YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

User talk:Roundtheworld

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

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 "". 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)

Rome South[edit]


I have never heard of or looked at 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)

Image uploads[edit]

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)

Trobriand Islands[edit]

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)

Rome for kids[edit]

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

Rome for Kids[edit]

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)


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)

Cycles and Segways[edit]

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)

Lakes in Lazio[edit]

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)

Tapa images[edit]

Hi, Roundtheworld. Did you create those tapa cloths pictured in the images you uploaded to shared? LtPowers 19:13, 9 December 2009 (EST)


I did Regions cuz I also places the Territories in the list under a sub-header there. Any idea how that should be formatted? Globe-trotter 10:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Lake Trasimeno[edit]

You asked the following question on my talk page - Huttite 05:45, 28 December 2009 (EST)

Hi again. What is the point of providing a wikilink to a blank page? Seems to me that anyone following that link would just get pissed off with Wikitravel. The Isola Polvese page provides less info than is available on the Lake Trasimeno page. Shep 11:08, 27 December 2009 (EST)

My reply:

Isola Polvese was an orphaned page that should have been linked into the geographical hierarchy. The Lake Trasimeno article seems the most logical place to link from. I think people would be more annoyed by the fact we had an article about Isola Polvese that nobody had thought to provide a link to it from Lake Trasimeno; I certainly was. Since anyone can edit a page, the lack of information is not a serious problem at the moment. If you think the Isola Polvese article is inadequate, please plunge forward and improve it.
To explain further. I am currently placing orphaned pages into the geographical hierarchy. I feel that linking to existing outline articles from their region pages is more important than making destination articles perfect before linking them. At least that way readers know these articles exist and can see each article in its regional context. These are works in progress and are liable to change.
In the case of Isola Polvese, I was faced with the problem of finding the best place to link this outline article. The Lake Trasimeno article is the relevant region article that Isola Polvese was identified as an Other destination - so it was the best article to link from.
Since you have questioned if that was the right thing to do, I took a closer look at the Lake Trasimeno article. I can see that it does not follow the Manual of style as the long descriptions for each destination which need to be shortened to one line listings and it also has sleep listings for several destinations. Over time I would expect those listings to migrate to their destination articles, once they are written, as should also happen with the information about Isola Polvese in the Lake Trasimeno article.
Please note that region guides and other destination guides, such as city and park guides, perform different functions in Wikitravel's geographical hierarchy. A region guide provides an overview of the destinations in the region, while the city and park destination guides provide the details. This is so that the region guide is not too cluttered with minute details. One implication is that region guides do not usually have a Sleep section, as Sleep listings appear only once each in the respective end destinations. Since being able to sleep there is a minimum criteria for an article, the logical consequence is that the sleep section is redundant in the region guide. - Huttite 05:45, 28 December 2009 (EST)

You further pleaded this subject on my talk page as follows:

There has been a lengthy and unresolved discussion on this topic at Wikitravel talk:Bodies of water. Wikitravellers seem to be split between people like you and Texugo who seem to attach a lot of importance to structure and people like me and Peter Fitzgerald who believe that there can be no hard and fast rules and that rules are made to be broken where appropriate to the local situation. The rules cannot possibly take into account all possible scenarios. Isola Polvese is a little island in the middle of a fairly small lake. In Lake Trasimeno I think I have said all that really needs to be said about it in Wikitravel. My recommendation would be to delete the page on Isola Polvese. It just isn't needed.Shep 10:51, 28 December 2009 (EST)

and I have responded.

You raise several issues in the above plea. I think the issues need to be teased out and dealt with separately.
Firstly, I do not think that there would be consensus to delete the Isola Polvese article, for the following reasons.
  1. It is probably a valid destination article.
  2. Even if it is not a valid destination, it is certainly an attraction of Lake Trasimeno.
  3. As a minimum it can be merged with and redirected to Lake Trasimeno.
It would also be most helpful if the specific discussion about the need for an article like Isola Polvese was started and continued on Talk:Isola Polvese.
Second, I have no problem with bodies of water names being used for regions surrounding, in, or even under, those bodies of water. The problem arises where the article is about the water, not the land.
Third, some structure and rules are helpful and we have a Wikitravel:Manual of style that most people seem to agree is a good idea to follow. I believe I am following those guidelines, not rules. If you think I am wrong for doing that then please gain consensus for new or different Wikitravel:Community policies that meet your needs, and I will try and follow them too!
Lastly, it would be a good idea to plunge forward and devote your efforts to improving the Lake Trasimeno region and do something with the Isola Polvese before somebody else does. - Huttite 19:04, 28 December 2009 (EST)

I will be copying relevant parts of this discussion to Talk:Isola Polvese and Talk:Lake Trasimeno too. Please continue it there, or anywhere else where it is appropriate to raise the various issues that arise. - Huttite 19:14, 28 December 2009 (EST)


Hey Shep

As I've just pointed out in the pub and to a few more promising users, at the moment me and Burmesedays seem to be doing the lions share of the patrolling, but the more users involved in this, the less tedious it gets - the ultimate goal is making sure no edits go unpatrolled (per our Recent changes patrol expedition) - About a quarter sometimes up to half the edits on English wikitravel, are ones that need to be reverted, so it's a pretty essential task to keeping WT clean and useful for everyone.

If you want to help, try go to your preferences (up on the top right), once there select the recent changes tab and check the "Enhanced recent changes (JavaScript)" option. If you go back to the recent changes page now, edits will be grouped together, and edits that has not yet been patrolled will be marked with a red exclamation mark on the left side of the time-stamp in the summary. If there are any red exclamation marks try clicking on "(diff/X changes)" and above the summary you'll be able to click [Mark as patrolled] if everything is in order, or (undo) if it's spam, vandalism or touting - if unsure just leave it and someone else will come along and check it.

Of-course everyone one is welcome to contribute with whatever they feel like doing, just wanted to make sure you knew about his task. The more users involved in making sure there are no red exclamation marks on the recent changes page, the less tedious it get's. Personally I think a good approach is clicking on the "diff/X changes" on everything unpatrolled while holding down the ctrl button to open them all in new tabs, and then just go through them methodically

Cheers, --Stefan (sertmann) talk 21:31, 28 December 2009 (EST)

Stefan. Happy New Year. I've been doing a bit of that but not much. It's some of the more regular contributors who cause me the biggest problems! (perhaps I need a Smiley here!)Shep 14:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Re: Trasimeno[edit]

Hey Shep, I saw that, and will try to help get things sorted out later tonight—hopefully I'll be helpful ;) --Peter Talk 15:09, 30 December 2009 (EST)


thanks for all the corrections ;-) Peterisvalkis 11:34, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Snappyhip; Bacolod Article[edit]

Sorry ^_^ didn't notice it :) There its done now. SnappyHip 23:49, 6 January 2010 (DXB)


Thank you for helping with the patrolling, it would be helpful if you pushed 'mark as patrolled', ClausHansen 08:57, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Yup, Claus beat me to it. Your help is greatly apprciated but marking as patrolled would help the rest of us by avoiding double effort. Cheers. --Burmesedays 09:18, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Yes, I'm still learning. I am marking lots of articles as patrolled but not the ones I decide to edit first. I guess after doing the edit I should go back and mark as patrolled? Shep 10:09, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Yep, either way. You might find it easier to mark as patrolled before you edit though. Took me ages to get the hang of it, so don't worry :) Thanks again. --Burmesedays 10:24, 16 January 2010 (EST)
It's easiest, IMO, to just click the "mark as patrolled" link to open in a new tab, which you can close later, after making your edits in the existing tab. Clicking the link with both the right and left mouse buttons at once will automatically open it in a new tab in the background. --Peter Talk 14:30, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Deletion of Hotel Monteleone[edit]

I am the creator of the Hotel Monteleone posting you deleted today. I am new to WikiTravel and was wondering if you could give me some insight as to why you deleted my contribution and how I could make it better. I would appreciate any assistance you can give me so that I may post our hotels correctly on the website.Tara12 tmq 16:58, 21 January 2010 (EST)


Umm xD the history is kinda wrong, I've checked up on Wikipedia and my version is wrong and yes you're right that they were moved to the shoreline on 1787 due to Moro Raids. Edit it if you wan't to, I don't have any problems. Now, I'm focusing on The Philippines travel guide. Cheers. SnappyHip

PNG islands[edit]

Hi there. You might or might not know that I have put together the Bougainville article (the only place I know from real first hand experience in PNG). After some discussion with Peter and Stefan, this has been done in a slightly non-standard way, but it does seem to work quite well. It is a region but it does not use a region template. All the main destinations are described in the orientation section and not listed as linked cities etc. The reason for that was, I could not see any prospect of creating proper "city" articles, and that the island as a whole (well, 2 islands plus loads of atolls really) would support one reasonable article. I say all that, as it might prove to be some inspiration for other articles such as New Britain. Cheers. --Burmesedays 03:49, 7 May 2010 (EDT)

PNG status[edit]

Please see here for the bar on country usable status. PNG cannot be usable as the 9 linked cities and the ODs are not all usable, and there is not a valid region structure in place. The country article itself looks pretty now I agree but the lower level content is largely poor. Sadly, it has to go back to outline.--Burmesedays 22:17, 23 May 2010 (EDT) Oh well, "usable" as presently described doesn't seem too relevant to countries anyway, as it talks about having good listings, and these are not supposed to be part of country articles. What progress with the map? Shep 01:16, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

I think you are looking at the wrong usable text. Usable country does not mention listings but is very specific about the 9 linked cities and ODs being usable. On the map, it is basically done. But there is nothing approaching concensus as to what the region scheme should be.--Burmesedays 02:15, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

110 countries[edit]

I just read that on your user page. Bloody hell!! I am well jealous :). --Burmesedays 10:59, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Hotel restaurants[edit]

Hopefully you don't mind, but I restored the restaurant names in this listing. We've had trouble in the past with hotel restaurants/bars being double and triple listed, so having the name in the hotel listing makes it easier to verify that the establishment is only listed once. Additionally, as a traveler it's helpful to know if the hotel dining is a Fleming's or a Denny's as knowing the restaurant types on premises often provides some indication of hotel quality. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:53, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Unless I'm mistaken, Fleming's is actually a chain of high-end steakhouses, which is why it caught my eye. I'm probably also biased, since living in LA many good restaurants are located in hotels, so I like to know if (for example) a hotel in Hollywood has a specific restaurant that I might not otherwise have realized was associated with a hotel. That said, I don't feel excessively strongly about this issue, so am more than happy to concede that restaurant names are best left out of descriptions if desired. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:28, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
Actually, I tend to be with you, Ryan. In fact, I'd go farther and say that a restaurant shouldn't be denied a listing simply because it's in a hotel. LtPowers 22:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)


Ha! Truly, I am quite proven wrong in this case. Though it probably should be displayed a little more prominently, they did remember to provide credit to our contributors, and to note that it is licensed CC-by-SA 3.0, so I suppose we don't have any legal basis for complaint. --Peter Talk 17:24, 28 August 2010 (EDT)


Hello! No not really, I'm just busy with school and stuff and I have no time to get on the net because I don't have permanent internet connection for now. But I'll be online soon to post pictures for the Masskara event for the Bacolod article. - SnappyHip

re slovakia[edit]

Thanks, finally got around to doing it, it's a shame there is so little compared to neighbouring countries. I would imagine so, I believe there are several, but I've never lived in Bratislava so it's hard to say for sure. Hope you enjoyed it back then :)

re Marquesas Islands[edit]

I am going to create an article for Hiva Oa in couple of days --Maloff 14:48, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Bloc Québécois[edit]

Ah, perhaps I should've been clearer; the Bloc is not involved in provincial-level politics, it is only a federal-level party, in the same way that the Parti Québécois, the Wild Rose Party or the Saskatchewan Party could be said to not be involved in federal politics because they only run candidates in provincial elections. Obviously, they do have the same political objectives and do in fact often support each other, but there is no formal link between them and the PQ is quite a bit older than the BQ. I'll reword that to make it clearer.

Canada is a federation, a similar system to the set-up in Germany, Australia, and the U.S., and has a distinct separation between province-level and the national-level government. Each province has its own parliament, government, and Premier, and constitutionally has specified areas of jurisdiction the federal government in Ottawa cannot intrude upon [2]. Provincial parties are often affiliated to federal parties, but not always. For instance the BC Liberal party is quite unrelated in terms or ideology or organisation to the federal Liberal Party. --Powderjunkie 23:01, 8 March 2011 (EST)