Important: Wikitravel is exploring a license upgrade to CC by-sa 3.0, please give your consent or refusal here.

From Wikitravel

Hello, Roundtheworld! 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.

Thank you for your interest in improving our Rome guides, but I have reverted your changes to Rome/South because they appeared to be a copyright violation from "www.flexijourney.com/Rome". Please note that you cannot copy text from other sites to here unless you are the original author—as a general rule, all text contributions must be in your own words. Thanks! --Peter ^Talk 16:14, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Rome South

Peter,

I have never heard of or looked at www.flexijourney.com/Rome. The only copying (in a heavily edited form) was from my own and others contributions to the pages on the Appian Way in Wikipedia. I live in the area and my observations on the 118 bus were based on personal experience and on seeing scores of miserable tourists standing at the side of the road waiting for a bus back to Rome. Please restore.Roundtheworld 06:09, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Parts of your contributions were displayed as a verbatim copy from text on that site—from what you tell me, it is likely that that site had copied the information from Wikipedia. As a general rule, we cannot copy text from Wikipedia, as its GNU FDL license is incompatible with our CC-by-SA license (see shared:Copyleft for more detailed information). If you are the sole author of certain text on Wikipedia, you own the copyright and can therefore copy it to here. If the text, i.e., sentence, has multiple authors, then you should not. I would encourage you yourself to restore those edits which are in full compliance with our site license, and you can do so fairly easily by going back into the history of the article ([1]).

As I'm sure you noticed, Rome/South could really benefit from attention from a local, and I'm very glad you have taken an interest in improving the article! I hope that these annoying licensing issues are not too discouraging. --Peter ^Talk 10:26, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Hello again, I noticed that you re-sorted the attractions out of alphabetical order. Would you please leave an note explaining the rationale for this ordering on the talk page of the article. Otherwise someone will doubtless come along again and resort them back to alphabetical order. --Peter ^Talk 21:01, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Peter, Quite simply, the sequence follows the road. First comes the walls and the museum, then the catacombs and church, then more catacombs, then the circus etc. This seems to me the most logical way of presenting it.Shep 03:34, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Hey Shep, sorry about the photo removal—purely an accident. I've restored it. I'd also like to reiterate that you are doing really great work on the article, and that I hope you don't view my collaborations with you as being somehow antagonistic—that's not at all my intent. --Peter ^Talk 16:45, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Not at all. I welcome your guidance.Shep 14:57, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

And to answer the question about use of photos, the policy is here, but is fairly vague. I think I would recommend somewhere between 4–6 photos for a well developed district article, provided the number doesn't start to overwhelm the text. --Peter ^Talk 16:51, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Whoops, sorry about that - was cleaning up a 100+ vandalised pages, so I must have accidentally reverted yours - no such intent --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 09:23, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Well I was about to ask you why the keyhole view was more important than a lot of other things listed for Rome. But it does raise a question: how do you decide what category of heading to use for a particular attraction?Shep 09:28, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

is this what your are looking for? --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 09:33, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

Not quite. To give an example, in Rome/Old Rome Piazza Colonna is listed as a bullet point under "See" while Campo dei Fiori gets its own separate listing. Should everywhere be listed under "See" or are some places just so important they need their own heading (like the Keyhole View had before I changed it!)Shep 09:58, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't think there are any established guidelines on when to give a sight its own subheader, instead of just a listing. It's a question of presentation, so it depends on whether the quantity of information would overburden a single listing. In the case of Rome/South, the Appian Way looks to me like it might benefit from having its own subheading. --Peter ^Talk 15:10, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Image uploads

There is no procedure beyond saving and uploading it (to Wikitravel Shared), although you should fill out the image credit template to let everyone know where the image came from when you do upload it. For the image to be permissible, it has to have appropriate licensing. What licensing is acceptable? The detailed answer is here, but the short answer is just that it has to match one of the options in the pull-down menu on the upload form. Please let me know if anything is unclear. --Peter ^Talk 17:27, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Trobriand Islands

Why do we need sub-headings when there is no information? Apart from anything else there is now a Table of Non-Contents rather than contents. Is this Wikitravel policy to have all these headings?

In the Trobriands you eat and drink where you stay, so not much point in duplicate listings.Shep 15:02, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

In a regional article such as this, those sections are for general descriptions. In the Eat section (a mandatory section), what are the local specialties? prices? Are all the local restaurants in hotels? Are there snack vendors on the beaches, etc. Are there local fruits to try? For the See section (also mandatory), what are the sights to see? any rock formations? temples? something else? In the Do section (not mandatory if there is nothing to do there), surely there are at least some scuba/snorkeling/swimming type options? The Drink section is not mandatory either, but if there are any special beverages popular there they should go here, or just describe generally where to get a drink (bars? beach kiosks?). Texugo 00:45, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Rome for kids

Hi Mr. RoundtheWorld, I'm Eggplant Ninja. Im a 13 year old. I would like to know why you have deleted my Rome for kids edit. Responding back would be great Eggplant ninja

[edit] Rome for Kids

A few weeks ago so I don't precisely remember. You added some paras at the end of Rome'' when there was already a Rome for Kids section. So I took bits from what you wrote and inserted them in Rome for Kids. Your contributions about the St Peters Dome and the Vatican Museum are there. Great that you are involved. Try writing for Wikitravel in a third person style, like in a newspaper, rather than as if you are writing about your own experience.

What do you think about the Rome for Kids section now. Have I missed anything out? Shep 02:33, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Elephants

It doesn't accept duplicate file names, but shared and English operate seperately in this regard, so there can be two images with the same file name if one is on shared and one is on English. I deleted the original upload over on shared, so we should all be happy dandy now. --Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 16:46, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Cycles and Segways

I removed the bike tour information for two reasons: 1) because those tours violate our policy on tour listings, and 2) because no information on tours should be listed in the Get around section, only in the Do section. The rationale behind point one is that travelers don't need a tour operator to bike around the city, so why not simply direct travelers to places where they can rent a bike, and then let them choose their own itinerary based on what they read in our guides. I absolutely think that we should have information on how to get around by bicycle in the get around section—it just should be geared towards independent travel.

The other reason I've been especially strict about those bicycle tour companies is that we've had a problem with bicycle company spam for some reason across the Italian articles in recent months, so I'm extra suspicious of additions. --Peter ^Talk 12:41, 16 September 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Lakes in Lazio

To respond to your question, I vfd'd Lake Bolsena because it is a body of water which, unlike Lake Tahoe is not set up as a valid region article: The parent region of Lazio is divided into its provinces, not in a scheme which allows for a lake to serve as a subregion. For the same reason, I'm now putting Lake Trasimeno and Lake Bracciano on the list as well. Texugo 04:18, 27 September 2009 (EDT)