Talk:San Marino

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: Talk:San Marino/Archive

Formatting and language conventions

For articles about San Marino, 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 not EUR 100, 100 euro or 100€.

Please use British spelling.

Train?[edit]

If, as the article states, there is no train in San Marino, then what is that black and white track on the map? Texugo (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As per our sister project there is none. I don't know what the line signifies. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Categorize as region of Italy?[edit]

While San Marino is a widely recognized sovereign country, its categorization as part of Europe is very imprecise. The Vatican City is categorized as a district of Rome, so there is a precedent to categorize a sovereign micronation as part of a country. San Marino has no border controls or international airport, so the country can only be entered through Italy. Italy is currently divided between six regions; adding San Marino as a seventh one would not overburden the category tree. /Yvwv (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

From the traveler's preservative, is San Marino part of Italy? My knowledge of San Marino is pretty limited, but I'm inclined to say it is. And if it is, then it should be breadcrumbed under Italy. But San Marino's rather small to be a region of Italy, maybe it should be listed under one of the other regions. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion on Talk:Europe/Hierarchy about proposal to create Latin Europe article. /Yvwv (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
San Marino has different laws from Italy, which affect travellers a little bit. For instance, I believe you can buy things in San Marino that are illegal in Italy, and visa requirements seem to be different if you want to stay more than a few days. On the other hand, they're culturally similar and San Marino can only be reached via Italy. I think San Marino should be mentioned in the Europe article (or in the Latin Europe article if it ever becomes part of the hierarchy), but I would be okay with putting it under Italy in the breadcrumbs. I also think it should be mentioned in some way in the Italy article and/or one of its regions. Anywhere that it is mentioned, we should make sure it's clear that it's an independent country and not actually a part of Italy, regardless of how we decide to categorize it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that San Marino is a country, and should be listed as a country in the Europe article (same as Vatican City). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It's been a few mouths, and there are no objections: I'll go ahead and change the breadcrumb to Italy. —The preceding comment was added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talkcontribs)
I object, on the same basis that Monaco is not breadcrumbed to France. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Monaco isn't, but Vatican City is. I think Monaco is a more iffy case. Monaco isn't completely surrounded by France, it's southern border is with the Mediterranean Sea. And Monaco has it's own language, so I suppose it's not culturally French.
I think the impotent question is: From the traveler's preservative, is San Marino part of Italy. I'm inclined to say that it is, for the most part. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, so I'm objecting mainly so that nothing is done without due discussion; I haven't been to San Marino. However, I have been to Monaco, and French is the common language there, just as in Nice, which also has its own traditional language of Nissard. There are various parts of France that have traditional languages: Basque, Catalan, Langedoc, Provençal. I don't think that's a distinguishing factor for Monaco. Nor is speaking the same language evidence of a common identity, as Belgium and Switzerland also speak French. The truth is, I don't know how distinguishable San Marino is from Italy, but I do know that Vatican City is just part of Rome, so it's an exception and doesn't merit its own country-level article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
San Marino is certainly not a part of Italy, as it is a sovereign nation. Putting it in Latin Europe seems reasonable to me, although other languages even have pages for the Italian peninsula, which would be more precise. --MB-one (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Latin Europe is an extra-region article. IsPartOf cannot be breadcrumbed to an extra-region article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason for breadcrumbing San Marino to Italy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is San Marino a city-state?[edit]

The guide says that San Marino is "the sole survivor of the independent city states that used to make up the Italian peninsula before the unification of Italy". Is that correct, is San Marino a city-state? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would think so, though I saw the discussion you had elsewhere. If that word is controversial, we can explain that though it's a parliamentary democracy now, it's the sole survivor of the various principalities that used to dot the Italian peninsula, or something like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a geography expert, but I think of San Marino as a city-state. It was never a principality as far as I know. Anyway, I think the sentence quoted from the article could still be true even if San Marino isn't a city-state anymore—it would still be a survivor of the group of independent city-states even if it has since developed from a city-state into a different kind of small country. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. WikiPedia states: "A great deal of consensus exists that the term properly applies currently to Singapore, Monaco, and Vatican City. [...] Occasionally, other small states with high population densities, such as San Marino, are also cited [...]" So, examples like San Marino are disputed and therefore cannot really be resolved here.
  2. However, as far as I can recall, the proper definition of a modern city-state is that where the city and the state cover the same area, i.e. both are indistinguishable, as it is the case for Monaco or Singapore. San Marino however, more resembles the example of the country of Luxembourg, which has a large city of the same name and smaller towns and cities of different names.
  3. Also, the use of the word "city-states" in relation to the states that formed Italy seems to be a language/translation inaccuracy. Where in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_city-states the wording might be used, in https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichi_Stati_italiani the usage of the word city (Italian: città) for these states that formed Italy is largely missing. Instead, however, San Marino is called a "Repubblica" in the Italian version.
  4. Furthermore, using a term solely related to a regional governance definition in a global context just because the wording is the same, does not support its validity and applicability.
  5. I think, we should rather stick with something more appropriate like micro-state therefore.
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
A city state is a state that consists of only one city. As San Marinese will likely point out - especially those not living in the capital - there is more than one populated place in San Marino. The state is tiny, but it is not a state of one city. So while we might be aiming for a more informal tone here than over at WP, we should not aim for inaccurate. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC) – as per Hobbitschuster's statement (Ceever (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC))
I think it would also be wrong to describe the states of Renaissance Italy as "city states" - yes, many of them were based around or named after a city, but some weren't. Plus they ranged from Republic to "crowned Republic" (Venice for most of its history) to de facto or de jure monarchy. At any rate calling San Marino a city state should imho be avoided. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we could simplify it to "the sole survivor of the independent states that used to make up the Italian peninsula before the unification of Italy". To make it a little more lively, maybe "the sole survivor of the patchwork of independent states..."? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I like your second version. Does the word "petty" to describe something small also carry negative connotations? Otherwise we could use "petty state". Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "petty state" sounds strange to me. Nowadays, outside of some fixed phrases, the word "petty" usually means "narrow-minded, begrudging, or focused on unimportant issues", at least in the varieties of English that I'm familiar with. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we definitely don't want to use "petty". Microstate, or perhaps small country. And for the description, one possibility is: "the sole survivor of the patchwork of small independent states", but I'd add "along with the Vatican", because that is a rump of the former Papal States. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The Vatican isn't that, though. From the Franco-Prussian War (which had the bizarre consequence of French troops no longer protecting the pope) to the reign of Mussolini, there was no papal state Vatican or anything of the sort. The current Vatican is a result of Mussolini giving the church a bit of land for reasons not so unlike similar land grants the church had gotten in the Middle Ages. San Marino may be exaggerating when they claim going back to 301 CE, but there is no fifty plus year gap before some dictator they like gifts them a piece of land. The Vatican thus can try and claim continuity, but it rings hollow. Furthermore, San Marino is member of international organizations as a state while for the Vatican it is usually the "Holy See". Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Reorganizing[edit]

I think it would be better to create a San Marino (country) article and a separate San Marino (city) article, and include any remaining information in other articles underneath San Marino (country). Any thoughts? Selfie City (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you been to San Marino? It's tiny – the size of a small city plus surrounding suburbs and a bit of countryside. I don't think splitting it up into multiple articles makes sense, especially since the article isn't that long, and most tourists only visit the City of San Marino and perhaps Borgo Maggiore, not the other towns in the country. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No, I haven't been to San Marino, and I'll take your advice. Selfie City (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)