Talk:Paramaribo Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

I removed a large amount of information that appears to be copyright violations. The information was taken from several websites. The differences can be seen here.

I also removed a giant list of tour companies. Wikivoyage is not a substitute for the yellow pages, so we don't try to list every hotel/restaurant/store/tour company that exists - just the ones that stand out. In this case, it's not even clear what kinds of "tours" are being offered. If anyone is familiar with these companies, please add them back in and add a description if you're able:

I've readded the popular tour guides, but I'm not that good in describing their tours.

• <listing name="N.V. METS" address="Nassielaan 1" phone="" email="" fax="" hours="" price="" url="http://www.surinamevacations.com/en/index.html"></listing>
• <listing name="N.V. METS" address=Anton Dragtenweg 7, Paramaribo, Suriname" phone="(597)477088" email="" fax="(597)422332" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="Dubois & Dubois" address="Eldoradolaan 22, Paramaribo, Suriname" phone="(597)476902" email="" fax="(597)472377" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="StiNaSu" address=" C. Jongbawstraat 10, Paramaribo, Suriname" phone="471856" email="" fax="421850" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="Sur-vive-it" address="Jupiterstraat 50 Paramaribo" phone="455522" email="" fax="455522" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="Moonlight Jungle Tour Agency (MJTA)" address=" Henck Arronstraat # 21 ben., Paramaribo, Suriname" phone="(597)472746 (597)8834851" email="" fax="(597)472746" hours="" price="" url="http://surjungle.com/english_directory.htm"></listing>
• <listing name="Suriname Safari Tours" address=" Dr. J. Kafilludistraat 27, Paramaribo" phone="400925" email="" fax="" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="MANOETJE TOURS" address=" Crownstraat 11 Nw. Nickerie" phone="(597)231991" email="" fax="(597)230048" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="AMAR'S ECO TOURS" address="Estabrielstraat 16 Paramaribo" phone="400372" email="" fax="" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="ARA CARI" address=" Kwattaweg 254 Paramaribo" phone="434888" email="" fax="497670" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="ARINZE TOURS" address=" Prinsessestraat 2c Paramaribo" phone="425960" email="" fax="426275" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="CARDY ADVENTURES" address="Heerenstraat 19 Paramaribo" phone="422518" email="" fax="424505" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="INDEPENDENT TOURS" address="Rooseveltkade 20, Paramaribo" phone="474770" email="" fax="" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="SEL-ASA TOURS" address=" Winchesterstraat 6 Paramaribo" phone="401412" email="" fax="401412" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="MA-YE-DU" address="Matoeliestraat 22 Paramaribo" phone="410348" email="" fax="410348" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="RAM'S TOURS" address="Neumanpad 30 Paramaribo" phone="476011" email="" fax="472411" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="SUN & FOREST TOURS" address="Gravenstraat 155 Paramaribo" phone="478383" email="" fax="478383" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="ACCESS SURINAME TRAVEL" address="Prinsessestraat 37 Paramaribo" phone="424522" email="" fax="424522" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>
• <listing name="Oetsi Tours" address="Parijsstraat 40, Paramaribo Suriname" phone="(597)441488" email="" fax="" hours="" price="" url=""></listing>

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Fastestdogever (talk • contribs) - It's actually very hard to tell from the history who inserted these listings, but someone did in 2007. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to revisit the subject of tour listings, given current policy. It's my opinion that all tour agencies without description should probably be summarily deleted, given that their listings give no rationale for how they add value that would be difficult or impossible for a visitor to obtain on his/her own. The obvious exception is the bike tour, and probably the eco tour, just because their names suggest value added (riding a bike with someone who knows the lay of the land or touring tropical rainforest, not something an inexperienced visitor should consider doing by themselves). Your opinions, everyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I concur. --W. Frank^email_talk 06:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think they must have already been deleted by someone, because the only one I seem to be seeing now is the bike tour. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uh, there are 4 in a different place now - but I think we should defer to the judgement of those with local knowledge - I think there's a man on the spot isn't there? --W. Frank^email_talk 13:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I moved the tour companies some weeks ago to Get Around as I think that is the most obvious section. After my opinion 4 is sufficient and I chose the agencies that I know since my last visit early September. And thanks Frank for your textual modifications. WiDi (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC

Yes, that sounds about right (although a description of any points of difference would be useful) and that does sound like a logical section. Obviously I assume it's your local judgement that the 4 should remain?

In turn, I'd like to thank you, Willem, for your great work in developing the content of our article. I've never been to South America (but I think Alice has had some turnarounds there - I'll do some rubberhosing when voice communications are not so difficult). One thing you can help with is whether 12hour or 24hour time formats are seen more commonly in printed media? I assumed it would be like the Netherlands (and most of continental Europe) with 24hour time formats predominating in printed media, but it would be great to get your view on this assumption, Wim... --W. Frank^email_talk 15:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Surinamese media 24h format is common. I used 12h as once someone corrected me when I had used 24h. I assumed that 12h was standard for English WK but now reading wv:times tells me to use predominant local usage, which is 24h in Suriname. So thanks for correcting. WiDi (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure, Wim. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume that 24h format predominates in written media all over Surinam/e and should, therefore, be consistently used in all Surinam/e related articles. Other things being equal, I prefer the 24h format since it is for most articles the marginally shorter format and, along with the word "OK" and the metric system, one of the most universally understood global, semantic systems. Keep cool! --W. Frank^email_talk 22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that whoever put up the comment about Muslims and Jews was either a Suriname resident proud of their country's diversity, or a foreigner pleased to see such diversity, but it actually kind of offended me to imply that Jews and Muslims are constantly and inherently in violent conflict everywhere in the world every second of every day except in Suriname. I removed it. Please don't put it back.

http://tomyturkey.com/images/Ahrida_Synagogue_2.jpg http://www.sublimephotography.co.uk/eastendphotos/whitechapel/photos/big/synagogue.jpg -- preceding comment was made 00:38, 2 September 2007‎ by an un-registered or un-logged in user editing from IP address 71.198.168.12

This is a system-wide problem, but there was an article (I unfortunately forget which one) where a workaround was found: The problem is that the map is invisible in Firefox unless clicked on. When that problem is solved, I plan on nominating this article for Destination of the Month, because it's a Guide now (I am going to change its status right after posting this message). Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This problem affects only logged in users (HTTPS). The Firefox function "block mixed content" is still incomplete, an exception list is missing. However, the following solution is possible:

• Open the FF advanced configuration: about:config (address bar)
• Search for: k_a
• Set "security.mixed_content.block_active_content" to "false" (double click)

That's all. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Joachim; I'm impressed with your technical knowledge. While I'm online, it's a lot easier just to click the map, however. My concern is for other users who won't know the procedure you outline. I thought there was an article recently that got around this problem with a dynamic map; I wish I remembered which one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just for the record, I got https at work without logging in and couldn't see the map that way, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping that this will be fixed by the time I return to editing in six months (insha'Allah) -there's a very competent team working on this problem, IK. --W. Frank^email_talk 22:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I'm not logged in I get HTTP. Please do not previously change to HTTPS mode (eg log in). -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whoopeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! It seems the toolservers have been changed now and this is fixed! --W. Frank^email_talk 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is the one other thing that I can think of that's an issue in terms of Destination of the Month nomination. It would be good for there to be a subsection of "Understand" that mentions the weather - is there a rainy season or a drought season? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good point! --W. Frank^email_talk 06:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added the Suriname climate in this article as this is based on Paramaribo.WiDi (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just nominated the article for DotM, but I noticed a problem: What does "water" mean in the climate box? It looks like the average temperature, but the rainfall amounts would be more helpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're right. Sea temperature is meaningless for Paramaribo. I replaced it with precipitation. Thanks. WiDi (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking about how to include the most common excursions from Paramaribo. This country is too small to use "Get out" for nearby towns or so; people typically head out for remote jungle resorts or turtle beach visits. There are, however, only one or two actually popular destinations (Albino maybe, and... Nickerie?). Most other popular trips in the country are typically to remote jungle resorts, or e.g. to Colakreek (a commercially run recreation parc). Although considered by the Suriname people and tourists as destinations of their own, they don't meet our destination article criteria. Redirecting them to the geographically nearest town makes no sense, as they are usually not connected to those tiny, hard to reach bush villages (transport is typically direct, and any village is not necessarily close by either). Do we list them in the country article? Do I also list them under Go next, even though they're individual listings rather than destinations? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree to list and explain them in the Suriname Do section and only list in Paramaribo Go Next section. Popular these days is cycling to Nieuw Amsterdam and Frederiksdorp. As Nieuw Amsterdam is seen is part of Paramaribo maybe it fits best here. WiDi (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

And then link to the Suriname#Do section from the Go Next section in Paramaribo? I'd be okay with that. I haven't been to Nieuw Amsterdam, can't really judge. If you'd like to add it here in Paramaribo, that seems fine. The article is hardly too long now and we can always separate information later. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article is looking a lot better, but Wikivoyage's tour policy, as I understand it, does not allow for unexplained lists of tour agencies. There needs to be an explanation of what added value they provide that would be very difficult or impossible for an individual traveler to obtain on their own. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would agree, I only left them in since others discussed the issue above and I didn't want to single-handedly remove them all. I must say, in a city with so many tour operators (including not so reliable ones) it would make sense to me to list a few "reviewed" ones, from a traveller's pov. Having visited this place, I know it's hard to determine who you can trust. As a writer, however, I don't see how to draw a line then, as it's not always clear if it's a client or an owner who adds a business. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with all of this, but would suggest we keep the current four until such time as we are able to get some more local input.

Julia, while you're here, may I ask you why the tidbit about Sephardic Jews was removed with this edit - was it outdated, false or was there some other reason, please? --W. Frank^email_talk 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Frank, I just realized I entered that info double: it's right there, a few lines down, at the more detailed description of the Jodensavanna I added. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick answer and I apologise for not checking the rest of the article myself. Keep warm (or cool, if you prefer)! --W. Frank^email_talk 20:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Np, thanks for the editorial/language check-ups :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As Ikan said, tour agencies are allowed only when it is hard or impossible to do the thing the tour operator offers you on your own. I think you can get around in the city itself without any tour agencies, but this is probably not the case in the inland jungles. So shouldn't they be moved either to the Get out section or to the Suriname article? ϒpsilon (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good idea; my suggestion would be the "Go next" section of this article. --W. Frank^email_talk 14:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Now I'm wondering though if we shouldn't just describe the Jodensavanna and Colakreek in the See or Do section of Paramaribo. They're typically seen as a day trip from Paramaribo, I think, don't merit articles of their own but now it kind of crowds the Go-Next section. Also, I tend to think it's a bit "tucked away" in Go Next, since there's no further description elsewhere. What do you guys think? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The easy solution would be to put them in the See section, under a sub-header as they sound more like sights to me. The other solution would be to divide Suriname into Paramaribo + 2-3 regions and write more extensively about Jodensavanne and Colakreek in the appropriate region article(s). ϒpsilon (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sights/Day-trips indeed. The See-section it is then. There's just not really enough around Jodensavanna to make it part of a region here, so they would be mostly empty articles. If we ever would divide Suiname in regions (for which I believe it's too early now) I don't even think Jodensavanna would be in a separate one anyway. But that's fine, I'll move the info. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

There was a discussion long time ago how to split up Suriname (see Talk:Suriname). I thought the suggested regions was a good idea but I already had created the article Nickerie as a district article and piped Nieuw Nickerie and Wageningen to this article. Then this was reverted as multiple items in one listing may not be piped to the same article(!). I'm quite new here so I thought that I had commited a sin and waited for an admins suggestion. That did not come and still a lot of items are marked red, which means (what I think) that these are waiting for someone to create an related article. I agree that separate articles for all those Cities and Other destinations are not needed. My suggestions:

• 1. remove the brackets and describe it more extensive in the main article(s) (Suriname or Paramaribo),or
• 2. create region articles as suggested by (WT-en) globe-trotter and (WT-en) Peter and newly by ϒpsilon. Jodensavanne can be describe in region Northeast Suriname

I prefer 2. What do you all think?

WiDi (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I obviously still think it's just too early (sorry, I'll repeat my rationale here :-) ), unless someone is willing to actually fill those region articles and has enough information to do so. I'm not against regions, I just think we should avoid creating a bunch of half-empty region articles that don't serve the traveller and will only make it look like our Suriname guides are very incomplete for years to come. I'm not sure why we shouldn't make separate articles for the most important towns and natural parks: they do meet our article criteria. Sights in the wider area of such a town, like those you would take on a daytrip from there, can just be described in a destination article. I think we should follow the steps we usually take, creating regions only when the need arises. To quote from policy: Before you plunge forward creating a region, keep in mind that we only add a new level of regions when there are too many cities or too much content in the existing breakdown. (...) Almost always, individual listings (including detailed contact info for restaurants and hotels) do *not* belong in a region or sub-region page. The region-level description is a brief overview only. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Of course the very best solution would be to have separate articles for each destination itself. I'm not a very big fan of districts either. But if there isn't enough information to justify a whole article for the place itself I think a useful solution could be district articles. I vaguely remember a discussion a few months back where PrinceGloria had spotted a bunch of articles of Polish villages that had very little content and the result was to merge the content into the districts so now I was thinking along the same lines. As a side note, ten districts would definitely be an overkill. I was thinking along the lines: Paramaribo, Coast (or Northwest, Northeast), Inland/Inland Jungle. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it will surprise anybody to discover that I very much tend towards Julia's view that we should avoid creating a bunch of half-empty region articles that don't serve the traveller and will only make it look like our Suriname guides are very incomplete for years to come if readers (or worse, journalists) find them when they click either "Random article" or a (blue) internal link. In the 7 years I've been editing Wiki travel guides It's rare that I see useful content added to these rattling skeletons where they have been created for "theoretical" hierarchical reasons rather than the natural result of individual editors natural interest. If the content develops to overwhelm the "holding" article, that will be the time to hive it off into a worthwhile article. --W. Frank^email_talk 12:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Looking at it again, I'm a bit torn on this issue. Nice work with the Commewijne part, WiDi. I do think Paramaribo is one of those places where out-of-town sights are okay in the see-section. The city itself you can see in a day, many people stay longer just to take these day trips.

However, you are right - we do need some other place to put more information and listings for the Commewijne district (and similar places). Maybe you guys are right after all, and we should opt for some kind of region-like collection article, wíth listings, as Ypsilon suggested. We shouldn't follow the traditional region template then, however, as it'll be hard to really describe different general food, drink and sleep overviews. Ypsilon, is there an example of how it was done in the Polish villages case? I do think we need mentions on all the towns, but I agree I can't really fill a destination article as of now for most. Hmz... I hate being undecided ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

To me it just sounded a bit "funny" to have information about Jodensavanne, presumably some 45 min-1 h away by road, in the city article of Paramaribo. I haven't myself been to Suriname, though. About region articles; they're usually empty simply because all the information that could've been in them end up in the city, town, national park articles etc. In this case, however, there isn't AFAIU enough stuff to justify such separate articles. We don't have articles lacking information but rather information lacking someplace to be put. I thought, if there are a couple of destinations that are located in the same part of the country, maybe often visited on the same trip from Paramaribo, they could be lumped together into something like a region article. In those region or "region-like" articles there would also be space to mention other destinations in the region. The Polish discussion is archived at Talk:Kujawsko-Pomorskie. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is a perennial double conundrum that is not unique to Suriname. In most cases, once you have found somewhere to temporarily store the information, the solution is fairly obvious. Wait until you have at least one "Sleep" and one "Eat" listing and then hive it off into its own separate article. Until and unless you have enough material to justify more "regions" than 2 pseudo regions of "Paramaribo" and "NOT Paramaribo" then (small) countries should not be split up into "artificial" regions. --W. Frank^email_talk 13:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

We share the basic rationale, Frank, but in the case at hand, how would you like to proceed? A place like Commewijne (which is a district, administratively) could have more information than it now gets in the Paramaribo article. There are a couple of villages, some of them have a single guesthouse, most of them will have one of two place to eat. Some larger ones, like Nieuw Amsterdam, are more developed and could get an article of its own, I suppose, but most are small. There will be some sights, but many of those around the villages: say former plantations or a natural sight. We can't go listing the local warung of a village in Commewijne in the Paramaribo or Suriname article. So where do I put that plantation? JuliasTravels (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since I've neither been to Surinam/e or even read much about it, I'm not the best person to judge. I get the impression that Suriname is not so big in either population or area or attractions that it needs dividing into regions (other than the problematic split of "Paramaribo" and "NOT Paramaribo") so when you add those threshold listings of one "Sleep" and one "Eat" (or "Buy") listing for Commewijne (or wherever) then the new article is just linked to from the Surinam country level article (as it probably is already). If you ever end up with a cluster of such articles, then we can look at creating a region for them? (My understanding is that about 90% of the land area is in just the one administrative area of Wanica, with most of the other much smaller districts fringing the coast and the capital having more than half of Surinam's population.) --W. Frank^email_talk 22:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Julia or IK: please would you delete the silly circular re-direct Jodensavanne (losing the free plugs to the IB website in the process) and then re-create the page as a re-direct to Paramaribo#Jodensavanna --W. Frank^email_talk 14:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done, to Paramaribo#Jodensavanne, with corrected spelling. Thanks, Frank. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oops that 'a' was my bad. Thanks for the fix and the redirect, Ikan. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Thanks, IK. --W. Frank^email_talk 13:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like the photo of the synagogue and the mosque, but I'm not sure we should have two photos of the synagogue, so I think maybe it's best to leave that one and delete the photo that shows the synagogue only. Your views? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Frank added the image of the two religious buildings next to each other, which is fine, but we should indeed replace the other one then. Any other suggestions for the article as a whole? We're not going to be able to add listing prices for all the restaurants, or at least I'm not. Many of them don't have them on their sites, although we might find a few. Other remarks would be helpful though. JuliasTravels (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I looked through the article and don't have much to say about it, as I have never been to Suriname. So the only thing I'm noticing is a small detail: The synagogue seems to me like a "See," rather than a "Do." I'd list it in "See" and still leave the walk in "Do," but the other alternative would be to leave the order the way it is but put an additional bullet on the synagogue entry to visually subordinate it to what is being done, which is to walk. Does that make sense? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've added some material here which may look controversial to some. Here's some background: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/0a4d10d5f037b88ac1256b1700498130?Opendocument

It's obviously a judgement call, but it seems like a breach of Bf now I know about it, not to have some mention. After all, our Auschwitz article doesn't just have the restaurant opening times, does it? --W. Frank^email_talk 17:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I think it's very relevant for travellers to be aware of the December murders, actually. I've expanded a bit even, to make the relevance more clear. This is an ongoing controversy and an underlying issue in Suriname politics. We don't need to go into detail but not to have some general remarks was a silly oversight, at least for me. In the Netherlands, this is common knowledge and regularly in the news. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the fort is a placard on which is bluntly described what happened. All the names of the victims are mentioned, however, not the man who was responsible. The Surinamese I spoke shrugged and said: "Oh, things happen, we have to go on with our lives." I think we should be carefully with reporting such controversial information. I can give many examples of abuses in other countries that are not named. My opinion: This is a travel guide. I would not describe it. WiDi (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree. As Dutch people, we have the base of this information in the back of our minds. We know that there's some extend of controversy around the president and an uncomfortable history behind Fort Zeelandia. That's not the case for many other foreigners, I expect. I do believe it's helpful to be at least a bit aware of such matters when you're visiting. I've encountered a few of the same responses you mention, but I've also had very different, heated debates about it in more personal settings with people I got to know better. I agree with Frank it would be awkward to have no mention of it at all. I would be okay making it less detailed though, and I was even thinking if we should make it another infobox or something, rather than part of the See-listing. It's not really of influence on the fort as a sight, it's just... a side note. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Half of the Fort Zeelandia information is now about the December murders. I think that is too much for such a controversial topic. It is still actual as you have experienced yourself. I think we need to be restrained. Can we name it on a other way? Maybe in a respect section in the Suriname article as for instance in the Turkey#respect article (Things to avoid/Politics). Then it is named, but not as strongly as in an infobox. WiDi (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've trimmed the information while extending the history a bit. It's now only 2 sentences in a longer description. Let's also keep in mind that the fact that the murders took place there, and the fact that the president is an official suspect, is not controversial at all (he has self-confirmed his political responsibility). The controversy is about whether he actually pulled any triggers himself and whether it's acceptable that he is in office. This last part should be off limits in the article, I agree. I don't think it compares well to the Turkish situation, as it's not something you necessarily "should avoid". Suriname people do talk about this, and will engage in discussions. I'm not saying it's correct, but the Dutch Wikipedia goes as far as stating that "in the Suriname community you can't talk about Fort Zeelandia without talking about the December murders". The events made the fort far more well-known than it was. Almost any online source on the fort mentions the events. I think we should mention it at least briefly. Anyway, have a look at what I made out of it now, is it any better? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it is mentioned less prominent now and the adaptation of Frank makes it as part of a logical chronology. The reference to the Turkish article was cited as an example as how we could deal with this. I have no problem with the current description. Thanks to both of you. WiDi (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can't edit. 2017 Nov 28 —The preceding comment was added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs)

The Main Page can only be edited by site administrators. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Below is from Wikipedia on Paramaribo climate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramaribo#Climate

The weather table is especially useful. It would not display properly on my screen. Help, please, to get it to display correctly.

Paramaribo features a tropical rainforest climate, under the Köppen climate classification. The city has no true dry season, all 12 months of the year average more than 60 mm of rainfall, but the city does experience noticeably wetter and drier periods during the year. During "autumn" (September through November) is the driest period of the year in Paramaribo. Common to many cities with this climate, temperatures are relatively consistent throughout the course of the year, with average high temperatures of 31 degrees Celsius and average low temperatures of 22 degrees Celsius. Paramaribo on average receives roughly 2200 mm of rainfall each year.

—The preceding comment was added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs)

We don't use the weather box template on our site, we don't allow verbatim copying from Wikipedia in most cases, and this isn't the right type of tone for our site. The information currently in Paramaribo#Climate is sufficient for travellers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply