Talk:Rome Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 19 January 2007 and 25 January 2007.

This article was the Collaboration of the month for March 2009.

Contents

Wow, this article has a ton of info, but it needs serious organizing.

• Does it need so many districts? It might make it more manageable to a traveler if we combined some.

More manageable now perhaps but in a few years when every church in Rome is listed?(WT-en) Shep 13:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

• Move all of the restaurant and sleep listings to the relevant district pages, per the huge city template.

• I'm not familiar with the city, but are all of those hotels relevant? There's a ton there, in addition to moving the good ones to their respective district pages, I'm wondering if several can't be deleted...

• Some listings need phone #'s and addresses to be added, and all of them should be templatized... (WT-en) Cacahuate 08:38, 19 January 2007 (EST)

• Why is there a neighborhood and city area section? Trastevere is in both section. Kind of messy. - i just fixed this, thanks for pointing it out! (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 02:58, 26 January 2007 (EST)

• What purpose the list of districts serves since it is not the list of Rome's actual districts? See e.g. [[1]]. I know this is due to the huge city template, but I find made-up districts confusing.

• Map of the actual districts would be handy. It is hard to find the areas (e.g. Testaccio for partying) if there's not even a written description of it's location. There's an old picture on Italian wikipedia (the link above).

• List of Embassies in Rome [2]

I removed this external link from the article but it's a good site with a lot of info on other embassies that someone might want to add in later... (WT-en) Cacahuate 08:25, 19 January 2007 (EST)

To clarify above statement, I meant someone might add them in individually later... we don't allow external link's like this one... (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 12:37, 21 January 2007 (EST)

I reverted changes to the headers for this article so it fits our big city article template. --(WT-en) Evan 15:27, 2 Jul 2005 (EDT)

The Roman Tour from PanoramicEarth.com has over 100 panoramic images of the sights and attractions around the city. Many of the locations listed under your 'See' section are featured. Would it be reasonable to suggest a link to it within the article?

I hope in the near future to move all the accommodation listings into the correct districts. I've also added an English translation of the Italian Version which includes all the zones of the city. (WT-en) Travelbubble 14:49, 8 Nov 2007 (EDT)

Can we endeavour in future to add / transfer accommodation listings to the relevant District pages for Rome please? This will tidy up the main page somewhat and reduce memory size. The main Rome page can be used to talk about the options in general, best areas to go , etc. (WT-en) Pjamescowie 05:33, 18 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Where does this crazy number comes from? That's not true even for World Heritage Sites, let alone for "monuments" of any kind. Please clarify. - (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 06:48, 22 March 2006 (EST)

56.3876 % of anything interesting is in Mexico. (WT-en) Sapphire 04:11, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

I must agree. The whole idea of a visit to Rome is to escape from people who quote statistics about art.

moved from Main page talk (WT-en) Majnoona 19:15, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

How accommodation in Rome works.

Rome's hotels since the liberalization of the accommodations in Italy are much more and in better shape than they'have been in years; dozens upon dozens of these properties have undergone recently deep renovations.

On the other side the huge quantity of tourism the city has experienced in the last couple of years, finding a good hotel room at any time of the year is harder than ever.

So, before traveling Italy, make the reservations as far ahead as possible.

The hotels in Rome are among the most luxurious in Europe, but, when reviewing the best of the upscale hotels, try always to have a good selection of moderately priced hotels, where you can find confortable, charming lodgings with private bathrooms. Rome has inexpensive choices and can offer more in services and facilities than you might expect from the prices.

Furthermore, the italian government controls the prices of its hotels, designating a minimum and a maximum rate. The difference between the two might depend on the season, the location of the room and even its size.

Government ratings do not depend on sensitivity of decoration or frescoed ceilings, but they are based on facilities, such as elevators and the like. Many of the finest hotels in Rome have a lower rating because they serve only breakfast.

Hotels usually require you to check out on the day of departure between 10 am and noon: later than this, you run the risk of being charged for a further night. As to check-in times, there are no hard and fast rules, but if you are going to arrive late in the dat, it's probably best to mention this when you book a room.

Nearly all hotels in Rome are heated in the cooler months, but not all are airconditioned in summer, which can be vitally important during July and August.

Stefano Sandano is an archaeologist of Rome and expert of his city. You can find out more informations about Rome hotels and sightseeing visiting http://www.romanguide.com

---

I wonder whether this content can be partially or fully used in the article itself. I just found the same text in here [3], and wonder whether it's copyvio or not. According to archive.org, it appeared at 1888 on or before May 08, 2006--but I can't say for sure whether it happened after April 4, 2006 when it appeared here at Wikivoyage. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:39, 2 February 2008 (EST)

I tried to acsess this page, but no luck, I got a user login box. Please provide correct username and password.zzz198

Rome is notoriously awful to navigate. The fact that street names have about 3 shortened variations and street signs are as difficult to find as in London means it may well be worth providing google map links to each mentioned venue, especially where to report theft.

What would really be worthwhile would be for folks to work on the Open Street Map Rome maps, since we could then use that data to create maps for our own travel guides. I've looked far and long for any other existing free content street maps of Rome; they don't exist. --(WT-en) Peter

Discussion moved to Talk:Rome/Districts.

How much a traveler should budget for breakfast, lunch or dinner when staying in Rome?

Ideally I would love if we come to a section similar to London#Pricing: for price like this, expect to get that in most areas. Exception are tourist traps in places like that. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin

I asked the same question at tripadvisor, and received a detailed reply that its author allowed to use at Wikivoyage. Here's what I wrote to her and what I received back per Talk:Copyleft:

On Jan 29, 2008, at 03:12 PM yurkennis wrote:

Hi Nabu.

Do you mind if I use some pieces of your post (http://rome-hotels.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g187791-i22-k1687816-Budgeting_lunch_dinner-Rome_Lazio.html) to contribute to an article on Rome at Wikivoyage, a free online travel guide written and edited entirely by travelers from around the globe?

The current edition of the article I am going to update is here: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Rome#Eat.

Wikivoyage requires that all the content to be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license. Basically this means for you as a person who shared info that:

- it can be distributed further with attribution to you

- your original text will be further edited by other contributors at Wikivoyage

So do you mind if I use pieces of your text at Wikivoyage?

Denis

========

On Jan 31, 2008, at 04:51 PM Nabu wrote:

Hi Denis,

Yes, you can use pieces of my post on eating in Rome.

Best regards,

Gabriella

(Nabu)

Later I will include details from that post into Rome#Eat. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:32, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Done--see Rome#Pricing and Rome/Campo de' Fiori#Cooking yourself. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:42, 2 February 2008 (EST)

> the old Jewish quarter have some of the best trattorie and ristoranti in Rome

Can we give some examples of these? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:18, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

A very famous one is ["Da Giggetto al Portico d'Ottavia"] 84.226.85.189 20:02, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

If this is the only one, then we should probably just list it in Eat section, but not give such a general characteristic to the whole quarter? Or there many other examples--what are them? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:53, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

Do we really need all (or any) limousine services here at Wikivoyage? Do we believe that limousine rental customers will/should ever read Wikivoyage? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin

why is this article outline? it deserves a useable! keep smiling ,(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:02, 3 November 2008 (EST).

Just upgraded it to Guide. I reckon there's not much missing on this main page, although some of the District articles are still weak. (WT-en) Shep 12:15, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

the main page is pretty good but it cannot be a guide until every district article is at least usable. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:19, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Has the districts been agreed? If so we need to do something about this mess - the current state is a disgrace for one of the biggest tourist destinations in the world. Apparently Rome was unwatched for too long, and the sleep section got completely out of control - I went baserk some weeks ago, in an attempts to clean up a bit of the mess, but I really think we should take more drastic measures - I suggest erasing (all out nuclear war) all sleep listings on the Front page and in Modern Center (I moved a bunch of listings here, and realized that using the listings' own place descriptions aren't really anything to go for in Rome)

I think Rome is large enough a destination that it will relatively quickly rebuild, and this way we can make sure that it rebuilds properly in the districts, and not on the front page. It may be a bit drastic, but as it stands now, it's pretty much just a poor version of the yellow pages, which is not really what we want - it degrades the quality of the article over all. (WT-en) Sertmann 22:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure we have the districts quite nailed down—I was pretty excited to have a Roman professor of urban planning to help out, but it seems our Roman friends might have lost interest before we even got started. No reason why we can't just plunge forward and then reorganize if necessary in the future. I'm amenable to simply demolishing and starting anew, although I'd recommend keeping any complete (i.e., having non-touting hotel descriptions) sleep listings. I'd be more careful with the eat listings though, since avoiding tourist trap eateries in Rome can be a little difficult, and I think there are some good (if terribly mis-organized) recommendations here. Anyway, it might be wise to pause and see if anyone else has an opinion on this, since the proposal is a bit drastic and unusual. We'll see if anyone else is watching this page ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:07, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I've never been to Rome, and I don't know much about it except that Collosseum is located there, but if some listings are to be deleted, I agree with Peter that listings having non-touting descriptions should stay. Best of all would be moving all listings into district articles without deleting anything though. But it will be very hard, as the 'sleep' in particular is really a huge mess.--(WT-en) Vidimian 07:08, 21 November 2008 (EST)

This is a terrible mess, and I'm leaning further and further towards deletion. I think in the process we'd gain a good deal more than we'd lose. I'll start by removing the ones that lack descriptions; more discussion would be good though. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:15, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Re this piece:

Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna (the National Gallery of Modern Art) An underrated way to see fantastic art made after the Renaissance. Though with the exception of Modigliani and Pollock, few of their works were produced by artists that Americans are familiar with, these modern Italian artists are well worth getting familiar with.

I believe it was discussed earlier that Wikivoyage should not be western-centric (and definitely should not be Americans-centric)--although I can't easily link to appropriate policy page (is there?). For now, I replaced "Americans" with "an average traveller"; please welcome to improve it further. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:07, 14 February 2009 (EST)

We hardly need any more spamming targets in Rome, so I propose we delete the lot. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 13:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Definitely agree: Talk:Rome#limousine services. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Hotels often call limousines instead of taxis, esp. to the airports. People need to know that is a possibility and to be able to compare prices.(WT-en) Shep 13:24, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I was just looking over the Rome page, and saw that you moved the Colosseum, the Forum, and the Pantheon to the district articles. While I agree that a large, detailed listing like that should go into the district article and that there does seem to be a few too many See listings on the main Rome page, shouldn't we leave just a short listing for those main attractions on the main page? A lot of people will at least want to see which district article they're located in. Per example, I'm thinking of the San Francisco#Landmarks section. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 14:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I was thinking more in the lines of an overview like the one I did in Copenhagen or Peter and Marc did in Chicago, mainly because Rome gets a lot of useless listings, and I thought unlistifying things would improve things a bit, but I have no strong feelings on the matter either. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 14:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, nice! Well after seeing the examples you sent me, I have no hard feelings on the matter either. Just checking. :) (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 15:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

So does someone else want to chip in on this? otherwise I think we should go ahead and empty all the listings from the see section, AND remember to do a write up at months end - with all neglect Rome have suffered, I think it can cope with a see section is disarray for the remainder of the month.

I'm thinking we could break up it up into Ancient Rome, Religious something, Museums and Other attractions --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 15:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

How about we throw Architecture in there, for the historical buildings section? So it would go Ancient Rome, Religious (maybe we should just call it Catholicism, since that's what we're really talking about), Museums, Architecture, and Other attractions. Public squares, if we're even going to keep them under the main article, can go under Other. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 16:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I wonder if we can create a price-for-typical-accommodation--depending-on-month table, to give an idea of how much accommodation can cost, and what can be the best option for a given budget.

However, I only know from my experience that in March, decent apartments range €100-150, and any hotels are quite higher. Anyone have more data? Or--can we start with a nearly-blank table, and expect it to be completed months (or even years) from now? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't really know, but at least you could try, with the number of hotel owners roaming around our Rome guide, we might get lucky one of them actually want to contribute something, not that I would hold by breath :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 10:29, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

I've added my first draft to Rome#Sleep. It's absolutely far from perfection, both in categories to be used and in the amount of price data. Open for criticism and (ideally) contribution ;-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:27, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

This collaboration seems to have been a pretty big success. Can we congratulate ourselves by promoting this article to usable? (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 12:08, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I don't know, I think we need to do that writeup of the see section first - if it doesn't get done, I'll eventually do it, but I'm pretty busy trying to get all the disticts in Copenhagen done right. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 12:16, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Now there is a separate section for Ostia can I delete refs to Ostia from the Rome south section? (WT-en) Shep 13:27, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Difficult to think of what to include in here. A trip to Stadio Olimpico? The Borghese Gardens? Most things are covered elsewhere. Can we delete the section?(WT-en) Shep

I can't think of anything else that couldn't be categorized. (A section on Roman villas might be interesting, although I certainly don't know enough to write one.) I've deleted it, at least until someone inserts something that doesn't fit elsewhere. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:09, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Surely this is now ready for an upgrade?

Also, does the Celimontine Hill fit here? A bit difficult to tell from the map on the Rome page. Ciao tutti.(WT-en) Shep 16:06, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Colosseo still doesn't have any "get in" information, which keeps it at outline status. Celimontine Hill is in Aventino-Testaccio, and you can see this by looking at the talk page map fully zoomed [4]. Should this be changed? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:49, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Looks like the Celimontine is actually cut in two, part in the Aventine and part under Colosseo. There are a few interesting places in the area. I'll divide them up.

Strange that you require a "Get In" section for an area of a city. What do you want to say in that section? Rome tells you how to get in to Rome. Isn't that enough?(WT-en) Shep 02:57, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Basically, I think, district get in info is "get around" info from the main article distilled to just the information relevant to that district. Reading that, I'm not sure if that made sense, so here is a decent example of what a district guide should have. For Colosseo, I'm guessing that it would be useful to designate the main roads (for walking as well as driving purposes) and any notable bus routes? I don't know, though, I was content to walk anywhere, regardless of the distance, through that beautiful city. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 03:10, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Voila!(WT-en) Shep 07:41, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

would anyone have any raving objections to removing the "Tours" section - it's a spamming target. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 10:04, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

I gave my info under tours with a little description and have sadly seen it as well as other peoples info deleted and spamed leaving only one item in this section.I dont want to keep posting my info or become petty and start removing others' any advice on how to proceed

well, we do have an office and are a legitimate company. please look to our paypal bussiness info on our website as well as the better bussiness bureau. **** is a small company, consisting of 4 guides. To see if you think we are Spam, please read reviews about us on Tripadvisor.com We are registered in the US and have thus dont find it needed to provide an address here as our business. We are not a third party operator, if you look to our site you see we only provide 3 tours!!

Ask yourself whether you are here to improve Wikivoyage, or to advertise your website.

And yes, lets just remove it, seeing as we only have one legitimate tour listing after a long time. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 10:50, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

I've given up hope on the tours section ever being useful (and it's certainly a pain to keep clean), so I removed it as of 14:22, 16 July 2009. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:24, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

The "with kids" information should not be in get out—it would probably best fit under "do." It would crowd that section in its present state, though. I'd suggest either condensing it and then moving it to do, or consider expanding it and moving it to a separate Rome with children travel topic, akin to several others in that series (Paris with children, New York City with children, etc.). --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:25, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

So we are ready to admit that we can't resist against amount of spammers and touts? Maybe it's a valid precedent for revising policies in Project:Accommodation listings? Maybe "additions by non-contributing-otherwise users are marked as risky"? ;-))) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:45, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't know if we're quite there yet, but that sort of policy might ultimately make sense for some of these Italian articles... I'd say 95% of the hotel & apt rental listings in the Rome guide were added by business owners, and as a general rule I don't trust them at all—this is clearly to the detriment of the guide. On the upside, I think it's pretty easy to spot which were written by actual travelers. Here's a good example: guess which one is the only real review. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:21, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Yes and No! :) The situation with the Rome guide is extraordinary as far as I'm aware, at least the American hotel touts are spread out over the whole country. I'm not giving up, this was just another weapon in the arsenal, and I fair warning I think. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 18:27, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Maybe we'd better remove the whole Apartments section for Rome, until the time we will have enough contributors to disagree with any given just-added apartment agency? Or at least until we have enough "valid" experiences from real travelers--enough to fill the section with 9 listings, so that any new addition leads to a discussion how is it better than another 9? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:51, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I think we better not, I send an email to all those agencies asking them to improve their listing with the following info, or get removed at the end of the week.

• Price Range - In approximate terms, what is your cheapest rate for one night, and what is the most expensive for * both low-and high season. If you only have weekly rates, use a calculator.
• Number of properties - how many apartments/properties do you (roughly) have available.
• Office hours - When are your office open for visitors (if it's not, you shouldn't be on the list in the first place).
• Linen and/or cleaning service - are none, either or both standard on your rentals, how often?

Would be sorta hypocritical to delete them now, if they comply --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 07:31, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

Excellent idea! Let's see where it will bring us. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:49, 30 September 2009 (EDT)

I decided to move further afield than my home of Rome/South but now run into problems in the north. I wanted to do something on Rome's mosque (Viale della Moschea). Looking at the map at Rome this is definitely in Rome/North Center but the text states that Villa Torlonia is in Rome/North when it is actually much closer to the center than is the mosque. As there isn't much in Rome/North I would recommend cutting Rome/North Center into two and moving a large chunk into Rome/North.(WT-en) Shep 12:40, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Hmm, I'm a little confused. The mosque isn't at all near Villa Torlonia [5]—it's adjacent to Villa Ada [6]. Villa Torlonia actually falls just south of Via Nomentana, placing it in Rome/Nomentano [7].

Perhaps I was a bit drunk when I wrote the message! Anyway, right now the Rome page states:

North — the vast suburban neighborhoods to the north of the center, notable for the Villas Albani and Torlonia and the Catacombs of St Agnese (Municipi 4, 15-20)

So I hope you can understand my confusion. We need to change that info at least. (WT-en) Shep 02:05, 14 November 2009 (EST)

As for splitting off a chunk of Rome/North Center, I'm a little hesitant, since the river is such a clear, natural boundary. Rome/North is a little bare, but that's fairly natural as it is such a huge "leftover" chunk of the city. It's so big, though, that I'm fairly confident that we could find enough listings for all the sections other than "see." Chicago/Far Northwest Side is relatively analogous, in that it's mostly suburban, very big, and not a part of the city that sees a lot of tourists. It takes either good local knowledge or good research to fill out that sort of article (fortunately, (WT-en) Marc provided both for that one), but it's not impossible.

That was a rambling response—I hope I've said at least something useful ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:38, 13 November 2009 (EST)

I appreciate the problem, but the Spanish Steps are right in the middle of Rome and North/Center goes all the way out to the river, so in time perhaps we can do something(WT-en) Shep 02:05, 14 November 2009 (EST)

Not sure when this section got added. Seemingly done by a film-loving hotel owner. Any suggestions about what to do with it?(WT-en) Shep 11:27, 15 November 2009 (EST)

I know this needs improving but not being a Catholic I don't feel very competent...But there is a very good wiki site on Romes churches at [8]. Could we link to this for those with specialist interest in the churches? (WT-en) Shep 11:24, 23 November 2009 (EST)

That would violate Project:External links, and in this case I think that's for pretty good reason. We aim to have a self-contained, printable guide, and I think we'll need to have that kind of information here to meet that goal. On the upside, once/if we upgrade our license to CC-by-SA 3.0, it will be easy to use and adapt content from wikia to ours. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:45, 23 November 2009 (EST)

Seems to me a bit crazy to have Rome/North extending south of the Vatican (and south of due west!). I suggest renaming Trastevere as Trastevere and Monteverde, which would be a rough approximation for the area to the edge of the map. (WT-en) Shep 13:18, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Hmm, right now the Rome/North boundaries are nice and clear: Municipi 4,15–20. Are you suggesting we move a few of them to Rome/South? If so, which? Where would you put the boundaries for an enlarged Trastevere & Monteverde article? It looks like maybe Via Gregorio VII, Via Leone XIII, and Circonvallazione Gianicolense would be appropriate? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:01, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Well, to be honest I don't think the Municipi mean very much to your average visitor. Your suggestion of boundaries and the deletion of the word North from that part of the map would be fine. We could even continue to call it just Trastevere to avoid having to replace lots of links, as the only thing on the page that does not fall into the existing Trastevere on the map is, I think, Villa Pamphili. Cheers (WT-en) Shep 14:36, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

What's the deal with the Trip Advisor user attribution tag on this article? I have never seen that before.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:57, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

Apparently it is something that User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin created two years ago, which has been utilized in only 3 articles. I've always been under the impression that this kind of attribution belongs on the talk page, so I'm moving it here. Incidentally, I feel the same way about the new Wikipedia attribution tag as well.

This article may contain pieces contributed by people external to Wikivoyage, namely: TripAdvisor user "Gabriella (Nabu)"

(WT-en) Texugo 23:45, 21 March 2010 (EDT)

I could never understand why it was there. Fully support your action. (WT-en) Shep 07:31, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Texugo, on the Wikipedia attribution tag, please do bring that up in the pub. I am sure I have been the biggest user by far of that tag (I have used a fair bit of Wikipedia African content for history, climate etc). If it can go on the talk page, all the better I think.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 08:05, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Done. Here. (WT-en) Texugo 11:07, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

I think ideally it should resolved in a consistent way with Project:Travellers' pub#Wikipedia attribution,when some solution will be reached there. Or am I missing something? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

I just compared the Rome and the Berlin map, and I the first is really limited because shows only the center of the city. It would be better make two different maps, one with the whole city and a zoom with the actual map, IHMO. The East part of the city is completely ignored, that's not so good and needs some work. --92.225.49.14 06:48, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

It would indeed be nice to have an overview map. Please see Project:How to draw a map and Project:How to create a map for instructions for getting started on making one! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 10:54, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Hallo all,

I corrected the definition of Centro Storico given in the article, since it is obviously wrong. The Centro Storico is the part of Rome enclosed in the ancient Walls (or in the wall circuit, where they have been demolished), and coincides roughly with the Municipio I. Cheers, (WT-en) Alex2006 07:17, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

I believe that there are varying definitions. Take a look at [[9]] where Municipio 1 is called the Centro Storico but this is broken down into Municipio 1a 1b etc. Here 1a is also described as Centro Storico. This area more accords with common usage in Rome where Centro Storico extends from Piazza Venezia to Piazza del Popolo and from the river to approx Piazza di Spagna. (WT-en) Shep 11:33, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Hallo Shep, thanks for your answer. No, I think that there is only one definition, and then a lot of mess around it.

First, please read the introduction of the article that you give as example:

"Municipio I, già "Circoscrizione I", è la denominazione della prima suddivisione amministrativa del comune di Roma, che comprende il centro storico nel perimetro delle Mura Aureliane." That's it!

Almost the same definition of Centro Storico (they correctly expanded later the western limit to the Walls of Urbanus VIII since, as you know, the Aurelian Walls in Trastevere almost disappeared) is given by the UNESCO, when Rome's Centro Storico was declared a World Heritage Site. [[10]]

For each Roman whom I know, (included myself :-)) the Centro Storico is defined as above, and the same definition is used in everyday's life (see for example [[11]]. What you call the Centro is the noble part of it (where most of the tourists go), but Monti, S. Giovanni or the Aventino are part of Centro like the Spanish Steps or Piazza Navona (if you don't believe me, goes to my cousin who lives in Via di S. Melania, tell him that he does not live in the centro storico, and observe his reaction :-)) . The real definition is reported again in the article which you mentioned a couple of lines below: [[12]]and is the standard definition of italian city planners (please see [[13]]). The zona urbanistica is a pure technical subdivision which has been created by the "Assessorato all'Urbanistica" only for planning purposes. If you tell me now that this definition is a nice example of recursion, :-) I agree with you, but it is also wrong.

The real problem here is that if we use the wrong definition each tourist can get in trouble. For example, if a tourist which sleeps in an hotel in Trastevere reads this definition on the article and then reads the article of "il Messaggero" which I put as example, concludes (wrongly) that he/she has no right to pay a ride to Fiumicino airport 40 € (45 € since next October) and pays 60 €.

Anyway, since I am not omniscient, and on wikipedia.it there is group of Rome lovers which are very strong about the subject, I will ask their definitive opinion and let you know. Cordiali saluti, (WT-en) Alex2006 07:19, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

I think the taxi rules and common usage are two different issues. But no doubt what we can agree on is that the map showing the Servian wall and hills needs to be redone to show the Aurelian Wall and needs to go in the GET IN section, so people don't get ripped off by taxis? Are any of Wikivoyage's map experts reading this? Ciao, (WT-en) Shep 10:19, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Hallo, I got the answer by our Fellows of wikipedia:it. Centro Storico is an official definition (Zona A del PRG of 1962) and coincides with the city inside the Aurelian Walls, which is subjected to total protection. With the new PRG (2001-3) the protected zone has been extended to other valuable areas (Mazzini, EUR, etc.) and it is called the città storica.

About my example, this are not taxi rules, but is an official agreement between the Comune di Roma (Campidoglio) and the Taxi associations, and shows what the official usage is. Common usage about the Romans which I know is the same, but of course this is only the POV of a 53 years old Roman... I am eager to know what happens if I go to the article about Los Angeles (where I lived a couple of years) and try to change the definition of Downtown L.A. :-) Ciao a tutti/e, (WT-en) Alex2006 08:43, 5 September 2010 (EDT)

Should we nuke them all together, or anyone can give more rationale why they are best bet or reliable? [14]

Airport Connection ([15]) Phone 063383221 is probably the most reliable company in Rome. They charge 35 Euros for 1 passenger and 39 Euros for 2 passengers.

The airport shuttle ([16]) charge EUR 25.00 per passenger and are pretty reliable. Phone 0642013469 or 064740451.

Best price in Rome is with Rome Airport Shuttle ([17]) Phone 06 83398652. They charge 15 Euros per passenger and are also reliable.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:54, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Per our image policy of "no more images than necessary", isn't 26 images a little much? It's so many that several of them have been left-aligned to prevent the layout getting all weird, something which is mostly discouraged around here... I suggest getting rid of at least enough of them to get everything right-aligned. Maybe some of them can be moved to district articles (though they already have quite a few as well).(WT-en) texugo 09:07, 2 March 2011 (EST)

I think the SPQR one could be removed. Doesn't really add anything. Also, the Vatican staircase appears in the Vatican article. (WT-en) Shep 01:20, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

And there are two images of Santa Maria in Trastevere, both duplicated in the Trastevere article.(WT-en) Shep 13:29, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

I have deleted this for the following reasons:

• It is a simple listing of places in Rome that provides no information additional to what is already presented;
• It is a confusing, unpunctuated list
• On my screen it resulted in a great big blank space to its left.

It is not at all clear to me why such an infobox is required. Surely if people are interested in seeing Rome they can at least read the full text, which is not very long, and don't need the city to be reduced to soundbites in this way. (WT-en) Shep 01:13, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

There's a Mormon temple being constructed in Rome; for more info, have a look at these links: [18], [19], and a few others. --(WT-en) CurvyEthyl 02:50, 28 December 2011 (EST)

There's a little mistake: The train leaves from platform 24 and not 25. reference: [20]

Omer.

I have added general informations about the availability of minicabs (or limousines) in the "Get In" section. I could provide a link to book such a service online, but I am unsure if this would be ok according to the external link policy because the site I'd link actually is not a local operator. On the other hand it is quite usual to book such services through agencies. The prices are lower than a white taxi even for small cars in Fiumicino so I guess some readers might be interested. Could anybody share their opinion with me?

I am the owner of the site I'd link and do not want to be considered spam - I'll wait for some feedback.

What a great attitude! Thank you. Where is the site operated from? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The site is operated from Germany, but all Italian destinations are handled from staff in Rome. EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd say post the link here on this talk page, and give people up to a couple of weeks to check it out and try to come to a consensus. I'll try to solicit some comments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your feedback! The link I'd like to post is https://easyprivatetaxi.com/book/italy/rome/180/294 for Fiumicino and https://easyprivatetaxi.com/book/italy/rome/297/294 for Ciampino. I could post the link to the homepage but I think these two would be more relevant to the article's content. Alternatively there is https://easyprivatetaxi.com/book/italy/rome/15 which is the starting page for Rome. EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any feedback on that? Should I post those links? EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very disappointingly, no-one has had anything to say; I'm really not sure why. One thing that might influence my attitude would be to know where you'd plan to post listings - only in Rome or in other city guides, and if so, which ones? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't go and put links on every single destination we serve. For example and I see the travel guide for Barcelona already provides very good information about taxis and even a way to book online so my links would be redundant. On the other hand the city guide for Santorini would benefit from my links - there is little info about taxis there and groups of > 4 people would save quite some money and hassle by booking a van/bus before arrival (local taxis are usually sedan cars for 3-4 people). I'd prefer of course to start a discussion for every city where I see the guide is lacking information about this or similar kind of services. EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since it is a booking service rather than an operator of mini-cabs then the link will likely get removed in the future when someone goes through this article checking for invalid links (in accordance with Wikivoyage:External links). Thus far no one has come up with a acceptable proposal to change the external links policy that would allow inclusion of non-primary links, even for businesses that list here in good faith, so I don't see a way to add this business such that it won't be removed in the future. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I partially agree with your remark. The site does not strictly fit the external links policy, but on the other hand minicabs work with such agencies a lot - many of them rely exclusively on such agencies and maybe a few recurring client. Many of them have their own site, but that is not the majority and almost none of them has a way to book online other than sending an email or by phone. Long story short, I feel that for such kind of services, that really need to be booked in advances, sites like mine are very close to being "primary links". I must give however, that strictly it would be an exception, that's why I prefer to discuss it here with you all, I am not going to engage revert-wars and do not want to be considered an "intruder". I am myself an avid reader of Wikivoyage and Wikipedia and the last I'd want is to spam on them. However, I am not going to put links until we reach consensus. Should I consider your comment as a negative "vote"? EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a refreshingly traveller-centric approach.

If we allowed your site as an exception, approximately how many competing sites do you think we'd need to consider too? (You see our difficulty in potentially modifying our rather strict xl policy?)

PS: Kudos for your site, it's got a clean look and good navigation and somebody has thought carefully about the user interface -- Alice^✉ 13:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback! Indeed we (me and my husband) put a lot of effort in the site (and want to offer a professional service. I appreciate the comment about the user interface because I designed and realized it personally! Coming to your question, there are actually many sites offering this kind of service. Many of them are quite shady (no company info, private whois etc) but there are very serious companies as well (holidaytaxis.com come to mind). Then there are the minicab driver as well but they almost all lack a booking service. That's because they rely on agencies like our a lot, making services like our almost "primary links". I guess it would be a little like hotels, where a few of them are listed for everybody's convenience - but allowing every single hotel to list itself would turn the travel guide into a directory, and nobody wants that. EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ryan (User:Wrh2) has made a very sage comment above (and there is nobody with a better pedigree to give that advice).

However, he's omitted to mention that we have an over-riding goal here of the Traveller should come first which should trump any pettifogging gamesmanship using "policies". Often this is forgotten in the "Wikigame" played by some of abusing the revert or "undo" button rather than actually editing and improving text that has manifest MoS style defects. Not only does that sort of nit-picking vandalism directly deprive travellers of valuable information it also tends to drive away good potential contributors such as yourself.

Let's consider a hypothetical, made up case:- There is an Asian city whose inhabitants are not renowned for their polyglot talents but are famous for poor hygiene and antibiotic resistant, life threatening diseases. Hospital services are privatised and numerous but with a baffling system of avaricious "gatekeeper" bureaucrats that have to be bribed and cajoled before foreigner treatment is allowed. None of the "primary sources" have websites in any major language script (never mind Arabic, English, French, Hindi, Mandarin, Russian, Spanish or any other "world language"). Along come two slick new websites (with interfaces in a variety of "world languages") that take plastic and offer an international Freephone number with 24 hour service and a "moneyback" guarantee that are also endorsed by the consular assistance departments of several governments and major travel health insurers as effective and reliable. We'd keep these two websites a secret and excluded from Wikivoyage's pages because of xl; would we? I'd hope not. -- Alice^✉ 18:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Poking in my head. We definitely allow exceptions to the external links rule if there is a talk page consensus to make the exception. But Ryan is right that it might wind up removed anyway by someone doing general tidying up. One way around this would be to link an official government site that has lists such services, like the government link at Washington, D.C.#By taxi. That only works if there is a site like that in Rome, though. --Peter ^Talk 18:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alice makes a good point. The traveller's interests do come first on this site. But the simpler solution would be if there is a government site such as Peter refers to. Also, do we agree that it is clearly in the interest of the traveller to have a link to Easy Private Taxi?Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I cannot answer the question about the usefulness of the link to my site (of course I would say yes, it is, and I tried to motivate it as well) but looking for a government site I couldn't find anything. The keywords here would be "noleggio con conducente" (often abbreviated NCC) - that's how minicabs are called in Italy. There are of course many sites about those, but the closest thing to a government site I could find are about the license requirements, which doesn't help travelers however. EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, let's see whether we can establish a "yea or nay" consensus on allowing an exception to our usual external links policies in this case. I'm kind of agnostic on this question. Ryan, are you a "nay" vote? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

When looking at an exemption, it's kind of hard to judge when you don't know anything about the service! I did just add Über to D.C. [21], which is possibly a similar service, but one that doesn't have direct competition, and one that absolutely should be in the guide (great recommendation for travelers, who are universally put off by the cash only taxis that don't show up when called). --Peter ^Talk 22:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree about it being hard to judge. I'm not familiar with the service, either, although I'd be fine with listing it if others agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can answer any question about the service you might have of course. In Rome for example prices of minicabs are lower than a taxi (for groups of > 4 are way lower and we go up to 16-seater minibuses) and we offer cash payment, credit card prepayment or credit card in the vehicle. EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What would an average fare from Fiumicino to, say, Stazione Termini (or pick any other place in Rome that's a useful basis for comparison) be on one of your minicabs, by comparison with a taxi? I think lower fares establish a basis, in the interest of travellers, to help justify an exception from our external links policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fiumicino to any address in Rome central area (includes Termini, or any hotel) is 45 Euro for a Mercedes E Class, 55 Euro for a Minivan up to 6 people, 65 for a Minibus up to 8 people, 145 Euro for a Minibus up to 11 people, 165 for a Minibus up to 14 people, 175 for a Minibus up to 16 people. A taxi has a fixed fare of 48 Euro which accommodates 3-4 persons (meaning for 6 person you need two of them and so on). EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I think that's a pretty strong argument for allowing a listing of your service. I hope some other folks comment, though, because as this would be at variance with usual Wikivoyage policies, a strong consensus may be needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

For me, I think it needs to be a little more clear what kind of exception we are trying to decide on here. Is it an exception for just this company? any such company? just this article? any article in Italy/Europe that has these things? Texugo (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

My take on it is that I think it's a case-by-case judgment, and that a similar savings over the standard taxi fare would have to be established for any similar listing to be approved in this guide. I'm also OK with this being listed in different city guides if that's clearly beneficial to the traveller - I think that has to remain our main criterion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

We still did not reach a consensus, but I see mostly positive feedback. I will put the link tomorrow if most agree to it. EasyPrivateTaxi (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for being so patient.

I don't see any objection to an exception for not more than 5 such companies being listed on our Rome article. -- Alice^✉ 21:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Metro map used in this article is wrong. Line C is still under construction (the first section, between "Monte Compatri/Pantano" and "Lodi" is scheduled to open in October 2014); line D has been scrapped due to budgetary constraints and line B's northern terminals are (as of November 2013) "Conca d'Oro" and "Rebibbia"; "Jonio" is scheduled to open in September 2014. The extensions to Casal Monastero and Bufalotta are still in their planning stages.

As for tram #8, the terminus at Largo Argentina has been dismantled - this tram line now stops at piazza Venezia. Hope it helped ;-)

94.37.156.167 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is the Metro map still wrong? If so, it would be better to remove it than keep it up, but of course best to replace it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

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) 04:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I support a change. Excellent view of the Forum et al. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll go for the suggested banner. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The new banner is cooler, let's go for it. Ibaman (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Keep. #1 has a better composition. Danapit (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am sure a better banner would be possible... neutral Syced (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not very attached to the current banner, but I think it's at least a better composition than the proposed banner, which is too glary and cluttered for my liking. Surely a better image can be found? PerryPlanet (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Added some more alternatives. I find the current picture one of the most boring ones, that I have ever seen on Wikivoyage.--Renek78 (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Added another Forum Romanum banner. /Yvwv (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I still like the first Forum banner best. 2nd choice for the Fontana di Trevi. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

These are some great banners. My favorites are the two of the forum and the one of the Fontana di Trevi. All three show the mix of eras that a visitor to Rome will see. But I think any of the five proposals would probably be an improvement on the current banner. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Made another suggestion, currently in place for the extra-hierarchic article of Latin Europe. Currently, the Vatican City seems to be the only country in the world without an exterior banner in the geographic hierarchy (Rome/Vatican features a painting in the Sistine Chapel); and might therefore be representative to Rome. /Yvwv (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why is the banner that's showing none of these? I guess some other language version changed the banner on Wikidata? It looked like there was a preference for the first Forum banner, so can we please have that show on the page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

It says for the Terravision bus service from Ciampino airport: "Please note that this is a dedicated airport-city transfer only for the major low cost airlines." Is this still the case? I couldn't find any restrictions on their webpage. 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Ikan Kekek:. I don't particularly care one way or the other (although Wikivoyage:Spelling says US spelling is preferred - but yes, the rest of the article is in UK, so it probably doesn't make sense). But spelling in the map doesn't match - if you know someone who could fix it... -- andree.sk(talk) 14:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

That isn't what Wikivoyage:Spelling says. It says "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling." Since the EU has adopted UK spelling as its standard, we use UK spelling in EU articles. See the infobox at the top of Talk:Italy. Ground Zero (talk)

And did you notice that I moved the Rome/North Center article to Rome/North Centre? That's the right way to deal with this kind of inconsistency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

For me it's OK either way, even though I prefer US and rarely encounter UK spelling in europe... But OK, this is really minor, the current solution is fine (sans the map), I'll keep it in mind in future. Cheers, -- andree.sk(talk) 20:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

We could use "Centro", instead... Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can make out "North" is defined as anywhere west of the Tiber plus Municipio 3. Thus there are areas defined as North that are clearly south of the historical centre of Rome, in some cases by a significant distance. My proposal is to remove references to the Municipii (they have no meaning for the average tourist) and just let editors and readers follow common sense. Also please delete the "North" that appears on the map close to Trastevere. Roundtheworld (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just eyeballing the map of Rome's outskirts, it would appear that "North" and "South" are really northwest and southeast. Would it make sense to just change the names of the districts? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see 2 (+1) options:

1. Northwest (Municipi III, XI-XV) and Southeast (Municipi IV-IX), by Ikan Kekek
2. West (Municipi XI-XV) and East (Municipi III-IX), by FredTC
3. North (Municipi III, XIV, XV), East (Municipi IV-VII), and South (Municipi VIII, IX, XI-XIII), by Sannita

Moving M. III from one to the other district, as in option 2, does not need many textuel addaptions. Both options require a different version of the static map. --FredTC (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Which option is better and why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see a "better", but more something like "also possible". I think that having every Municipio West of the river make up a district called "West" could be easy to understand. And because it is not a lot of work to implement it, it could be considdred as an alternative for "rename only". --FredTC (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, why is changing the names without changing the map otherwise not a viable option? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The map has the words "North" and "South", which are the district names mentioned at Outskirts. So, if we rename the names at Outskirts, we also should rename them on the map. --FredTC (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, clearly. But what's the advantage in making any other changes in addition to changing the names from North and South to Northwest and Southeast in the districts list and on the map? I don't have an opinion on this and I'm not challenging your opinion; I just want to know as clearly as possible what it is. Stating it clearly will also help convince other users who haven't yet found this thread (you might want to post a link and short description to Requests for comment and the Travellers' pub). Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I thought I explained it with the first part of my reply, but I guess I have a language problem. English is not my native language. --FredTC (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see a reply above in which you're saying it would be easier to understand; is that it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, easier to understand. Specially when you are there, and you cross the river, you know you go from East to West (or the opposite) when the Outskirts would be West and East. When the Outskirts are Northwest and Southeast, going from M. III (Northwest) to M. IV (Southeast), would not be that easily noticed. --FredTC (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It makes intuitive sense to make the Tiber the dividing line. I'll post to Requests for comment and see if we can get consensus behind a change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, sorry to burst in, a friend noticed me of this discussion. I live in Rome, and it's frankly difficult even for the Romans to define North and South here. :)

So, hopefully I won't be complicating things, but... in 20 years I lived here, I never heard of a Roma Ovest ("West Rome", which would have been what now is the separate municipality of Fiumicino), while Roma Est ("East Rome") is far more established as a definition.

Maybe, the partition could be between North (Municipi 3, 14, and 15), East (Municipi 4, 5, 6, and 7), and South (Municipi 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13), keeping Ostia as a fourth outskirt. Sannita (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please don't apologize; it's great to get the input of someone who's living in Rome! FredTC, does Sannita's suggestion make sense to you? Sannita, about how many listings (see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep) in all would you expect there to be in each of your proposed district articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

In Ostia, I expect a lot of them! Municipio 10 actually encompasses other minor areas of Rome, even if the only interesting parts would be the archaeological area of Ancient Ostia, and today's Ostia.

For Rome East, I'd say the catacombs and few things more, maybe the murals in some of the popular areas. Rome South has the EUR quarter, Gianicolense, the outskirts of Trastevere... I actually remember that in Via Poerio 122 (which is in Municipio 12), there is a villa that was home to Maurits Cornelis Escher and his family from 1923 to 1935, that still shows a pavement that was realised by Escher himself.

Rome North is to me a bit of a puzzle... maybe the only thing I might suggest is to go to the exclave of Martignano and enjoy the lake. :) Sannita (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added Sannita to my initial list of 2 options. I think it is a correct way of making a division of the areas in the Roman Outskirts. Changing the present situation to the North, East, South situation requires quite a lot more actions than the first 2 options:

• adding the West East article,
• redistributing the listings that are now in the North and South articles,
• checking and adapting info in the "What links here" (left margin) articles for the North and South articles.

--FredTC (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have one question: Will there be enough content in Rome North to support an article? It's completely fine if the only really interesting "See" (or probably "Do") is to enjoy the lake, but will there be eateries, hotels and perhaps stores to include? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the static map and at the definition of Northwest/West/North, I see someting missing. There is a small part of Municipio I that is also part of it. The Rome/North article shows this, having a number of hotels and restaurants in a gray area. I can't find a wikidata entry (Qxxxxx) that produces the correct mapshape. --FredTC (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The solution may be for someone with map-making skills to create a static map for the districts in question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I added a map to this discussion, created and uploaded by Sannita that has the areas (17B and 17C) that are not part of any district description (not in Central Rome and not in Outskirts). However, the static map in the Rome artice shows the areas as part of North. Because they are part of Municipio I, I think they shoud be part of the Central Rome districts. How? A new district? Expanding an existing district? After making a decision about this, a new static map can be created. --FredTC (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

17B and 17C are part of Municipio I, from an administrative point of view, but are Rome North from a geographical point of view IMHO. Sannita (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

At this point, I'd like to make it clear that I will support any consensus, providing that there will be enough listings in each district article. I've been to Rome several times but haven't spent much time on the outskirts, so I'll gladly defer to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Using the existing listings of the South article, the East article of option 3 would have 3x see, 2x eat and 2x sleep. Looking at it:Roma est, more listings could easy be added. --FredTC (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

See Talk:Rome#Redefine North and South. If you're at all familiar with Rome, look at the proposal and see what you think. We've discussed different ideas, but the most intuitively logical one would seem to be to make the Tiber the dividing line for the districts in the outskirts of Rome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rome, one of the world's most famous travel destinations would make a nice DotM.

The article itself looks quite good. All but one district article have all four things required for usable status (Rome/North needs some info for getting in but that's easily fixed by having a look at the public transport operator's website and writing a couple of paragraphs).

Then there's a discussion going on about defining what's north and what's south (see the thread above). It's something that needs to be resolved, and then maybe some listings need to be shuffled around.

So I'd say the article isn't that far away from guide status making it eligible for a DotM nomination. What do you think? Ypsilon (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An anonymous editor just added that "Pickpocketing on the Metro is rife in the form of gangs of young gypsy girls (8 to 15 years old), often pregnant, who jump on the trains just as they are about to leave. They buffet you and have bags to hide where their hands are.". I was in Rome recently and didn't see such gangs, maybe because I rode the metro just a couple of times. There is no doubt there are pickpockets in popular tourist destinations like Rome, but as Ikan pointed out how do you know they are "gypsies".

What's more, the editor says the girls are often pregnant. This strikes me as odd, if you're pickpocketing you need to be quick and not care about the consequences of tripping over if you have to run away, being grabbed/wrestled/violently pushed away by your victim etc. Ypsilon (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply