Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.
New users, please see Help or go to the Pub to ask questions.

User talk:GiulioC

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Here are archived discussions on my Talk Page.


Hello, GiulioC! Welcome to Wikitravel.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Wikitravel:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. IBAlex 15:35, 20 March 2013 (EDT)

Ohoy matey and welcome aboard! Good to have more capable hands on deck! --OVK 16:04, 23 March 2013 (EDT)

Hi GiulioC, thank you for the welcome! I am still getting to grips with Wiki markup, so please let me know if this comment should be edited differently! --BritishZen 14:21, 2 May 2104 (GMT)

Hi. Giulioc, thanks, I am learning Wiki, hope I can help. Agustinllanes 09:35, 24 September 2014 (EDT)

Hi Giulioc, I have been posting for Rio San Juan, Nicaragua, Boca de Sabalos and El Castillo could you tell me if if according to your guide line, or if i must change something. —The preceding comments was added by Agustinllanes (talkcontribs)

Yellow pages[edit]

Hi GiulioC,

Thanks for writing for wikitravel. I appreciate that. I add an entry about an hotel which in my view (among other travelers) is a good choice in this city. Removing it is not democratic and seems to me that because one is already in there the other doesn't deserve a place. On which ground do we do that. First comes first rules? That's not very wiki like. Yes it's not a yellow page but surely this is not the criteria. The criteria should be:

1 information should be accurate. 2 information should be objective. 3 information should be as complete as possible.

'Yellow pages' argument fails to comply with 1 or 2, thus is not a valid criteria. Criteria 3 is perpendicular on the 'yellow pages' argument.

Could you please elaborate on your decision. Meanwhile I re added my entry.

With kind regards,

Robert Nagtegaal. —The preceding comment was added by Masikh (talkcontribs)

Hello Robert, inserting a listing in an article where there are already dozens similar doesn't benefit the traveller nor the article itself, there is no need to have 30 restaurants/bars/hotels listed. And as I already stated in the summary we don't want WT to become the Yellow Pages. That's why sometimes we delete listings. If you want you can start a discussion on the pub about this topic, express your ideas and maybe find a way to improve Wikitravel. Do not hesitate to contact me again. GiulioC (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2014 (EDT)
Hi GiulioC,
My hotel listing was also removed on the same basis. Your reasoning to not make a Yellow page yet you still advertise over 15 hotels in each category doesn't justify it. You cannot be biased here, and what if the users are not happy with the selection of hotels there, they have the right to see the entire selection which is available in the relevant category. I added the following
(cur | prev) 12:38, 11 August 2014‎ GiulioC (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,917 bytes) (-615)‎ . . (removed external links and a hotel listing: there are already many hotels listed in the article, we don't want WT to become the Yellow Pages)
I'm IBcaldera an admin on this site, too. First of all, I do want to apologize for the confusion. Giulio is correct, we try to avoid overloading sections with listings. This can be a particular problem when it come to hotels and more specifically chain hotels. Unfortunately, we aren't an avenue for businesses we are an avenue for the cities. Sites like tripadvisor and yelp are great for promoting specific businesses and the great experiences they offer. A while back we chose to go with oldest listing first - if that listing were to close or be found of tricking/harming our travelers it would be removed. As it stands - if you see your listing removed with the reason of "Yellow Pages" just remember we can always discuss a general solution on Wikitravel:Travellers' pub and that we're doing our best to uphold a delicate balance on travel guides. I encourage your feedback! Best, IBcaldera (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2014 (EDT)

Hi GiulioC,

can you give me some advise on how to submit the listing in this site? because this is the 1st time i submitting article on website and i have no idea how to do it in correct way... thanks

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by GiulioC. The reason given is Spambot.

   Start of block: 09:32, 11 September 2014
   Expiry of block: 09:32, 11 September 2015
   Intended blockee: Ashley84

You can contact GiulioC or another administrator to discuss the block. Your current IP address is, and the block ID is #157758. Please include either or both of these in any queries. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Hello Ashley. Sorry for the mess, I thought you were just another spambot. It was all my mistake and I deeply apologise for that. I unblocked you and left a welcome message on your talkpage. You will find many useful links to help you contributing to Wikitravel. Anyway, if you need help feel free to contact me and I will reply asap. Warm regards, GiulioC (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2014 (EDT)

Hi GiulioC, thanks for your advice. i will go through the guideline and contribute my hostel information to page. If i made any mistake, please forgive me and let me know which part i need to amend. Thanks~

Location for listings with a multi-district service area[edit]

Hi -

No problem on the reverts, I will move those listings to the appropriate district pages. Question though - what do I do with businesses that are located in one area, but have a service area that spans multiple districts? For example, a flower shop or a tour company might service or tour the entire city of Austin. Should those go in 1. multiple districts 2. the root /Austin wiki page or 3. only in the district where they are headquartered?

Jptastic (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2014 (EST)

That's an excellent question and I would encourage you to pose it in the Pub whatever answer you get here. --Ttcf (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2014 (EST)
This is definitely a Pub discussion since it's about our listings policy. GiulioC (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Good catches with all those Indian touts! -- 20:59, 5 December 2014 (EST)

Puzzling edit summary[edit]

of: "we'd like to have only original content on WT". Would you like to say where you think the useful material you removed came from? I've done a Google search and the 40 hits were all scraper sites that had scraped the text from Wikitravel!

-- 04:34, 9 December 2014 (EST)

I found this one. GiulioC (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (EST)
The useful original content can NOT have come from there, since that Wikiversity article was only started at the beginning of January 2014 (and presumably based on the Wikitravel material you removed), whereas our material had been added at least 8 months before that in 2013!
Unless you can give better reasons than that, I shall restore the material you deleted. -- 16:26, 9 December 2014 (EST)
In case it is original content, it should be tolerated, as as sure I would skip this piece of information if I were to prepare my trip to this region. We are not trying here to compete with Wikipedia about comprehensive knowledge. My suggestion would be then to copy this text to the Filipino phrasebook instead, with a descriptive sentence (and a link) in the page in question. So everybody would be happy, both the average traveler and the dialect seeker. PierrB (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2014 (EST)
If it's original content then it's fine. But that part is more a linguistics debate and as a traveller reading the article I would simply skip it. So, in my opinion it should be moved to the Filipino phrasebook page. GiulioC (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2014 (EST)
I would also move the text to the Filipino phrasebook or the Philipines article, but not leave it in this article. Adzas (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2014 (EST)

"In case it is original content" ?!?

Unless you can indicate precisely why you think this isn't original content, then I'll assume your silence means acquittal.

Traditionally, almost the only good reason for NOT linking to sources such as Wikipedia has been to try and make an incentive to encourage original good creative writing here. Consequently, it's rather ironic that when someone creates a useful exposition about a relevant topic for culturally sensitive travellers, the first thought is to assume it's stolen from elsewhere and then, when that proves to be false, seek to remove it in an effort to "dumb down" this travel guide.

It's pretty obvious to anyone that actually reads this material why much of this material would be entirely inappropriate in the (wrongly named?) Filipino phrase book in the same way an explanation about why Welsh isn't actually English would be inappropriate in an English phrasebook or Kurdish in the Arabic phrasebook! Please remember that there is a (partly language based) political independence movement for the Visayas and Cebuano-speaking Mindanao that is at least as strong as that for a homeland for the Kurds or that instrumental in the successful creation of the Welsh Assembly.

Numbers of mother-tongue Cebuano speakers vary depending on whether you include Bisaya varieties such as Boholano and Davaoeño or not, but they certainly outnumber all the mother-tongue speakers of Armenian, Bosnian, Buryat, Chechen, Croatian, Estonian, Faroese, Icelandic, Ingush, Irish, Kalmyk, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Romani, Romansh, Slovene, Tongan, Tuvaluan and Welsh put together!

If you guys from Italy, France, and the Netherlands really can't understand why visitors to Cebu might want to know why it's not necessarily the greatest idea to learn Tagalog prior to their trip to the Visayas, then I'm obviously wasting my time contributing to this travel guide. -- 21:25, 10 December 2014 (EST)

I already stated my opinion: that content is a linguistics debate and should be moved to one of our phrasebook pages. The same content could also be summarized in a few lines. GiulioC (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2014 (EST)
Yes, I´m puzzled....I quote the text that was removed that you want re-included in the Cebu article (talk): To this day, Tagalog is by far and away the main grammatical and lexical basis for the official Pilipino language. So why would it be inapropriate to include this in the Filipino phrasebook? Since only 2% of the population in Cebu seem to speak Tagalog, just a mention would be sufficient, the rest as stated above seems more appropriate in a phrasebook. Adzas (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2014 (EST)

Lake toba[edit]

Hello GiulioC Please do not edit lake toba get in,because this information about transport very important to traveller who comes to lake toba,especially our country indonesia,please help our area about information for they trip,because to lake toba hard to find information about transport.thank you —The preceding comment was added by Indomaret (talkcontribs)

Hello. I'm sorry for reverting your edit but you should take a look at our listings page. GiulioC (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2014 (EST)

Snow Report for Kyrgyzstan[edit]

Hi Guido, I noticed that you deleted the part of the information that I had added about snow report for Kyrgyzstan. I'm aware that linking to secondary sources should be avoided, but the fact is that there is no primary source about snow report in Kyrgyzstan. However, the country have 23 ski resorts and is great for skiing. Therefor, I think that the information is valuable and will help to promote tourism in Kyrgyzstan. So please understand that this is not Italy, we don't have a strong ski federation, and government do not provide any official snow report. I wish it is ok if I revert the information. Otherwise, please explain me why there is other links on the page, linking to commercial organization. Special thanks, Jade



Destination Docents

In other languages