Talk:Pattaya

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.

For Pattaya that sounds pretty good. Usually budget = backpacker style (guesthouses etc), splurge = hella expensive and mid-range = the rest. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:55, 25 Jan 2005 (EST)

Yes, the Big-C complex is officially "Central Festival Center" but c'mon, do you really think your motocy taxi driver is gonna be familiar with that name? ;-) My cutoffs are budget <= 600 baht; mid-range < 1000 baht; splurge >= 1000 but I'm very frugal (dangerously so, perhaps). (WT-en) Ewlyahoocom 22:53, 1 May 2005 (EDT)

I usually aim for 200-400 bhat when I'm doing the budget thing. I think up to 600 for someplace like Pattaya makes sense... It's always the A/C that bumps it into the +500 range... (WT-en) Majnoona 07:35, 2 May 2005 (EDT)

"Clear extlinks"?

"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.

Yup, we're collective control freaks. See Project:External links. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:47, 6 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I'm a bit surprised the ax went to the two map sites as well; they're not primary sources, but as far as I know there's no official city map online. If someone can find a map with the right rights to redistribute it, it would be a bit improvement to the article. I've looked, and most of the online maps I've seen are of very unclear origin and copyright ownership. (Mister Handy)

If there's a really good external map site, we can link to it, but a good PD map would be better. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:02, 29 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Nothing wrong

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 Wikivoyage.

See also Project:Sex tourism policy, where we've already had a couple of long debates about Bangkok and Pattaya... (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:51, 23 Nov 2005 (EST)

I'd prefer less emotional style level concerning on this matter, cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Thailand. I agree, "nothing wrong" may be not correct. The fact is, however, that sex trade is widely tolerated in Thailand. The travellers shoud be awared that, particulary in Pattaya, nightlife fun and sex is largely mixed together. Sure, we do not include how-to-do-sex-with-local-ladies information, according to our sex tourism policy. (WT-en) Lulu 05:10, 24 Nov 2005 (EST)

I think we agree on this — the key phrase is 'tolerated'. I think the traveller should be told both that no, he will not end up in jail, but no, beer bar hanky-panky isn't considered respectable Thai behavior either. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:22, 24 Nov 2005 (EST)

Yep... I'm just considering, how to build up the nightlife section. I think, it can be made according to our policy, but one should agree, the subject is highly sensitive. (WT-en) Lulu 07:10, 24 Nov 2005 (EST)

Manual of style, future Destination of the Month

So I just went through the article (once again) and tried to changed it into the Project:Manual of Style format. Contentwise, I think this is shaping up to be one of the best articles on Wikivoyage — it's getting good enough to be nominated for Project:Destination of the Month candidates, and only needs a better map to qualify as a Star. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:19, 29 Nov 2005 (EST)

Listing changes

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. --(WT-en) Evan 19:06, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

Answer: yes, very acceptable! Thanks for your work. --(WT-en) Evan 23:02, 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. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:13, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)

Well, I'm glad to see you're at least paying attention to our suggestions... and oh yes, Pattaya is now up on Project:Destination of the Month candidates. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:56, 27 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 Project:Phone numbers standard and and format phone numbers as they would be dialled internationally: that is, +66-xxx. (WT-en) 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)
Tel 038756879
Phone: +660-3822-5407, +660-3836-7229
(0-3842-0965-6)
(078 336655)
(03 873 5050)
038 361 500
038 428 057
(0 3837 0173)
(0 3836 7652)
tel. 66 3841 5941
tel. 66 3825 0721
+66 38 425550
tel. 66 09 5441430
tel. 03 873 5050
tel. 66 38 412120

After - all phone numbers (including all prefixes/suffixes) as they were at Revision as of 06:07, 7 Dec 2005

tel. +66 (0) 38421428
tel+fax. +66 (0) 38249818, +66 (0) 38249853, +66 (0) 38249174
tel. +66 (0) 38429321
tel. +66 (0) 38296556
tel. +66 (0) 38756879
tel. +66 (0) 38427660
tel. +66 (0) 38225407 / +66 (0) 38367229
tel. +66 (0) 38420965 / +66 (0) 38420966
tel. +66 (0) 78336655
tel. +66 (0) 38735050
tel. +66 (0) 38255488
tel. +66 (0) 38361500
tel. +66 (0) 38428057
tel. +66 (0) 38370173
tel. +66 (0) 38367652
tel. +66 (0) 38415941
tel. +66 (0) 38250721
tel. +66 (0) 38425550
tel. +66 (0) 95441430
tel. +66 (0) 38735050
tel. +66 (0) 38412120

The format applied was not considered to be unequivocally correct.

Applying it was considered a reasonable and worthwhile change given the following facts:

1) Project: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

7) see also "Telephone numbers" question - Talk:Pattaya - 16:53, 1 Dec 2005

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.

Rest assured, I very much appreciate your work in standardizing the phone numbers. However, my interpretation is of the standard in Project:Phone numbers is that we should first and foremost use the international format ("+66-12345678"), but show the part that should be dialed locally by highlighting the country code in italics ("+66-12345678"). The "0" in there adds little value and lots of confusion, eg. I initially "corrected" a few entries to +66-0-xxx until I realized that the zero was spurious.

And why are you referring to yourself in the passive third person? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:30, 30 Dec 2005 (EST)

Prostitution illegal

It's not illegal to pay for sex

I believe this is false; prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand; the law is not enforced.

According to my admittedly limited understanding, it is indeed legal to pay for sex (client-side), but it is not legal to provide sex for money (server-side). (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:04, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)

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? (WT-en) mr_Handy 17:24, 12 March 2006 (EST)

Moving it sounds good - so I moved it (and deleted the out-of-date stuff at the same time) and put in a link.

Quite frankly it shouldn't be in Pattaya at all. The public holidays and such should be in Thailand, and Pattaya-specific stuff should go into "Do" or "Understand" — with copies into Calendar of events and festivals, please. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:19, 12 March 2006 (EST)

I suggest leaving it as it is. The idea is to provide Pattaya-specific info for each date (including "national" dates - ie about what's happening in Pattaya on those dates), and there's more info to come. There are only four dates that could potentially have no Pattaya-specific info, and as it's only four, they should be left in for completeness.

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? 58.147.63.1 12:14, 13 March 2006 (EST)

Mr. Overly Enthusiastic Anonymous happened. I agree with you, so please take a scalpel and start cutting out the crap. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:41, 13 March 2006 (EST)

Wow! I'm speechless. This is huge. This will be on my to do list. (WT-en) Sapphire 01:14, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

Districting

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? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:44, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

Sorry, I was a little woried about the districting, because I've never been to Thailand, nor Asia for that matter and it was hard to find any info about this place. I'm actually rearranging the Orientation section on my laptop to make it a little bit more user friendly. I would have liked your guidance earlier because I saw how crazy in size this monster was and I wanted to tame it a little. I guess drinking espressos late at night really isn't a great idea. Earlier I suggested this article as a COTW. What's your take on that? - Sapphire

Would you do me a favor and leave me a little information about what the three districts were going to use should contain? Like streets, landmarks, and the such? For example where is this Dolphain square at? Would we put Buddha Hill in Jomtien? I'd prefer it if you could leave the information here User talk:(WV-en) Sapphire. Also, tommorrow at aroung 5 PM (EST) I'll have the orientation info back in and a little more concise and to the point.

A picture is worth a thousand words: . So as you can see, the beach is split in three by two headlands. The south beach is Jomtien, the north bit is Naklua and the central bit is, well, Central. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:08, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

The following districts are orphans. To stop them appearing on the orphan pages list I have listed them here instead. Please decide if they need to be deleted or redirected as appropriate. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:49, 1 May 2006 (EDT)

• Pattaya/Bay of Pattaya deleted 18 May 2006
• Pattaya/Buddha Hill deleted 18 May 2006
• Pattaya/Downtown deleted 11 June 2006
• Pattaya/North Pattaya deleted 18 May 2006
• Pattaya/South Pattaya deleted 18 May 2006

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? 149.9.0.21 12:06, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Getting out

In relation to Cambodia's border where is Pattaya? Thanks! - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 11:11, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

To the west. Follow the coastline (or Sukhumvit Rd) east and you'll eventually end up in Cambodia. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:52, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Sanctuary of truth

Maybe you should add information about The Sanctuary of Truth which is not far from Pattaya.

We have a brief mention of it under "see," but if you have more information please plunge forward and include it in the appropriate district. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:43, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

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. 125.24.4.216 07:31, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

I'm fine with this, although I'd like to keep Naklua separate because it is geographically a bit different. I agree that there's no point in attempting to subdivide central Pattaya. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:49, 11 July 2006 (EDT)

In what way is Naklua "geographically a bit different"?

It's separated from central Pattaya by a headland. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:51, 22 July 2007 (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. --(WT-en) 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:

"There's so much information out there that people want somebody to discriminate for them, we're not doing anyone a favor to list 100 places. You want someone to say this is better than that." -- Michael Spring

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? -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 00:22, 2 February 2007 (EST)

I agree with Andrew, this page looks pretty bad and it being highlighted as a great article isn't ideal, it just encourages people to copy what they see here. A small discussion started about it this page on Project:Internal links but not much response... I'd be happy to remove the internal links if others agree with me, and the see and do sections are a little horrific... hell, I'm gonna plunge forward a little... hope nobody minds... but I'd still love to know people's views on internal links... (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 08:17, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Do we honestly need the Pattaya#Clubs & associations section? Who in the hell is going to meet up with the Vegetarian Club of Pattaya? Revert my removal of the section, if needed. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:49, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Not only will I not revert, I'll encourage you to keep going... I did some cleanup of the article, but every time I try to go back to it it hurts my head... too big for a small destination, but I haven't been there and don't know what to trash and what to keep. (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 03:04, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I'm in the same predicament, but I'm trying to be somewhat conservative in my attacks. My approach is what will I want and need to know if I go there. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:17, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Sex

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...

I think the article actually does a pretty good job. The "Drink" section leaves few illusions about what Pattaya's nightlife is all about — but there really is a plethora of sporty stuff to do unparallled in Thailand. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:20, 17 February 2007 (EST)

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. 203.144.143.6 22:20, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Pictures

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) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 07:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)

TAT listings

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. --(WT-en) 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.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 03:47, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Also, do we think it needs districtification? It is kind of half-cock in that respect at the moment. A whole bunch of sub-districts are listed but not created, bar Pattaya/Naklua. My immediate reaction is that Pattaya is not big enough(?) to warrant districtification, and that Naklua is a bit of non-event as an article and could be merged back into Pattaya.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:23, 7 February 2010 (EST)

This could be a Thailand-wide discussion. Destinations like Phuket, Ko Pha Ngan and Ko Samui have also "districtified" with the beaches having separate articles. But this hasn't happened on Ko Samet. I think maybe the huge city template could apply for these destinations, and we make them districts.

For Pattaya, I think at least Jomtien could be a separate district as it is geographically further away. For the rest, maybe we could also separate South, Central and North Pattaya? Not sure. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:31, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Good point about the wider implications. It seems to me that the huge city template might be most appropriate for those islands. For Pattaya, is there really enough content or potential scope to warrant it? I do not think so. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:05, 7 February 2010 (EST)

It seems this article is not honest about the fair of sleaze you can find here, is partly because of Wikivoyage's policy on sex tourism. In a nutshell: pretend sex tourism doesn't exist. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:19, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I like this sentence: "There is lots of culture to see in Pattaya." :P I thought Pattaya's mostly about nature. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:29, 14 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 comment was added by (WT-en) 67.71.66.3 (talk • contribs)

The unfettered age of sexual consent in Thailand is 18 (although it is officially 15). That all those very young looking public sex workers that you see in Pattaya are "well over 18 years of age" is therefore rather unlikely I think. If you have any doubts about Pattaya being an international centre of Pedophilia, just do a simple Google search. Same goes for drugs, gun-running etc (mostly controlled by European undesirables) - the Costa del Pattaya is a not inappropriate moniker.

Specifically here, I think the words "girls" and "boys" are appropriate. An alternative might be "young women" and "young men". These would probably convey the message as well.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:44, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

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.

Too long?

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? (WT-en) Justme 03:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

This article is way too bloated... just take a look at the Do section to see how unreadable this article actually is. Four shooting ranges, 16 scuba diving companies, 6 driving ranges, 3 horse riding clubs, 5 go-kart circuits, 6 yacht clubs, and that's just the beginning of it. Wikipedia has the "too long" template for articles this , I think maybe we could use something like that as well. This article needs desperate clean-up, but I don't see it happen anytime soon. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

This comment is from 2011. The current Do section does not contain 4 ranges, 16 SCUBA companies, etc., thanks to my work and the work of others. There is still too much bloat in Bowling, etc., but progress is being made. Seligne (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lovely Corner Bar

I agree about the music, but unfortunately, the staff are only to keen to pad bills.—The preceding comment was added by 86.42.240.136 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to plunge forward! Globe-trotter (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get this. I added the Lovely Corner Bar entry. There is no mention of music in the listing. My experience there (~20 times) is that my bills were never padded. Seligne (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The banner

The banner is nice, but does it really encapsulate Pattaya? Would https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pattaya_banner.jpg be a more accurate representation of the place? Roundtheworld (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but it looks hazy, at least on my monitor, and it sure isn't as pleasant an image. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Vote for deletion of Sailor Bar

Several years ago I happened on the Sailor Bar. It offered breakfast then for about 55 baht: 2 eggs, ersatz meat, 2 toast, butter, jam, orange juice, coffee. I thought it was a great deal and the place was welcoming as well. I became acquainted with Kun Deng, my server, and the staff. I created an enthusiastic listing for them on Wikivoyage.

As I don't live nearby, I get back there every year or so. I visited last year and found the service wanting: brusque, cold, even rude. I visited again this week. The breakfasts are now 65 baht, still a steal. But the service remains icy and unwelcoming. I recommend delisting them from WV until they get their act together. They are unworthy of a listing in my opinion. What do you think of the place? Support delisting or not?Seligne (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it would take quite a while before another person who has been to that place finds this discussion to answer your question. Personally, I'd think that since you were the one who vouched for the place in the first place, it'd probably be just fine for you to go ahead and remove it, referring to this discussion in your edit comment. Texugo (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?

Banner currently used in this article

Pattaya Wikivoyage banner.jpg

In my opinion, it would be better to have a banner that better represent this location as a big thriving city (the current banner gives the impression that this is some small village). Which banner do you prefer for this article? (maybe you have ideas for better alternatives?)

CC the main users whom have worked on the Pattaya article: Seligne, Goodsoil

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current banner in no way is representative of Pattaya. (Maybe a picture of Soi 6?) 555! Seligne (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seligne. If you have a better alternative please make it+upload it... otherwise, please write which of the banners shown above you prefer for this article. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have never been to Pattaya, but on picture quality alone, I prefer the proposed replacement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no better photo. Of the two shown, I prefer the bottom one (panorama of city and bay). Thanks, Seligne (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Fat old men with young Thai women

User:Phantomwiki removed this language from the lede, with the following edit summary:

Removed offensive line about "fat old men".

I restored it and started this thread. My feeling is that any description of a widespread phenomenon in a given destination which someone finds offensive to read but which is incontestably accurate must be and remain in an article, because whoever would find the description offensive will undoubtedly find the actuality much worse, and this site's watchword - the traveller comes first - includes telling prospective visitors to a destination for johns what they're getting into. Only if there's something inaccurate or misleading about the description would I countenance removing it. I'd also solicit User:Seligne's remarks if he would like to comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have written, "...fat, tattooed, drunk old men holding hands, and more, with young Thai ladies..." Coincidentally, just this week I read a letter in the Bangkok Post on this subject. A guy was complaining that he unwittingly booked a hotel for his family in a BKK red light district. They were uncomfortable and he was pissed off and wanted the government to label such areas. How that could be done is beyond me. What we can do, as travel advisors, is to warn off people by describing the unvarnished truth of what we see. Self-censorship is not the answer. Seligne (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Closure?

Pattaya faces 80% closure for up to a year Pashley (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown lifted Pashley (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits

I tried to de-clutter this page a little because it was looking so bloated, and I noticed a lot of places had changed or were no longer in business or going downhill in quality. I hope it's alright - I tried to be conservative in excising. Lazarus1255 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's more than alright; it's great that you did that! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! :) Lazarus1255 (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)