any phone and getting it to work" - comment is misrepresentative as it disregards the bracketing of the zero.
I believe this is false; prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand; the law is not enforced.
Big table of holidays
The large table, coming so close to the head of the document, disrupts (to me at least) the flow of the document ... does anyone else agree? And if so, and if it's not too incompatible with the manual of style, could we either move it to the bottom (with a link and an anchor) or to a subsidiary page? mr_Handy 17:24, 12 March 2006 (EST)
This article used to be good...
This article used to be good, but now it's not: it's too long and it's got too much crap in it. What happened? 220.127.116.11 12:14, 13 March 2006 (EST)
Whoah there Sapphire, let's take this easy. First, I don't agree with the wholesale deletion of the Orientation section, it's got some good info buried in there. Second, I think you're going overboard and creating way too many districts for what isn't actually all that big a town -- could we start off with a three-way split for Jomtien, Central and Naklue for starters? Jpatokal 03:44, 27 April 2006 (EDT)
If you still want to split this article up, perhaps moving out most of the bars/restaurants/entertainment into its own page would be the way to go? 18.104.22.168 12:06, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
In relation to Cambodia's border where is Pattaya? Thanks! - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 11:11, 28 May 2006 (EDT)
Sanctuary of truth
Maybe you should add information about The Sanctuary of Truth which is not far from Pattaya.
Pattaya + Jomtien split - opinions & suggestions
Pattaya is a very small and compact city, and the sub-districts (Jomtien excluded) are each about the size of a postage stamp.
Pattaya Beach: because of the extremely small areas involved, the nature of much of the content (especially nightlife and transport), the chronic vagaries of the boundaries, etc etc etc, splitting this up would result in a bunch of confusing fragments that will be difficult for people to contribute to and even worse to try and use as a guide.
Naklua & Buddha Hill: neither warrant separate guides - likely potential content specific to these probably totals less than 5% of everything else north of Jomtien. Even if a "Naklua & Buddha Hill" article were not geographically impossible, it would still be an impracticably small split.
Jomtien has alternative "Get in" options from Bangkok, and is big enough, different enough, far away enough, geographically distinct enough, etc to justify a completely separate guide. I suggest everything else - ie everything north of Jomtien - be grouped together as Pattaya.
The Pattaya/Naklua article currently has less than 2.4KB of actual info, Pattaya/Central only 5.6KB - if there's no consensus against, I propose to merge these back into the main Pattaya page (already done, but not yet posted), then start on something meaningful for Jomtien. 22.214.171.124 07:31, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
We seriously need to make work from this. I agree that Pattaya should just be Pattaya, and that Jomtien should just be moved to a separate article. Naklua could just be dealt with inside the Pattaya article. --globe-trotter 16:23, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
This is a poor guide
Unfortunately, I wasn't around to object as loud as I possibly could about this article, but I've been busy with other things. This is, editorially, a poor article. Yes, I concede that it's very informative, but it is still a very poor article and lacks the common factor of past DotM articless and that's quality over quanity.
My specific objections are the many numerous and seemingly random listings. There is no information that tells me why I should pick one scuba diving place. What I, the traveler, want is a description of the services businesses offer. I don't want random listings with no information that seems like no one actually tried out, but took from the CVB's website and then copied and pasted the information to the Pattaya. Sure, that's helpful in some instance, but over doing it makes this article look like it lacks any kind of integrity.
Our mortal enemy said it best:
The other big issue is that a lot of crap is not Pattaya specific. A lot of information needs to be moved to the Thailand guide and removed from this article. Otherwise, some of info should just be trimmed down if it actually does have some relevance to the article.
It was an error to highlight Pattaya as DotM, when it is in fact a poorly conceived and written guide. Is there anyone that can turn the monstrosity around? -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 00:22, 2 February 2007 (EST)
This article should really warn/inform people what Pattaya is really all about. Families bringing children here might want to be prepared to answer awkward questions. i.e. Why are half the foreigners fat balding old men with beautiful young Thai women/girls...
The "Getting Out" Section
Has anyone else noticed the "Get In" section seems to be mostly about leaving. I'm going to go to Pattaya today so I'll try and update a bit sometime in the next week. George. 126.96.36.199 22:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
If anyone has some good pictures from this place, please for god sakes add them, it's hurting the eyes, we need something to break it up (see Stockholm how a large article can actually be comprehensible) --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Some TAT listings from the Chonburi (province) page that maybe could be useful for Pattaya in the future, I placed them on Talk:Pattaya/Listings for future reference. --globe-trotter 23:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Dressing up Pattaya
I really want to take the stick to this article and will do so. Not only do the listings need addressing, but the whole article needs a bout of honesty. Pattaya is far too dressed up here. Too little is made of the fact that it is a sex destination above all else, and a particularly nasty one to boot. No mention at all that it has taken over from southern Spain as the refuge of choice for British (and other) criminals on the run, "Costa del Pattaya" etc.--Burmesedays 03:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)
Introductory description of Pattaya
Pattaya is a controversial travel destination because of its numerous sex-workers and the foreign men who come to see them. And as is the case with all controversial subjects in a Wikipedia type of encyclopedia, some people editing this article have strong opinions. And invariably, some of them deliberately try to distort the facts in order to sway the readers towards their point of view.
In the introductory paragraph about Pattaya someone insists on using the words 'girls' and 'boys' to describe the visible sex-workers in Pattaya. Which isn't an accurate description of the sex-workers. Because I've been in Pattaya many times. And I know it for a fact that those visible sex-workers in Pattaya are all women and men, all well over 18 years of age.
I can't say I'm an expert on what goes on behind the scenes, hidden from public view in Pattaya. Perhaps there is some pedophilia and narcotic drug trade going on too. But to say that something like this is out in the public view there likely to be encountered by casual tourists is an outright lie. And anyone who has been in Pattaya for few days will know this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
The age of consent might be 18 years of age in Thailand. But sex-workers in Pattaya and other places in Thailand must be at least 21 years of age. I've seen with my own eyes police checking IDs of some sex-workers there to make sure they were old enough. And a local Thai lady explained to me what was going on.
I realize that the words 'girls' and 'boys' are sometimes used in a slang kind of way to mean young adults and not children, especially in the context of courtship and sex. Lovers even call each other 'baby' in an endearing kind of way.
But such imprecise use of language without adequate context to explain its meaning often leads to misunderstanding. And my feeling is that some people editing this article about Pattaya are deliberately trying to create misunderstanding through imprecise use of words in order to express their personal opinions at the expense of real facts.
I'm a bit surprised to see a tag stating that information should be removed to make the article shorter. It is extensive, but the prose seems quite fine and the information very usable. Are there rules for length? And if so, shouldn't information be split into other articles rather than deleted? Justme 03:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
the best guide i have seen
What ever comments you received, this is the most complete AND correct guide for pattaya. I live her since several years and have seen only minor errors. For those who think the article is to long I only can advise them to read 10 articles which only tell you a part of the city. Go go go and keep the page updated.184.108.40.206 07:15, 15 February 2014 (EST)manu wouters