text:
Talk:Rome/Vatican

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?
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. 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)

Rome/Vatican - Destination of the month
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)

 * 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Castel Sant'Angelo at Night.jpg

title: Talk:Rome/Vatican


text:
Talk:Rome/Vaticano

Necessary?
Is this district really necessary? Can't we just use Vatican City to cover the area? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Technically and functionally, they're different things. For example, there's no public accommodations in Vatican City, but there are plenty in the Vaticano district... same for bars, restaurants, etc... (WT-en) Maj 18:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Edits like this are why I think it would make a lot of sense to merge these... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:25, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Angel Hotel
The discussion of the Angel Hotel was not only copied from the hotel's own web site, but it's not very clear. It says "Sited in an ancient building of the ‘900 ..." That's what the hotel's web site says, but I don't know what the "'900" is. I thought it might be a translation of "Novecento", which is Italian for either "900" or "20th century". But if the building was built in the 20th century, that wouldn't be ancient.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Rome/Vaticano


text:
Talk:Ronda

I moved this page, since there doesn't seem to be any need for disambiguation. --(WT-en) Evan 11:37, 15 Apr 2004 (EDT)

I trimmed down the very interesting travel essay that was here to a more manageable travel guide. I tried to capture all the practical information available. Unfortunately Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not a travelogue or travel essay collection; please see Project:goals and non-goals for details. --(WT-en) Evan 11:43, 15 Apr 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ronda


text:
Talk:Rongjiang

I just created this page. I stayed in Rongjiang one night because I was transferring buses the next day. I don't remember the name of the hotel, but there is only one hotel that foreigners are allowed to stay in. I asked a few hotel front desks, and they said, No, we're not allowed to let you stay here, there is only one that foreigners can stay in.

title: Talk:Rongjiang


text:
Talk:Roraima

I've moved this page to Roraima (Brazil) because if people are looking for Roraima they are probably looking for the table mountain and not the state. (WT-en) Ronald 08:44, 29 October 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Roraima


text:
Talk:Roraima (disambiguation)

VFD Discussion

 * Delete and redirect. There are two disambiguation pages: Roraima (disambiguation) and Roraima. Both list the same two links. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 23:11, 24 September 2010 (EDT)
 * Keep and move Roraima (Brazil) to Roraima. A mesa of the same name shouldn't cause the whole state to lose precedence.(WT-en) Texugo 11:53, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. Roraima (Brazil) moved to Roraima. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:37, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Roraima (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Rosemont

Redirect to O'Hare International Airport
The hotel listings here duplicate those in the aforementioned article, and I don't think there's anything else of note in Rosemont aside from airport hotels. I've redirected it—bring up objections here, if you have them. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:04, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Let's keep Rosemont as its own page, given the significance of the concert venues and convention center, but avoid duplicate Sleep listings with O'Hare — in theory, if there's a small, cozy B&B somewhere in Rosemont that's not trying to serve O'Hare travelers, we could list it here, but I doubt such a thing exists. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 10:01, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rosemont


text:
Talk:Roseville (California)

disambiguation
Roseville needs a disamb page - I don't know much about the other Roseville's, but I can't imagine California's is that much more famous, it's pretty small... so should we move this page to Roseville (California) and make this the disamb page, or create Roseville (disambiguation)? (WT-en) Cacahuate 08:41, 3 January 2007 (EST)
 * The first option sounds good. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 09:14, 3 January 2007 (EST)

 * done .:. (WT-en) Cacahuate 00:11, 18 January 2007 (EST)

title: Talk:Roseville (California)


text:
Talk:Ross

vfd discussion

 * Delete. Two articles for the same village because Ross in Tasmania is more precise keep this one. There are several Ross at Wikivoyage. I guess, we need a disambiguation side. Could somebody do it, who knows how? (WT-en) Jan 09:06, 03 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Where is the other "Ross"? If there is more than one town named Ross, the Tasmania one should be Ross (Tasmania). It doesn't need a delete, just a move. Ross in Tasmania can then redirect to Ross (Tasmania) . (WT-en) Majnoona 11:20, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
 * Ops, I should have looked at the link more closely! I'll make the Project:Disambiguation page as I just remembered there's a least one other Ross (in Marin County California). (WT-en) Majnoona 11:25, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
 * I took the vfd out of the Ross page because Michele turned it into a disambiguation side. There are 8 cities called Ross. I will add the other Ross on the disambiguation page. (WT-en) Jan 02:38, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

 * Keep as new disambiguation page. (WT-en) Hypatia 02:56, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ross


text:
Talk:Rosslare

Thanks to TVerBeek for showing me how to add the county link at the bottom of the page.

title: Talk:Rosslare


text:
Talk:Ross Sea

Naming
To quote Project:Bodies of water "In general, we don't write a single destination guide article about a body of water. Information about bodies of water is more informative for travellers on other pages." Rather than Ross Sea shouldn't this be called the Ross Ice Shelf? Currently this name breaks the bodies of water convention. Note - this is why Ross Dependency is, perhaps, a better name. -- (WT-en) Huttite 18:51, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * I think that this one is kind of like Lake Tahoe - the article itself is about the area around the Ross Sea, and not about the sea itself. Tourism to Antarctica is mostly by boat, and trips to this area focus on shore areas or areas immediately inland (and thus accessible by helicopter).  I'm not sure that Ross Ice Shelf would be a better name, since that is a specific area within the Ross Sea and one that can't easily be visited.  Any other ideas, or can we leave this as is? -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:36, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * I disagree. There is a small industry in extreme tourism in Antarctica that involves people travelling inland (inice?). Many of these people are scientists as part of organised parties. However, a few privateers also manage to get off the boat or plane and travel independently. Shouldn't we also cater for these people? The only reason that many tour operators focus on the coastline is that they are operating boats. But what about the hundereds of visitors who go there each year as part of the scientific programmes? Are we forgetting these travelers by confining ourselves to the Ross Sea rather than the Ross Ice Shelf or Ross Dependency? -- (WT-en) Huttite 23:45, 2 Dec 2005 (EST)

 * Sorry if the tone of my earlier responses was at all confrontational, that wasn't intentional. I don't disagree that we should also include information about other areas of Antarctica, but from a tourism standpoint the Ross Sea and the Antarctic Peninsula are the two major tourist regions of the country.  The inland areas are also valid regions and should also get their own (separate) articles, but it's not clear to me what the names of those regions should be and I think we can avoid future disputes by not naming them after territorial claims.  My Antarctic experiences have been limited to what I've seen by boat, researched on the web, and heard about from researchers, and sadly those experiences only include the more accessible areas. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:33, 3 Dec 2005 (EST)

Merger 2023
I now moved the content of McMurdo Station to here, according to Talk:McMurdo Station (current version).

The history is messy: Much of the content was originally from here. There has been content moved also to at least Antarctic Islands, Antarctic Mainland and Antarctica. Ross Ice Shelf was created in May 2022 with content from McMurdo Station with the content (expanded while at Ross Ice Shelf) moved back now in January 2023. This page has the longest history, but the content was moved away in 2018 (version before content move, January 2018: Ross Sea).

I hope this content copy is enough and we can avoid page moves. As all pages have history, that is the least opaque option (normally pages should be renamed, not copied, this is an exception). If necessary, "Ross Sea" and "Ross Ice Shelf" can be merged, the only overlaps are a redirect target change 14 August 2022 (Special:Diff/3534677/4500777) and the try at moving the history of Ross Sea to Ross Islands to free the name.

–LPfi (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ross Sea


text:
Talk:Rostock

Warnemünde
Someone created an article for Warnemünde a while back, which is a district of Rostock. I've proposed the content there be merged back to here. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:41, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Tram lines
Shouldn't the map rather show tram lines not the S-Bahn? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rostock


text:
Talk:Rostov-on-Don

Moscow Times article on Rostov-on-Don, in English: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/beyond_moscow/rostov-on-don.html

title: Talk:Rostov-on-Don


text:
Talk:Roswell (New Mexico)

Placement of a Park - See Project:Where you can stick it. However: The way I decide is: Is it active or passive "entertainment"? A park you visit for its scenery I would list under "see", if you go there mainly for activities (hiking, rowing, whatever) "Do" might be a better choice. IMO of course. --(WT-en) Nils 09:33, 22 Mar 2004 (EST)

Alternative banner for this article?
In my opinion, it would be better to have a banner that shows the aliens. Which banner do you prefer for this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roswell (New Mexico)


text:
Talk:Rota d'Imagna

VFD Discussion
Yes, this place merits an article. But the info is a direct lift from Wikipedia, probably by the hotel, which also plugs itself in Wikipedia. (WT-en) Shep 14:04, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
 * I've removed the plug from the Wikipedia article, although I left most of what the contributor wrote. Given the timestamps, it's reasonable to assume the author made the edits on both wikis, so only the lead section of our article is a copyright violation (because of lack of attribution).  We could replace that lead with a Wikivoyage-style lead and template and be okay copyright-wise.  (WT-en) LtPowers 17:01, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

 * It is a real place that "merits an article", so keep. It needs to be either cleaned up or blanked, though. (WT-en) Pashley 20:03, 11 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:56, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rota d'Imagna


text:
Talk:Rotherham

Rotherham is a town in south yorkshire, not a city. I think someone needs to change it.

Travel relevance?
Why do travelers need to know this? I mean, that's awful, but what's the travel relevance? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is, unfortunately, what Rotherham is known for. I think it's appropriate for an infobox, which is intended to be "used to add sidebar information to an article." Ground Zero (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rotherham


text:
Talk:Rotterdam

Smoking
the section on smoking seems largely juvenile and at times misleading. It is not legal to smoke (or posess) cannabis in the Netherlands, merely tolerated. his should be cleared up.
 * Please plunge forward and make the changes as you see fit in future. -- (WT-en) Tim (writeme!) 12:55, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree with the anon comment above. I've removed the line section;

 * Let's be honest, most people (especially youngsters from the UK, USA and Canada) don't go to the Netherlands for its fine architecture or the historical value, no matter what they tell their parents.

 * I haven't attempted to fix the rest of the section because I have been to Rotterdam (yet) and I have no interest/idea about this stuff anyway.(WT-en) Teiresias84 05:00, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Hello. Sorry for contributing as anon. However, it's a common misconception that it's "just tolerated" to smoke cannabis. Although officially named "active tolerance", in practice this means full and unquestionable decriminalization. The reason why it is not legal is mostly because the Netherlands is required to adhere to international (and European) treaties that prevent this. Wikipedia also says that "international pressure" has something to do with it, although I am personally skeptical about that.

No matter what way you look at it, you might mention that cannabis is "illegal by the book", but it would be skewed to say that it's "merely tolerated". Saying that makes me think of a disgruntled police officer who yearns for the day he is finally allowed to nab those annoying drug tourists; cannabis is fully integrated into society by now and accepted as fact of life. It's comparable to gay marriage; no church is required to bless these marriages, but in practice most of them do; in this case, it would also be skewed to say "exclusively the government is obliged to marry gay couples", which, although true, does not convey the true stance of the public on the issue. Hope this helps clear up some things. 195.241.69.171 16:42, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Hotels
I removed the following entry, since the address is in Spijkenisse and not in Rotterdam.

--(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 09:44, 20 September 2009 (EDT)
 *  Carlton Oasis is a luxury hotel located between Rotterdam and Zeeland.

 * Thanks, I added it to Spijkenisse as its first listing. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:02, 18 January 2010 (EST)

Districts of Rotterdam
I think Rotterdam's article now is big enough for it to be districtified. The problem is that I am not really well-known in this city.. Could anyone who is more familiar with Rotterdam draw up a districts scheme? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:10, 18 January 2010 (EST)

 * I agree. The City Map at http://www.scribd.com/full/17031198?access_key=key-wrkogz2j7ssbaxfrsde (found the link on ) has districts, however these seem to be small to me to provide district pages with enough info. I'll think about this and will post a suggestion soon. --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 06:20, 6 February 2010 (EST)

Suggestion:
 * Rotterdam-Centrum = between 's Gravendijkwal, Goudsesingel, Oostplein, railwayline and Nieuwe Maas river plus Kop van Zuid on the South Bank.
 * Rotterdam-West = between Schiedam, 's Gravendijkwal, railwayline and Nieuwe Maas river. This includes deelgemeenten Delfshaven and a part of Centrum (between Heemraadssingel and 's Gravendijkwal) (note that the Dutch Wikipedia takes the Westersingel as the eastern boundary of Rotterdam-West)
 * Rotterdam-Noord (North): deelgemeenten Noord, Hillegersberg-Schiebroek, Overschie
 * Rotterdam-Oost (East): deelgemeenten Kralingen-Crooswijk, Prins Alexander
 * Rotterdam-Zuid (South): all of the Rotterdam municipality south of the Nieuwe Maas river (deelgemeenten Charlois, IJsselmonde, Feijenoord (and Hoogvliet). Excluding Kop van Zuid (is part of Centrum)
 * Discussion: Pernis, Rozenburg (from march 2010) and Hoek van Holland: these are all municipality Rotterdam. Pernis and Rozenburg could be added to Rotterdam-Zuid. Hoek van Holland as a separate district?

--(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 09:23, 6 February 2010 (EST)

 * Interesting suggestions. I think most tourist activity will be in the city center though. So we might want to split up the center, otherwise we'll get 1 full district and 4 pretty much empty ones. I like the map of the VVV Tourist Authority as a regional subdivision, but these seem not to correspond with the official neighborhoods of Rotterdam Centrum? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:45, 6 February 2010 (EST)

 * the tourist map is indeed not 100% accurate in terms of official neighborhoods. I would stick with the Rotterdam-Centrum district for the time being. Splitting up further in subdistricts gives small listings due to the small size of these subdistricts. In terms of my other suggestions: the guideline is pretty clear on the matter : make districts when there is enough information to fill. --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 11:24, 7 February 2010 (EST)

I made a (simple) map to illustrate the districts you have proposed. Are they correctly displayed this way? About Hook of Holland, I think maybe it should also be a separate district of Rotterdam, as Rotterdam/Hook of Holland. But could it contain enough content for a district? Or maybe it should be included in South? (though that feels a bit weird I think). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:12, 10 February 2010 (EST)

 * Good work. Hoek van Holland could be covered in the main article as it is covered at this moment (under beach). It probably won't contain enough information for a district page. Regarding your map: it is a very large area including Pernis, Rozenburg and the harbor area around these places which are all most likely not interesting for tourists. I would not show that part on the map. The boundaries of the proposed districts seem to be correct. --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 17:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Do/Nightlife
I think the Nightlife section (under Do) need some work. Bars and clubs should be listed under drink. The general information about the different area's could be added to the drink section, by creating subheadings under Drink for each category. --(WT-en) WallyTheWalrus 18:13, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Fly to Rotterdam if possible
You might have a better deal if you fly to Amsterdam Schiphol Airport the article says. Why? If Rotterdam is your final destination, its always quicker to fly to Rotterdam if possible from where you start. The handling is so much quicker. In 10 - 20 minutes after landing you are outside to take the bus or a taxi. And this way it's much cheaper to reach the centre of Rotterdam. (WT-en) Salix2 12:40, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Districts the second
It's been eight years since the past discussion died down. Rotterdam is large enough to where districtification would be useful to the traveller. I have therefore made a proposal of how to divide the city as well as the cities around Rotterdam, as can be seen in the image to the right. In shades of green are cities that would be in the Rijnmond or Greater Rotterdam region, bluish regions would be districts of Rotterdam. These consist of:
 * Rijnmond: Hoek van Holland, Maassluis, Vlaardingen, Schiedam, Spijkenisse, Hoogvliet (or Portugaal), Barendrecht, Capelle aan den IJssel, Krimpen aan de Lek.
 * Hoogvliet is technically a suburb of Rotterdam and may instead be listed as a subdivision of that, adding all of Europort east of the Oude Maas (easternmost river crossing through Europort).
 * Barendrecht can be chosen to be left out, and made part of Alblasserwaard-Drechtsteden instead.
 * Hoek van Holland is, as a matter of fact, part of the municipality of Rotterdam, but may as well be not included as a district as it is connected to the city centre only via the Metro network. Before being incorporated into the municipality, Hoek only bordered Europort, which for practical usage could just as well be ignored, as no bridges span the river aside from a ferry at Maassluis.

Now, I am not that familiar with Rotterdam, so I am more than welcome to your thoughts on the matter. -- Wauteurz (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rotterdam: Europort (or Havens), Zuid, Feyenoord, Centrum, West, Noord, Oost. Of these, Europort would be the largest by a long shot. Take in mind though, that most of Europort may just as well be considered wasteland, as the harbour and its industry are rarely interesting for the traveller. Instead, this district would list Rozenburg, Pernis, and the other towns gobbled up by Rotterdam.

 * This article is still on a list of articles with active district discussions. Given the length of the article, it might be a good idea to renew this discussion, if anyone is interested (and I won't be able to help because I haven't visited Rotterdam), but otherwise, is there a point to keeping it in Category:Articles with districts discussion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wauteurz has some districts of Rotterdam in their userspace and the talk of the districts recently came up in the star nom for this, so I'd say keep it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wauteurz, would you like to put your proposal into effect? About how many listings would you anticipate there being in each district? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * My districts in this discussion aren't the districts I ended up using for the articles in my user namespace (shown on dynamic map), though they are largely similar. The main differences being:
 * Exclusion of already established articles: Hoek van Holland, Maassluis, Vlaardingen, Schiedam, Spijkenisse, Albrandswaard (Hoogvliet/Portugaal). These may later be grouped under a "Rijnmond" region, which has been merged into the giant and unwieldy Rotterdam-The Hague Metropolitan Region, which shouldn't exist by 7+2 standards and also contains two cities that could be districtified at some point (Rotterdam and The Hague).
 * Exclusion of other established places without an integration into Rotterdam proper (Barendrecht, Krimpen a/d Lek).
 * "Noord" now also contains Kralingen (was "Oost"), "Oost" and "Kapelle" have been merged
 * The reason I bring this up, is because I wonder whether this would require a new discussion to be started, or whether mentioning it here suffices. I've not started a discussion for this version, since I wanted it largely done before pushing anything forward, as my previous attempts yielded little response.

 * To answer your questions: I would like to see my latest version of this proposal to be put into effect (the one that this discussion is for is impractical because links between parts of a district were lacking or blocked by highways or other infrastructure, this making the pairing unlogical). As for listings, this is the current overview:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!District!!Status!!See!!Do!!Buy!!Eat!!Drink!!Sleep
 * Centre (or Stadsdriehoek)||Work in progress||29||? ||?||8 areas||?||?
 * Delfshaven||Essentials complete (no Drink, Go next)||7||1||2 areas||4 areas||?||3
 * Kralingen/Blijdorp||Largely done||9||2||?||?||?||7
 * Feijenoord||Largely done||2||2||1||?||?||7
 * North or Overschie||Work in progress||6||2 sites, 3 listings||?||?||?||?
 * Port of Rotterdam or Harbours||Complete (minus Drink)||8 (4 of which are boat-spotting points)||3||2 areas||6||?||6 + 2 suggestions
 * }
 * In general, I think about 5 see listings and 2 do listings can be expected; ~5 eat and sleep listings, and at least one buy. For Centrum, you can pretty much look at Rotterdam as it sits today. Most listings are within the city centre, if not also Kralingen/Blijdorp or Feijenoord. I can't wrap up the districts before the end of the month, but I can make a push next month to get them completed. The three remaining districts can always be filled in at a later date, but that way the districts can be rolled out sooner rather than later. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * North or Overschie||Work in progress||6||2 sites, 3 listings||?||?||?||?
 * Port of Rotterdam or Harbours||Complete (minus Drink)||8 (4 of which are boat-spotting points)||3||2 areas||6||?||6 + 2 suggestions
 * }
 * In general, I think about 5 see listings and 2 do listings can be expected; ~5 eat and sleep listings, and at least one buy. For Centrum, you can pretty much look at Rotterdam as it sits today. Most listings are within the city centre, if not also Kralingen/Blijdorp or Feijenoord. I can't wrap up the districts before the end of the month, but I can make a push next month to get them completed. The three remaining districts can always be filled in at a later date, but that way the districts can be rolled out sooner rather than later. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * }
 * In general, I think about 5 see listings and 2 do listings can be expected; ~5 eat and sleep listings, and at least one buy. For Centrum, you can pretty much look at Rotterdam as it sits today. Most listings are within the city centre, if not also Kralingen/Blijdorp or Feijenoord. I can't wrap up the districts before the end of the month, but I can make a push next month to get them completed. The three remaining districts can always be filled in at a later date, but that way the districts can be rolled out sooner rather than later. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Wauteurz, thanks very much for your response and your ongoing work. My feeling is that you don't need to start a new thread to discuss this districting scheme. If you think any part of your proposal might be controversial, I'd suggest waiting several days or at most a week to see if it gets any pushback; otherwise, feel free to go live with it as soon as two days from now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ikan Kekek: I'm currently wrapping up a semester, and I doubt I'll make any progress on districts before the end of this month, so give it a week at least before I'll make any changes to Rotterdam as it stands. For the Rijnmond-idea I mentioned, I doubt I'll do much before this summer, and when I do, I will first start a discussion about that when the time comes. If anyone is up for something to do though, feel free to help fill out the districts I linked above, or start any of the missing ones. They might be in my userspace now, but that doesn't mean they can or should only be edited by me. -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No rush. If I'm reading correctly, you're proposing to create a Rijnmond subregion under Rotterdam-The Hague Metropolitan Region and breadcrumbing Hoek van Holland, Maassluis, Vlaardingen, Schiedam, Spijkenisse and Albrandswaard to it. Is it that simple? If it is, anyone could get that process started by simply creating a Rijnmond article as a region article and leaving most of the contents for you or someone else to fill in later. Maps would have to be updated, but is there any other complication? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I didn't phrase my vision for the Metropolitan Region correctly then: I want to undo the merger between Rijnmond (Rhine Estuary) and Haaglanden (Greater The Hague). You can still see how this looked before the merger, as the regionmap for South-Holland never got updated. There is an argument to be made for splitting it in three, with Delfland (Greater Delft) between Rijnmond and Haaglanden, but I don't deem that necessary as Delfland wouldn't be a big region at all. My reasons for wanting to undo the merger between Rijnmond and Haaglanden:
 * The area is massive, and contains three large cities, all with their separate identities.
 * The region is based on a diplomatic cooperation that municipalities in this region have. Aside from bureaucracy, there is little to tie them together.
 * The region currently has 13 destinations in its category, and excludes about as many that have not yet been created.
 * Consensus was never given nor requested for the merger. That doesn't make it unjustified, but no real reason was given either. I suspect it's because of the Metropolitan Region being formed in 2015 that the change was made, but I can only guess.
 * In time, The Hague might be worth districtifying also, which would make Scheveningen a district of The Hague, as it is in real life. I don't plan on doing that at this stage though. Perhaps in another few years.
 * In any case, Rijnmond would consist of the following municipalities:
 * Rotterdam (with its six, eventually nine districts)
 * In the west: Hoek van Holland (in reality part of Rotterdam, but an exclave for all practical purposes), Maassluis, Vlaardingen, Schiedam
 * In the north: Lansingerland (may also go to Haaglanden)
 * In the south: Barendrecht, Ridderkerk.
 * (Here's a map of municipalities in South Holland if anyone needs it.)
 * Krimpen aan de Lek can be included, as could Spijkenisse, but they are currently parts of Groene Hart and Zuid-Hollandse Eilanden respectively, and I have no real motive to change that. It is already a sizeable change, so I feel like consensus is kind of mandatory here.
 * Haaglanden would consist of The Hague, Wassenaar, Leidschendam-Voorburg, Pijnacker-Nootdorp, Rijswijk, Delft, Westland and Midden-Delfland, possibly with or without Lansingerland. Scheveningen is also in this region, but is technically a suburb of the Hague, though our hierarchy treats it as its own entity. I hope this actually clarifies my vision and isn't just another one of my walls of text. -- Wauteurz (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposal looks good to me SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposal looks good to me SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Wauteurz, great work on the districts. I think they are quite good balanced in size and (potential) number of listings and als make logical area's for tourists to match the mental map. I would use the name 'Northern Rotterdam' instead of Overschie since also Hillegersberg and Schiebroek are covered in that district article. Also, North might give confusion with the actual Borough of Rotterdam Noord which is covered under Kralingen. The official Rotterdam tourist map uses Rotterdam North for Noord See PDF of tourist map. Instead of Kralingen, the district name could be Kralingen-Crooswijk which is also the area of the local council, or even Noord and Kralingen-Crooswijk. The name Blijdorp is a subdistrict within the borough of Noord, I would not use that as a district name.  --WallyTheWalrus (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the six districts in development into mainspace today, going mostly with the suggested name changes made above by Wally. I'm not entirely sure how to convert the current listings in the city article into effective and interesting blurbs, so a bit of help with that would be very much appreciated. -- Wauteurz (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks for putting this into effect @Wauteurz. I would like to help with moving listings, however at first it seems that listings are already moved/copied to the district pages, but I also noted differences between some of the 'old' listings which are still on the main page and the listings on the district page. Is this on purpose, am I missing something? I want to prevent double work or other misunderstandings. WallyTheWalrus (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @WallyTheWalrus: No worries! I copied most of the listings that fit into a district already, but I've done so over the span of half a year or more. The differences come from me expanding upon some listings for the district articles, and some other changes might be at the hands of other editors that have edited Rotterdam over the past half year or so.
 * In summary, what needs to be done right now, is to rewrite the city article to include a lot less listings. Some listings might not yet fit into a district yet, as not all district articles are created already, so just leave those on the city article for now. There might be some listings in sections like Drink that I haven't yet moved over, but for the most part it's just a just matter of rewriting and linking to the listings in the district articles where necessary. -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Nominate article to Star or need cleanup?
It has been three years since it is not written on this site! And that is the reason to start this topic.Wikivoyagers, this needs new cleanup. Go now to this page and make the last changes to this article! We can help each other and nominate this article for star! DhrGabriel (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC) P.S click on my talk page and leave a message! I am very happy when i recieve positive messages! DhrGabriel (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 * What? I'm confused on what you mean. Particularly "P.S click on my talk page and leave a message! I am very happy when i recieve positive messages! " SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Rotterdam
In my opinion, this article is ready for star nomination, and if yes, it would be our second Benelux star. If we work hard on this article, i can nominate it and make this article a star! But one thing is remaining:Cleanup. Can a adminstrator do that cleanup? Also, i want to share a link: talk:Rotterdam and be sure to see the article:Rotterdam. DhrGabriel (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Drink lacks coords Tai123.123 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Drink section needs coordinates, which is needed for a guide article. Large cleanups for dead links needed hence this is not even a guide article. Listings not in alphabetical order. Some spelling fixes also needed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet It needs some updates, and some of the text is not in the normal style. AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless someone quickly makes this a guide article, this article isn't eligible for star since coords are needed to make this guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While lat/longs are quite quickly added, I'd still not support starring Rotterdam yet. A lot of listings are just within the city centre, and to a lesser extend in Delfshaven and Kralingen. The south banks of the Meuse on the other hand are completely under-represented. If Rotterdam were to get a star, I'd argue that the city centre should be starred, not the entire city. There have been two attempts to districtify this city before which ran dry, but I remain strongly in favour of that. So much so that I've gone ahead and started work on four districts already in my userspace. Rotterdam is a good 30% larger than Amsterdam, is perhaps less densely populated but definitely isn't lacking in what it has to offer both to on and off the beaten path, yet the city isn't districtified and a lot of the city's potential is not yet visible in the article that stands now. The Europoort and Maasvlaktes for example are notable parts of Rotterdam, yet only get a mention in the lede at present.
 * Right now, I'd give this a strong not yet, with a strong suggestion to look into districtifying Rotterdam before considering this again. I don't know how others feel about districtifying, so hence why I am pitching the argument here rather than on Rotterdam's talk page. Wauteurz (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet. As stated before lat/longs needs to be added (not only Drink section but also others) and overall cleanup for dead links, out of date info and style of text. But even were these to be fixed, the district discussion needs to be sorted first. I don't see that many listings added in the near future to even justify separate district pages other then the center. Well, maybe Delfshaven. WallyTheWalrus (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 * After two months, the article is still at usable, and with nothing being done on top of the districtification issues still there, slush? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to slushing this for now. The districtification discussion never really got off the ground to begin with, but I have done work behind the scenes to where I currently have articles either largely done or completely done for the city centre, Delfshaven, Feijenoord, Europoort/Harbour, Kralingen and North (linked here). Progression, however came to a stop as I had to focus more on uni, and I haven't pushed anything to mainspace yet since the discussion never went anywhere. Perhaps it might just be easier to go ahead with districtification sometime early next year after everything from the current article has been transferred, and leave the missing districts to be filled over time? -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Slush Tai123.123 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: slushed, and article has been downgraded to usable SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we please remove the "starpotential" template? A usable-level article does not have obvious star potential. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just added it as per the instructions in WV:Star nominations but feel free to remove it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * removed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rotterdam


text:
Talk:Rouen

anyone got anything to say about Rouen? anything at all? —The preceding comment was added by 86.43.214.0 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 February 2009

 * Well, please plunge forward mister anonymous :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 16:47, 15 February 2009 (EST)

title: Talk:Rouen


text:
Talk:Round the world flights

This page is now way out of date as Continental, Northwest, KLM, and Aeroflot have joined Skyteam. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 69.86.225.102 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

This page should be recapitalised as Around the world flights, but it doesn't seem to have a 'move' link :( (WT-en) Hypatia 21:49, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * And the correct name is the slightly ungrammatical "Round the world", often abbreviated RTW. A useful if somewhat outdated link to mine: (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:23, 5 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Tips
I seem to recall that there are some good rules-of-thumb for getting the best price RTW tickets. Isn't is cheaper to go West than East? And to stay in one hemisphere? Or are these 'old traveler's tales'? (WT-en) Majnoona 12:08, 15 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I've researched this quite a bit (one RTW last year and one more coming up...) and I don't think either is true. Modern RTW tickets price on mileage alone, so these days tips involve finding the cheapest places to buy them and maximizing the value of the miles used. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:55, 15 April 2006 (EDT)

Open Jaw / Ground Legs
The article makes claims about ground legs that may not be correct. My last RTW trip was on star alliance (I think it was a star-lite ticket), and I used rail from Moscow to Beijing to knock off a lot of miles from my trip. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 203.143.160.172 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

RTW starting point
"Start your trip from a low-cost country. RTW pricing depends on where you issue the ticket, so you can achieve significant savings by starting from places like Bulgaria, Sri Lanka or Thailand." Sound advice indeed, but advice which would be greatly complemented by a link to a price list. I've searched high and low for country-by-country Star Alliance RTW prices and haven't been able to find them. If anyone knows of a site with this info please link to it. I can say though that First from Thailand seems to be priced about the same as Business from the UK. --(WT-en) Kingboyk 03:06, 10 December 2006 (EST)

OneWorld have their price list available online on a purchasing country basis. I've only experimented with the costs of different European locations but there can be about a 30% difference between fares (in any class). It's feasible that the places that are cheapest for OneWorld might also be cheapest for Star Alliance. It would be useful for someone to confirm or deny this, though. --(WT-en) Salvadors 14:27, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Example
I pulled out the following "example itinerary" because it is a)hard to read, b)not useful to travellers and finally because there's just too any possibilities to bother giving this sort of example (oh, and who goes to Houston on a rtw trip??). (WT-en) Maj 15:19, 14 February 2007 (EST)

 * Aalborg Airport - SAS - Copenhagen Airport - SAS - Stockholm (Arlanda Airport) - SAS - Riga Airport - Air Baltic - Moscow (Sheremetyevo Airport) / (Domodedovo Airport) - Samara Airlines - Samara Airport - Pulkovo Aviation - Saint Petersburg (Pulkovo Airport) - Pulkovo Aviation - Astana Airport - Air Astana - Pavlodar Airport - Air Astana - Almaty Airport - Air Astana - Beijing (Capital Airport) - Air China Limited - Dalian Airport - Asiana Airlines - Seoul (Incheon International Airport) - Asiana Airlines - Yonago (Miho Airport) - ANA - Nagoya (Chubu Centrair International Airport) - Continental Airlines - Honolulu International Airport - ATA - Metropolitan Oakland International Airport - Continental Airlines - Houston (George Bush Intercontinental Airport) - Continental Airlines - Shreveport Regional Airport - American Airlines - Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport - American Airlines - Mobile Municipal Airport - Delta Air Lines - Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport - Delta Air Lines - Panama City (Bay County Airport)

 * The same kind of people who go to Frankfurt — they change planes. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:52, 15 February 2007 (EST)

I'd say a lot more should be pulled. The current "Airline alliance" section has several long examples that I think should go. Other opinions? (WT-en) Pashley 09:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Big Planet Tour Discontinued
See: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24240

World Journey / Flying Dutchman - does this still exist?
This is YRWWJ25 (a different fare to YRTWSKY1). Can someone still find this in GDS. If so, which GDS?

 * Seems to be gone: . Page updated. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:34, 22 January 2010 (EST)

Are the airline alliances still up to date?
It seems some airlines have changed alliances, or rather joined one for the first time since this article was edited for the last time. Furthermore, there seems to be the recurring problem of footnote style links... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How outdated is this article?
Given the footnote style link formatting and the number of dead links, just how outdated is this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Round the world flights


text:
Talk:Round the world overland

4,5 years long (sort of) RTW in an almost 30 year old bus
 "38 countries and 90000 km — the express finally returns to Finland. The express around the world - project will come to an end on may day on Salo market square, the place from where it started almost four and a half year ago." Sadly Google translate produces rather hilarious Finglish, but you can always look at the pictures...

Anyways I thought it would be interesting to share, as it's quite a feat to pull off such a trip. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Hey, their blog actually also includes some English information :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism
Do more people share the criticism expressed in this edit summary? And should the VfD discussion in question be transcluded to this here talk page? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A "transclusion" would be the insertion of text as a MediaWiki template; I don't think that's what's wanted. Moving the original discussion here from Votes for deletion/August 2017 might be reasonable. In any case, I look at that discussion and it looks like I'd already raised the issue that "round the world overland" directly contradicts a definition of "overlanding" as "travel without flights or boats" – they're different, mutually-exclusive concepts to the point where this should not have been merged in this way. Those concerns were ignored. The few other comments which were made, if they advocated any form of merger, had the 'merge' running in the opposite direction (so 'overlanding' as destination). No idea why this was done this way, or at all. K7L (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current state is confusing. I suppose the different kinds of travel now included should be split to separate articles, but not necessarily before somebody starts working on one of them, only then choosing the most suitable title for the article being written. If it is "round the world overland" that gets written first, then the rest of this should be moved to some other suitable name. The General considerations section is relatively well developed, but not written to stand on its own. The rest is useful, but feels like random remarks. As no good article can be created by just rearranging the stuff, I think there is not problem with all of it being in this one place for the time being. --LPfi (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Scope
So the confusion remains. Reading today's edit, I wonder whether tour companies arranging long tours in Africa is what this article is supposed to be about. Even Finland to Berlin by bus with guide and accommodation is overlanding, As is Frankfurt to Berlin by train!

The added (and removed) links were of course about journeys that tried to keep most of the feel of an adventure, but made secure and comfortable. I am not sure that is our niche, and probably not what those clicking Round the world overland expect.

From the linked blog article:
 * "Nowadays, neither Vivian nor Ken would dream of sending clients on an overland trip without a day-to-day detailed itinerary. Before stepping foot on a truck you’ll know where you’re going, where you’re staying, and all the stops and activities in between."

So I think we have to make a decision on scope, as otherwise we may have good-faith editors adding stuff that we really do not want to have here. "By tour" could be added to Africa, but we should decide whether we want it here, there, or at all.

--LPfi (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing Australia via New Guinea and the Torres Strait Islands?
I added a sentence, but I'm a bit skeptical of whether these two paragraphs should stay.

"A hypothetical route into Australia, not spoken about much is via the Torres Strait Islands (Disclaimer, this was not attempted by the writer but was researched extensively). Separating Daru, Papua New Guinea and Thursday Island is approximately 150 km of water. While no commercial boats connect them, it is legal for Torres Strait Islanders to freely travel between the Torres Strait Islands (Australia) and PNG. You could hire a captain to sail between the two, or kayak it yourself between Daru and Saibai Island.

The main difficulty is reaching Daru from Indonesia as it may involve traversing the entire PNG coastline to reach it. It may be possible to reach Daru from Merauke but you may not be able to cross the border into PNG from here ( seems to hint there is, but check with official sources). It is possible to cross the border at Jayapura on the north-side of Papau but reaching Daru may be very difficult as it would involve many many ferry rides to reach even Port Moresby. Air travel is the primary means of travel between towns and cities in PNG."

I've been researching this endlessly but nearly all of this info is unconfirmed. These are some issues with this route:
 * "reaching Daru from Merauke" – the problem here is not the lack of a border crossing, but the lack of overland access to both Daru and Merauke. Having extensively looked at OSM, not a single road from Merauke leaves Papua Selatan (a new Indonesian province)
 * Likewise, Jayapura is also not connected to the western parts of the New Guinea, though OSM claims there's a ferry route to Jayapura from Nabire
 * Once you've entered PNG from its northern border, you'll need to go all the way around. There are no roads that cut through the PNG Highlands, and traversing the New Guinean Highlands is possibly one of the most dangerous things one could do. That means that you'd need to traverse the entire coastline as the article mentions, but there is nothing east of the Sepik River. There is a road a few kilometres east of the Mandang border, but you'll need to travel 86 km as the crow flies, and realistically, this is next-to-impossible. 4WDing through PNG's thick jungle without adequate equipment would be a death sentence.
 * Once you reach Lae, the only "road" that connects Lae (south)east is the road to Wau. Once you've reached Wau, the only roads are the tracks to inland villages – places that travellers wouldn't want to meander in. Not a single road connects Wau to PNG's southern coast.
 * Even if you make it to PNG's southern coast, you again face the same issue travelling to Daru. Not a single piece of infrastructure to Daru.
 * Perhaps the most important one of all, " it is legal for Torres Strait Islanders to freely travel between the Torres Strait Islands (Australia) and PNG. You could hire a captain to sail between the two, or kayak it yourself between Daru and Saibai Island " is blatantly misleading. As far as I'm aware, only those who are officially Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders as defined by the Australian and Queensland governments, can freely cross the border between the two countries. That means that you, I, and most travellers using Wikivoyage are ineligible to cross the straits past Saibai and Boigut (both of which are only 3 km from PNG's southern coast) and we cannot advocate allowing travellers to illegally cross a border per our Illegal activities policy. The Torres and council website also has nothing about a border crossing.

Given that this whole blob of text is purely speculation, I would remove it. It's practically unreasonable for the most part, if not impossible. Until there is some trace of someone actually attempting this route on the internet, then we could possibly consider, but as it stands, it's pure speculation.

Other thoughts? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 * From a map on the world the route seems feasible, so I think we shouldn't just remove the paragraphs, but rewrite, including your observations. Are there international ports in the area, where arriving by boat would be allowed (which would make crossing legal and perhaps feasible with local fishermen)? Are there routes foreign craft are allowed to use? Are there routes commonly used by round-the-world yachters (so that you could find a boat to "hitchhike" with?). –LPfi (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * re: "Are there international ports in the area, where arriving by boat would be allowed (which would make crossing legal and perhaps feasible with local fishermen)?" Not really. The islands and the Cape York Peninsula are both pretty remote on top of the fact that all road access is cut off for around four months of the year, it's unlikely to happen within the 21st century. Local fishermen can freely cross per treaty, but only up to the 9°N line. The simple matter of fact is, it's almost impossible to get into Australia using a yacht or a private boat (keeping in mind that the navy rigorously patrols these northern areas). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Over here non-Schengen yachts have to follow customs routes to a cost guard station or a harbour with suitable facilities (I'd expect any harbour with international shipping would do). To what degree the coast guard patrols is irrelevant if you comply with the regulations; the question is what those regulations are. Are there harbours that international yachts are allowed to visit? Can you enter the country through them? If so, I assume you are allowed to enter also using services of the fishermen. –LPfi (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: He visited all 195 countries without flying. It nearly broke him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/08/07/visit-every-country-without-flying/ —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Wow, absolute mad lad. Veracious (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Round the world overland


text:
Talk:Roundwood

Roundwood Discussion!
Hey, I've been spending a few days now getting my home-town article up & running! It's coming together nicely, I'd love if I could get some photos up to add to it though! Anyone in the area that happens to browse the article, it'd be great to get a few snaps of the area! I'd love to but have moved away & rarely get back! Go raibh mile maith agat! --86.42.135.173 20:56, 10 December 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Roundwood


text:
Talk:Route 1 (Iceland)

This may be a controversial page for Wiki but I have created it for a few reasons. First, Route 1 is the only major road of Iceland (thus covering the "get around" section for many cities). Second, because Route 1 is the only major road in Iceland, one should be prepared of hazardous conditions and being stranded on the road. Third, most of the national parks/glaciers are off of Route and it important to know how far they are from cities. If you have any questions, please post or send me a talk. -(WT-en) Blacksapphire 16:23, 11 Oct 2006 (PST)

 * I see no problem with this as an Project:Itineraries article. Check out Project:Itinerary article template to see how we'd like it formatted.  -- (WT-en) Colin 21:43, 11 October 2006 (EDT)

I place the link to the Traffic Council to guide people who need more detailed information as well as a listing of every road sign used in the country. Due to copyright, placing and explaning those signs on this Wiki article is not beneficial. The Traffic Council brochure has a better coverage of this information.-(WT-en) Blacksapphire

The route
According to WP, the road does not pass through the Northwestern peninsula. This map shows one place on said peninsula. Who's right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 * WP I suppose. See the map and accompanying prose in Driving in Iceland, which also exclude the peninsula. Also Húsavík and Blue Lagoon are included in this article, although the map shows them as requiring sidetrips. --LPfi (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bike advice
I think if we're gonna list a bike in "get in" we should give some more advice as to pitfalls. I am pretty sure there's basically no bike repair shop outside greater Reykjavík and spare parts will be hard to get to. Is that so? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming of Title
I am thinking of changing the title of this article to Iceland Route 1 or Iceland(ic) Ring Road, or Route 1 (Iceland). For one, most medias outside the Wikimedia sphere use either of these terms, so this title is seemingly not catchy enough. For two, it looks redundant to me by writing it with two terms that refer to one single ring road. Suggestions welcome. Othello95 (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

What rally driver wrote this?
From Understand:

"Finished in 1974, it is 1,332 km (828 mi) long and goes through its assorted topographical features: fjords, mountains, flat lands."

"Although it practically takes only 12 hours to drive along the road non-stop"...

It would mean an average speed of 111 km/h, so you would be ignoring the speed limits mentioned in the Driving section (90, 80 and 50 km/h) throughout. Now even if there were no speed limits, I somehow can't believe you can safely keep an average speed that high, even if there per the photos of the road on Commons are some straight sections on the road with views of several kms in all directions where you could drive a bit faster to compensate for slower driving on the curvier, hilly sections.

--Ypsilon (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Route 1 (Iceland)


text:
Talk:Route 66

Discussion
Having driven all of Route 66, nine days to travel the entire road is more reasonable. Chicago to St. Louis could probably be done, but I would advise stopping at Springfield, Illinois. This also gives time to see St. Louis. St. Louis to Oklahoma City is way too long, so I split it. St. Louis to Springfield (MO) is about six hours on the old highway and eight to nine hours between Springfield (MO) and Oklahoma City. St. Louis to Joplin would be doable. Flagstaff to Los Angeles is too long. With a suggeted side-trip to the Grand Canyon, its about eight-nine hours to Barstow. This also gives plenty of time to celebrate an arrival in Santa Monica! --Rt66lt (July 15, 2005)

 * That sounds great! Excellent job extending this article. I think there's a lot of work to be done pointing out where the sites are along the trip. --(WT-en) Evan 20:52, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)

 * I will try to include the sites on the route, but they are numerous and for now I would like to concentrate on getting the directions down. For sites in the larger cities, it would probably be advisable to place them in a seperate section.  For many of the more famous ones (Sears Tower, Lincoln's Tomb, Gateway Arch, etc.), it would probably be better to have the reader consult a road atlas, especially those not directly on Route 66. --Rt66lt (July 15, 2005)

 * I'd actually reverse that; I think a travel itinerary should give directions on things to see and do along the route, as well as good places to R&R at night. --(WT-en) Evan 11:10, 16 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I'm still working on some of the attractions at the end and plan to add a few more into the Route. I still have two or three alternate alignments to write also. I did go ahead and make a link from Wikipedia's article on Route 66 to this page. --(WT-en) Rt66lt, Aug 29, 2005

 * Hope you don't mind if I fix a couple of things before this comes up for a monthly-destination vote. There were some errors in descriptions of things between Albuquerque and Flagstaff. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:33, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * For what it's worth, Route 66 most likely wouldn't be DOTM before Spring of 2006 since it's not really known as a winter destination, so there should be time to fix anything that needs it. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 11:53, 13 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Links
I've attempted to add links to city articles for all of the cities mentioned, although I'll admit to being lazy, so many of the links might need some disambiguation. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 15:14, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Should this not link to the wikipedia entry on Route 66 ? It contains much more background already. [in URL format : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_66] 213.118.143.101 08:41, 16 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Please see Project:Cooperating with Wikipedia and Project:Links to Wikipedia for how we link to Wikipedia, then please plunge forward! (WT-en) Maj 10:13, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Route detail between Chicago and Springfield
There is an oddity in the route description as 66 passes through Bloomington-Normal (on both of which, btw, I'll be adding text to their respective, separate pages). The article says, "Turn south on Linden Street, west on Willow Street, south on Main Street (Business US 51), on into adjacent Bloomington, and left on Veterans Parkway." (I added the part about Bloomington, which is irrelevant to my question.)

It's been years since I've driven this, but I used to do it almost daily, and I wonder: does one really turn left onto Veterans at this point? That would seem to take one back around the Twin Cities on the Veterans bypass. Or is that currently the only way of getting onto Beich Street? Please check it out. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:55, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * When I passed through there, it seemed strange, too. I can't exactly remember why, but I think its an issue of access, roads having been built, moved, etc.(WT-en) Rt66lt 23:06, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)

Forget Winona
Should there be a note regarding the total lack of anything in the town of Winona? I recall being pretty disappointed that there wasn't even a gas station or cafe there. (WT-en) Maj 10:15, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Printing problem
If I try to print this, it stops about half-way through (right under the notes section about Texola to Amarillo). Anyone else have this problem?(WT-en) Fastestdogever 13:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Giant city list
I'm thinking of making a page that lists all of the towns that Route 66 passes through. I'm planning a trip across Route 66 this summer, and I'd like to be able to print the guides to take with me, and with a huge list it would be much simpler. Also, the itinerary is good, but there are many people who want to travel certain sections, say a weekend in Oklahoma, and a list of all of the small towns and unusual attractions would come in handy. I'd like some input about possible ways to do this, in particular how to handle the alternate alignments. The best I could come up with is the way this site formats different routes in columns like this. First off, though, I would use the cities on the main route of the itinerary & later add in the alternate alignments. Any thoughts? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 19:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Interesting thought. Maybe as a sub-page of this one, say Route 66/Cities?  I can see real value to it. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

 * I was planning on spending a lot of time researching & looking at maps to find all of the cities on the route, and came across wikipedia's list. Is this something I can just copy over (and change to out article naming)?  Can a list of towns be copyrighted? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 00:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Don't copy it over. Yes, a list can be copyrighted, though facts cannot be.  I'd like to see more thoughts on this develop, before we condone it.  Stacy, could you create an example of what you had in mind in your sandbox?  I have an alternative idea too, which is using categories.  I can provide an example of this (I think) but it'll be a few hours before I get around to it. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

 * In principle, it's OK to simply link to that Wikipedia article; see Project:Links to Wikipedia for the details. However, on looking at the WP list, there are a lot of places cited there that fall into the wide-spot-in-the-road category and may not be current towns, just grain elevators or abandoned gas stations.  (Example: Wikipedia:Anaconda, New Mexico, which is no longer a town, but just a pile of radioactive mine tailings.)  You'd never call Anaconda a "town" if you were following the itinerary.  It's TMI (no pun intended, just"too much information").
 * I do think your proposed list has real value to the traveler and can see two approaches to making it. One, create a separate article with that subset of the WP list that actually corresponds to real places.  No copyright issues on doing that, but it'll take some work and some judgment calls.  Two, and maybe duplicating Andrew's thinking, create a "Category:Destinations on Route 66" or something similar, and build into the articles that we have on such destinations.  We've never done that with Itineraries, but it might be a good idea; I'll start a discussion there.  Please don't do the category until it's been discussed, however. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

 * In doing research, one thing I've come across several times is the mention that Route 66 took so many different routes, and as long as you know what town is next you'll be darn close to it. Although I'm personally an extreme list maker/planner, there are others who don't like such structure. In that case, a list that says:

 * Town A

 * Town B

 * Town C

 * would allow them to figure out their own way from town to town. I understand that we don't want to list every small, nothing town, but if there are small, nothing areas perhaps we could still mention them.  Say Nothingville has no restaurants, hotels, etc., but does have something a traveler is interested in.  In the case of Amboy, which, after I made the article, I realized that it does not really deserve its own page, but still should be mentioned.  Maybe the list could be something like:

 * City A - huge town w/ yada yada yada
 * Amboy - see the Amboy Crater. The hike to the crater and back to the highway can take 2-3 hours. Also see Roy's, which is no longer open but used to be a Route 66 stop
 * City B - huge town w/ yada yada yada

 * I'm worried that if we make a category & tag R66 towns with a tag, that they'll just show up in ABC order. Check out User:(WT-en) Fastestdogever/Sandbox for the list I made using the towns in the article. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 10:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Found what I was looking for - Category:Communities on U.S. Route 66 is what I don't want. From a travelers perspective, not a very good way to list the towns. If we create a category, won't it end up looking like this? -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 11:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, that WP category wouldn't help a traveler much. It could be made more useful by setting up subcategories ("Illinois Communities on US Route 66", etc.) -- indeed, I may plunge forward and do that on Wikipedia -- but the fine-grained sequencing would still be missing.  All of this is convincing me that a Rt66 subpage is probably the right way to go. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I tagged Flagstaff as "Route 66" and while a category hasn't officially been made you can see that it would be alphabetical. See. An interesting idea I've had is to couple tags with geographic coordinates, which would organize categories based on geographic location. The problem with that is it'd require a lot of programming and tech work. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 20:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

 * The geographic coordinates idea sounds pretty neat, although I wonder if it would work. Surely there are parts on this road that, when traveling from Town A to Town B, you have to go slightly east.  This would probably create some real confusion on the part of the traveler.  I'm thinking a manual list is going to be the best solution to this. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 11:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Agree with Stacy. Another reason for going the manual route is so that the "alternative alignments" can be dealt with efficiently, which is a big deal in New Mexico (where I am) because the alternative route is quite long and diverges by many tens of miles from the canonical one.  Looks like we'll just have to bite the bullet here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I went ahead & made the Route 66/Cities page. How's it look? (WT-en) Fastestdogever 11:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Looks excellent to me. I made a few minor tweaks (explanation at the beginning, additions to the "original alignment" in New Mexico) and added a reference in the main article.  Thanks for doing that -- it strengthens the article! -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Attraction list considered harmful
The giant attraction list at the end of the current article is very difficult to use. I've shifted the attractions along the stretch I followed a few weeks back into the days in question, please follow suit. (WT-en) Jpatokal 17:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm not convinced that's an improvement. A separate attraction-list page, segmented by state as has been done for the "cities" page (see Route 66/Cities and previous discussion item above), might be better. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

 * But why should the driving instructions and things to see be separated? On Route 66, getting there is all the fun, and it makes a lot of sense to me to merge the route and the highlights along it.  (WT-en) Jpatokal 19:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I personally don't like the attraction list either. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me to have the information separated.  I also don't think that every sight on Route 66 should be mentioned on this page either - just the ones that are truly a "don't miss" on Route 66.  For example, I'm not sure that removing the St. Francis Cathedral and the Frontier Restaurant (both listed under attractions) from the page would diminish the quality of the article.  That's one of the reasons we decided to create Route 66/Cities - so the road-tripper would easily be able to find sights & activities in specific towns. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 20:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually, the Frontier is a good example of why I think the list has value. Viewed as a dining place in Albuquerque, it's just another cheap burger joint, worth mentioning in the "non-New-Mexican/Budget" category (where it is indeed mentioned) but with little to distinguish it from other such places there.  For the Route 66 driver, it borders on iconic, being a quintessential college dive from the days when Albuquerque was ten miles long and one street (Central Avenue, where Route 66 goes) wide.  You won't get that sense of the place from the Albuquerque article, and if you try to move all that stuff into the body of the Route 66 article (and do the same for the other places like it), it'll be the body that gets impractically long, not the list at the end.
 * The attractions list, IMO, should not be so much about "don't miss" things, but rather about places that exemplify the history that makes this itinerary worth following. That's not the same thing, and it's one reason why the information should be associated with the itinerary rather than the towns along the way.  Yes, the list could be incorporated into the narrative text.  The result will be a ridiculously long text.  Is that an improvement?  -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess what the main issue is with having the attraction listings at the bottom of the page is that it is confusing. I can see how it would be aggravating to use this itinerary and have to flip back 10 pages to make sure you don't miss one of the attractions that is listed. I do agree that having too much information within each section is also undesirable, but perhaps we could come up with an alternative way to format the information. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 22:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * That's exactly why I'm suggesting a separate page, indexed to the state level. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Could we just work off of the Route 66/Cities page? I'm sure there's something Route 66-ish is many many towns. -- (WT-en) Fastestdogever 22:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maps
I started transcribing the described route to Google Maps, but then realized someone had already done a good job of itGoogle Earth link. I see from Project:External links that linking to maps is discouraged. On the other hand, Route 66 is a poorly-marked route and so the primary thing you need is a map. I am inclined to make an exception and link directly to this Google Map. Additionally, we could make a subpage from this page that includes turn-by-turn directions in a more readable format (rather than as paragraphs) that could include maps of at least the urban areas, and also links to external map sources. 72.74.195.51 18:23, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

No road there - Elk City to Sayre, OK
In the third paragraph of Oklahoma City to Texola, the sentence is "Where Business I-40 rejoins the interstate, continue west on the north frontage road. Follow this road to Business I-40 in Sayre." However, Google Earth shows the road simply ends at a private driveway at longitude 99D 34' 37.6" and resumes at 99D 35' 04.3". On leaving Elk City, one would have to stay OFF of the Frontage Road, or take a series of country roads to the north to get around the gap: 1525 metres / .95 miles north along N 1910 Rd, 1600 metres / 1 mile west on E 1140 Rd, then 2663 metres / 1.65 miles south on Cemetery Rd and rejoin the frontage road, a total diversion of 5.78 km / 3.59 miles when the direct route, if it had existed, would have been 2.06 km / 1.28 miles. (WT-en) Gcapp1959 11:48, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

 * If there are any changes needed it would be great if you could plunge forward and make them - this is an old article, so it's entirely possible that portions are outdated or based on data that is no longer correct. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:33, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Glenrio to Santa Rosa - possible route change - comments?
Okay, I can't find a NM Hwy 69, but I do find a NM Hwy 129. I wonder if 69 is a mistake.

Now, on reaching Santa Rosa, viewing it from Google Earth, it seems to me that the original route is better represented by exiting I-40 at a more easterly point, at Exit 277 (U.S. Route 84 South), turning right then following Will Rogers Drive westward. It flows more naturally from a curving frontage road just east of Exit 277, and on through Exit 275 (the parclo interchange). If nobody finds any illogic here, I would go ahead and change the entry. I've chosen this revision for my "virtual walk" along Route 66, the area I passed through yesterday.

By the way, is there any thought to giving instructions for an eastward journey along the highway, where critical in terms of ramps and one-way streets? (WT-en) Gcapp1959 10:55, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

 * If there are differences in the Eastbound route then noting that probably makes sense, although hopefully such distinctions will be minimal. Thanks for keeping this article up-to-date - along a route of this length portions are bound to change, so updates are always appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:04, 8 May 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Route 66


text:
Talk:Royal National Park

Relocated from main page
For more things to see visit the Royal National Park Photo & Video Gallery

title: Talk:Royal National Park


text:
Talk:Estrada Real

VFD Discussion

 * Delete. This itinerary is still at outline status and has not received a substantial edit since 2007, long past the one year deadline specified in the deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * Keep. This is a fixed historic route like Route 66 or the Silk Road, and it is signposted to boot, and likely to be recreated if we delete it. (WT-en) texugo 22:06, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
 * See also similar comments at the nomination for The Jesus Trail below. Signposted, fixed routes should be exempted. (WT-en) texugo 23:47, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

 * Keep. Agreed with Texugo. – (WT-en) Vidimian 11:56, 22 March 2011 (EDT)

Result: Kept. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:14, 2 April 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Estrada Real


text:
Talk:Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology

Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology
Attraction, not a destination. (WT-en) Jordanmills 19:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Info added to attraction listing in Drumheller. Delete. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 08:32, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Redirect to Drumheller - aren't we leaning more in that direction these days for attractions? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete. This simply doesn't belong. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:58, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I think we need multiple redirects and some stubs here. The area around Drumheller that includes this museum is generally referred to as the "Alberta badlands", a phrase that gets dozens of google hits. The museum is in Dinosaur Provincial Park, which is on the UNESCO World Heritage List. (WT-en) Pashley 03:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Done that. Created Dinosaur Provincial Park and made both Alberta badlands and the museum article redirect there, moved all useful info from Museum article there. (WT-en) Pashley 03:56, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
 * The Tyrrell Museum is in Drumheller, some 177km from Dinosaur Provincial Park, which is near Brooks. Change this redirect to point to Drumheller.


text:
Talk:Ruaha National Park

VFD Discussion
There are two pages, Ruaha National Park. and Ruaha National Park. The one with the period in the name is the better page but not named well.
 * Merge and delete. There is no need to redirect a pagename ending in period. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 18:54, 21 September 2010 (EDT)
 * Yes, there is; to maintain the attribution history of the content. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Result: Ruaha National Park deleted and Ruaha National Park. merged into it.. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:44, 7 October 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ruaha National Park


text:
Talk:Rudyard Lake

This is obviously not an article and should be merged with Leek --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:21, 21 April 2010 (EDT).

Rudyard is a small place but attracts very large visitor numbers 500,000+, greater than Leek and has done for over 100 years.

 * No doubt, but please read Project:What is an article? and you will see that Rudyard Lake is indeed not a valid article, and should be merged with the nearest town, which I believe is Leek?. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:27, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rudyard Lake


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Archive of past sporting event articles/Rugby World Cup 2007

Dumped ext links
See Project:External links. Some of these may be suitable for the article, most probably are not or are in the wrong place. Please see these guidelines before adding them straight back in.

 * Rugbyworldcup.com
 * France2007.fr
 * France2007.fr (French)
 * Rth07.com Official travel and hospitality site.
 * England Rugby Travel Official Travel Agent.
 * Prestige Experience Official hospitality agent.
 * Worldcupweb.com

-- (WT-en) Tim 08:12, 25 November 2006 (EST)


text:
Talk:Ruhr

Image?
A photo that may be from this region (I do not speak German so cannot tell) is a finalist in the Commons picture of the year competition. Can we use it somewhere? Pashley (talk)

Regarding the cycling section
While the Ruhr area is not known as a "cyclist region" or as having "cyclist culture", this may change in the foreseeable future. There is currently the plant to build this as evidenced by this piece on local TV and of course this newspaper article. Apparently it will be finished by 2020 (as of 2015) and funded through local as well as federal funds. An interesting development that may certainly be of relevance to our readers Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Redlinks
What do we do about the redlinks that crop up in the article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Make an effort to create some content about the locations. They are all reasonably well know places. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspect typo
from Correct typos in one click tarifs->tariffs? (omit) context: at the eastern limits. Look for tarifs tarifs and timetables there. Within a

title: Talk:Ruhr


text:
Talk:Rumford (Maine)

how do u get out of rumford? --(WT-en) Pow25 20:53, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

title: Talk:Rumford (Maine)


text:
Talk:Running

Comments
Is there any appetite to have a section that lists some of the best running paths in the world? I'm thinking of routes that are unique in some way and combine most people's concept of travel with a good run. For example, some city routes that might fit the bill:

 * Stanley Park in Vancouver
 * Central Park in NYC
 * Clarke Quay in Singapore
 * Thames trail in London (not the trail where you run around in circles through Hyde Park)

I'd add the section myself but the only place that I have run is Stanley Park. (WT-en) Johnycanal 10:02, 05 July 2006 (PST)

Kowloon
Actually the new seaside promenade with the Walk of Stars etc makes for a very nice stroll in the evening. I'm not sure you can actually jog on it all that well though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:15, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I was thinking of that as well. I had a chance to walk it in late April and thought it would be a ideal place for "worldly" kind of jog. The only thing is that it didn't seem quite long enough for a run as it is flanked on either side by pedestrian gridlock. Maybe someone else will chime in and update us. (WT-en) Johnycanal 11:09, 8 August 2006 (EDT)

runningtours.net
From the description added to the article, it's a listing, rating and price comparison site, so mentioning and linking it is in violation of What not to link to. Should we make an exception for it? It does seem like a useful site to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Running crews
It would be worth listing running crews for each city, listing the days and where they meet. When I've gone travelling in the past, I've often contacted running crews, and they are very welcoming of tourists Whatisbetter (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to say: Go ahead. But how many listings are we talking about? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most major cities have at least one running crew, though places like Berlin or London would have at least half a dozen. Alternatively, I could add a small section on meeting up with running crews whilst travelling and link to https://runningcrews.com/ Whatisbetter (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think such listings would be best placed in articles about each city, but I like your alternative suggestion of a short section with that link and the point that local crews are listed in city articles, if other Wikivoyagers agree that it's OK to list the same organization in multiple articles (possibly a violation of Don't tout, so wait for others to state their opinions). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am happy to add information about running crews to each city article, though where would it appear? Or should information relating to running be kept to the running article? Whatisbetter (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If a consensus supports adding listings in each city article, they would go in "Do". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should only add information to city articles if editors know about the particular running crew, usually by having been on one of their runs. AlasdairW (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did we reach a consensus on adding running crews to city articles? Whatisbetter (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alasdair's comment, which value the practical experience for running crews. -- Tmv ( talk ) 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Running


text:
Talk:Ruskamen

Article
I'm not sure what is meant by "a hamlet of the village of Lokva Rogoznica," does that mean this is just part of "Lokva Rogoznica"? or is it a seperate destination? (WT-en) Majnoona 12:14, 6 May 2006 (EDT)

title: Talk:Ruskamen