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, 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. Sertmann 15:26, 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. 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. 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 Magamma (talk • contribs)
- What misunderstanding? 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.
- 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. -- D. Guillaime 11:49, 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 Wikitravel user and contributor for more than 4 years now. Wikitravel 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 Wikitravellers 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. 126.96.36.199 11:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
- I still don't understand what Magamma thinks is being "violated". 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 Wikitravel: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 Wikitravel, which of course would be welcomed, please move on from this silliness. --Peter Talk 17:52, 24 July 2012 (EDT)