Talk:Rome/Vatican

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This does not belong apart of Rome. It even says, it's it's own city-state and doesn't need to be apart of it's nearbyneighbour, Rome! It is it's own country, not even ITALY! Come on guys, no offense! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 15:14, 5 November 2008 (EST).

Well, we always try to sort things from the travelers point of view, and not out of political divisions - just try to ask yourself would if you would visit Rome without visiting the Vatican, or if you would visit the Vatican without visiting Rome and Italy? besides the Vatican has no Airport, railway station or even bus station inside it's borders - and there is no way of sleeping there, unless you happen to be a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church. Tourism wise it's completely dependent on Rome's infrastructure - so I for one think that listing it as a district of Rome makes perfect sense. (WT-en) Sertmann 15:26, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Well, I agree with you to an extent, but this is it's own country. I guess it could stay :)! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 15:30, 5 November 2008 (EST).

Vatican within Rome?[edit]

Is the Vatican entirely surrounded by Rome? This article says so, but some claim that it isn't. Is it within greater Rome but outside the actual (political) city boundaries? Thanks. (WT-en) Puzzler001 09:23, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Fortunately we're a travel guide and, since the Vatican has no border formalities, we don't need to care about political boundaries. From a traveller's POV, it's a district of Rome like any other. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:08, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Language of The Vatican City State[edit]

It is a common misunderstanding that Latin should be official language of The Vatican City. The Vatican City State does not have an official language, but has used Italian de facto since creation in 1929. Latin, on the other hand, is the official language of The Holy See. Maybe the misunderstanding derives from that? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Magamma (talkcontribs)

What misunderstanding? (WT-en) LtPowers 20:26, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

To LtPowers! Read my comment, please - or do some reading elsewhere about the topic. Latin is the official language of The Holy See, Italian is the de facto official language of The Vatican City State. (Other example: English is the official language of the UK and Swedish is the official language of Sweden.) Other examples can be made if you wish so. However, since The Holy See operates from The Vatican City State, they are closely connected, but not in the matter of languages or administration.

The Holy See does not occupy/own any land, but it holds diplomatic relations with almost all UN members - compared with The Maltese Order. On the other hand, The Vatican City State does not have any diplomatic relations at all. The Vatican is seen as a territory state, from which The Holy See operates.

The Vatican uses Italian, The Holy See uses Latin.

And then please stop violating with useless comments or deleting. Discuss on this page if anyone wants to contribute to the article.

Magamma

The distinction is uninteresting to a traveler, since the point is conveying what languages they might be able to use there. As the two entities overlap completely, both are meaningful. The technical details of the split are best left to an encyclopedia but have no relevance to the casual visitor. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 11:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
What a bad humor, Magamma dude! I myself reverted the bit in question, maybe 2 or 3 times, the blame is not entirely LtPowers'. Please read Tone, Be fair, Consensus and consider adopting a less ill-tempered stance, the community will give thanks. 200.252.135.73 11:57, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Stop violating! It is not true that the two entities overlap. The Holy See is seen as a universal state operating from The Vatican as a "main office" with lots of branches all over the world. One cannot visit The Holy See since it is an administrating "fictional" and universal state, but one can visit The Vatican. That is what this site is made for - describing countries to visit! Why won't anybody here listen to better knowing. The chances of getting by with Latin in The Vatican are smaller than getting by with Hawaiian in Tibet! Maybe this former language part is written by a Latin geek that thought it was a humorous way to describe the talk. But let's be accurate. If you violators wish to continue this stupid and childish deleting, open a site called www.funwithcountries.com. There you can have much fun.

And what a welcoming to a new user of this forum. Since I have been traveling in more than 50 countries, I thought I might have something to contribute with. When I saw what I consider a real misunderstanding, I did not even change anything. I just posted a discussion and waited for someone to participate. Nobody did. Then I changed to the accurate. And WOW - what a cyber war! Rude people in here just continue violating without even discussing before now. What kind of forum is this? I know it is younger than wikipedia.org - but let's try to be as professional as they are trying to be.

Well, I will speak for myself, having been an active Wikivoyage user and contributor for more than 4 years now. Wikivoyage is never and should never be as NEUTRAL and BORING as Wikipedia, our Tone has always been irreverent and amusing. Frankly, you sound like an old bitter school principal. "Let's be antisepticaly serious about this language issue, because!!" Have you heard about Captain Obvious? Do you really think anybody would try to get by in Latin inside St. Peter's just because of that tongue-in-cheek remark? That reference was there to amuse and raise smiles, and for years that it did. Lots of Wikivoyagers like that phrase the way it is, the article's editing history and number of reverts are proof of that. What you call "childish and stupid violations" happens to reflex a Consensus among users about what should be written about the Latin language in the Vatican article. That's my opinion. 200.252.135.73 11:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
I still don't understand what Magamma thinks is being "violated". (WT-en) LtPowers 17:14, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Magamma correctly changed the article to improve its accuracy, and the change was not reverted. I edited it for grammar, style, spelling, and with a view to how to present it most usefully for travelers. One of the most basic principles of editing wikis is Project:Consensus, which arises naturally from the fact that anyone can edit. Thank you for the correction, but if you do want to contribute in a meaningful way to Wikivoyage, which of course would be welcomed, please move on from this silliness. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:52, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
My problem was with this edit, which removed a bit of lively writing in favor of a redundant reminder about legal jurisdictions. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:06, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

New Pope[edit]

It currently says that there is no pope since the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI but there is a new pop now, since the Conclave of the cardinals votes a Cardinal to become Pope who chose the Pope Name of Pope Francis see the English Wikipedia article Pope Francis. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Use this map?[edit]

Vatican City map EN.png

I noticed this map because it is one of the finalists in the Commons picture-of-the-year competition, Should we use it here? Pashley (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a great map, but how big of a thumbnail would we need for it to be readable in our article? Powers (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It is a nice map, though I'm sure it quite fits the boundaries of this guide which overlaps Italian Rome a little and covers an area of the city as a whole rather than just the Holy See. --Nick talk 22:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Tours?[edit]

User:Info Around Rome Tours just added their tour services to the article. Normally we flush tours down the toilet right away and ask them not to add their tour services again, but a look at the content already in the Do section prompted me to ask other users what we should do. If such tours can provide access to places you aren't allowed to go on your own we should keep the tour link, right? ϒpsilon (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

IK? ϒpsilon (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but The Vatican conducts official tours. I think their own tours are exempt from being de-listed, but I haven't seen a reason not to delete outside operators' listings, which I just did. Was a claim made that outside operators' tours enable visitors to access areas The Vatican's own official tours don't allow access to? I'd find that kind of hard to believe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have posted to User talk:Info Around Rome Tours and invited their participation in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It was probably right to remove their entry. I've read that there are several such places in the Vatican (while planning to travel there myself three years ago), but after a look at the company's home page I cannot find any such tours. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?[edit]

Banner currently used in this article
Suggested new alternative banner

I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Come on now, is there a need to try to improve on Michelangelo? The replacement banner is beautiful, but why on Earth would we discard the current banner? If there is another suitable place for this banner, we can perhaps use it there, but no need here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there really a desire to replace interesting photos with generic landscapes? Keep Michelangelo --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
There's more to the Vatican than that one painting where the dudes touch fingers, and the bonus is in the second, you can pretty much see the whole country! I'm with number 2. – Hshook (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Ikan Kekek and Andrewssi2 - we already have a lot of banners that feature gray buildings, and in this case the Michelangelo image is one of the most iconic images in the world, it's colorful, and serves as a great opener for the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but this article does need a picture of the Piazza in it somewhere. Powers (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Danapit (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Powers. I'd love to use the source image of this file as a picture in the article, but its dimensions are a problem because it's a panorama and would have to be very wide to be really visible. But I think we should look for a Featured, Quality or Valued image of the piazza to insert into the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep, for the reasons stated by Ryan and Ikan. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Second, or at least remove the left and right borders from the painting. Syced (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)