Talk:Rome/Vatican

Formatting and language conventions For articles about the Vatican, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00. Please show prices in this format: €100 and not 100€, 100 EUR or 100 euros. Please use British spelling (colour, travelled, centre, realise, analogue, programme, defence).

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?

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

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 (talk • contribs)

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

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?

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?

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?

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)

Listings outside the area

There are 3 eat-listings and 8 sleep-listings that are not in the area covered by this article. There are many restaurants, bars and hotels within the area. I think we should delete the listings that are not in the area (or move them to Rome/North?) and add some that are in the area. --FredTC (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You know which listings you're talking about and you haven't said which ones they are, so presumably, no-one else knows and the easiest solution would be for you to please take care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

On the map they are the markers:

• eat-listings 4, 5 and 6
• sleep-listings 3, 5, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21 and 22

Can I delete them without further discussion? --FredTC (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Please move them to the appropriate district article instead, unless they're not worth recommending. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I did the move of the listings that were in the gray area of the mapframe map. The static map I just added to this discussion confirms that the gray area in the mapframe map is indeed outside the area covered by the article and is within the Rome/North area. However, moving the listings to the Rome/North article, brings them in a gray area of the mapframe map of that article. So the problem is not solved, but only moved to the other article. What can we do to correct this? --FredTC (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a problem with the mapshape at Rome/North. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Not just the map, also the definitions of what is part of what. The main Rome article has the map that I included in this discussion. But then the section "Outskirts" describes Rome/North as being "Municipio III and XI-XV". The part of "Municipio I" that is close to the Vatican is included in the static map, is not included in this definition. We might need a mapshape of "Municipio I" outside the area of the 22 Rione, and maybe something similar for "Municipio II". --FredTC (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No skirts?

We now say (in Respect):

"When visiting the Vatican, it is advised that you dress modestly — no sleeveless shirts, no shorts, no flip-flops, no trainers, and no skirts."

What's wrong with skirts? Is it about me not understanding the word or is there some taboo I haven't heard about? Or should "skirts" be "miniskirts" or "short skirts"? –LPfi (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be. The current phrasing has to be a typo. Also, are you really forbidden to enter with sneakers, nowadays, which is what trainers are, right? I did not wear formal shoes to enter, just long pants and a short-sleeved shirt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the photo's at c:Category:Interior of Saint Peter's Basilica, and you will see what people have at their feet. I only don't see bare feet. --FredTC (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting bare feet at the Vatican! The question is whether people can wear sneakers to visit, and I believe they still can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, photo 10 of the category shows almost sneakers only (also sandals). So looking at the that photo, as well as others in the category, answers your question. I even saw high-heeled shoes with a stiletto heel on some photo's, that I consider as floor-damaging. I also saw things that looked like flip-flops. --FredTC (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

So we need to remove "no trainers" and "no skirts" from the article. Anyone disagree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The gallery I added below shows signs how people should dress and behave, as well as how they actually do. So, no flip-flops, or any shoe restrictions should not be in the advise. So the advise becomes something like:

"When visiting the Vatican, it is advised that you dress modestly — no sleeveless shirts and shorts and skirts should touch the knees (no short shorts and no short skirts)"

--FredTC (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Or "– no sleeveless shirts, and shorts and skirts should cover your knees"? –LPfi (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

LPfi's proposed version sounds more clearer to me. Support LPfi's wording. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, looking at the photo's at c:Category:Interior of Saint Peter's Basilica, I see that you will be allowed in with "touching". But maybe our advise should encourage people to more politeness and have "cover" in the advise. --FredTC (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "... should be knee-length". I think clothing either covers your knees or don't, having them end at the knee is very unusual, but just above seems to be the norm on acceptability. I haven't heard it being described as "touching" –LPfi (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, what could explain it. (I did see "touching" being used in Thailand in a dress code for temple visitors, but that could be a result of an automatic translation of a Thai word.) --FredTC (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Dress code in St Peter
• 
  How to behave in Sistine Chapel
• 
  Visitors in St Peter
• 
  Visitors in Sistine Chapel
• 
  Visitors in Sistine Chapel

Rome/Vatican - Destination of the month

Swept in from the pub

The article is about Vatican + Borgo + Prati, but when I click the Wikipedia link, I get Vatican-only. I think it connects to the wrong Wikidata item, but I cannot find a correct Wikidata item. FredTC (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@FredTC: FYI: it's no longer a dotm (has been replaced with Bangkok/Yaowarat and Phahurat for Jan 2023). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Castel Sant'Angelo at Night.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)