Talk:Venice

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venice article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1

Plagiarism? History section copied from book, paragraph for paragraph

Part of the history section seems to copied from the book "The Venetian Empire" from Osprey's Men At Arms series. The copied paragraphs are from page 6 and describes the 3000 merchant vessels and the Arsenal Galley reserve. This is just a cursory check, other paragraphs might also have been copied.

rasmusdf 19:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venice and Dalmatia = Venetian

When one is said to be Venetian its important to note that is not just Italian. The term was also used for Croats who lived in Dalmatia which at the time was part of a great Venice. Venice was so big and powerful that it included parts of Slovenia and Croatia and its Slav citizens. A perfect example is Marco Polo who is Croatian origin but was/is called both Venetian and Dalmatian (part of Croatia). A common mistake is to assume he was Italian but on closer inspection you will find Marco was born in Korcula Croatia and the origin of the Polo and de Polo last name is ancient Croatian and not Italian. Therefore one can say Venice was a big place and included many types of people as its citizens, not just Italians. Venice was/is a great city and it has a long history and all Venetains are a part of it.

This is a recent legend. It's enough to read the Polo's book "il Milione", to understand this. Marco Polo is always called "venitian". There is no evidence that it was born in Curzola. By the way, in the Middle Age, in the coastal Dalamatia there was a latin population (latin for language and culture), so it's no possible to affirm to a Dalmatian was "slav", simply beacuse he was dalmatian.

Venice territory

The city of Venice doesn't consist only in the old town center (the main island), there are also other five areas that are included in the Venice territory. If you say Venice, you may mean "old town center (the main island shown in the pics inside the articles)", but you may also mean another zone, like the "Lido (with the Casinò and the hotel Des Bains)", or "Marghera (an important industrial zone near the lagoon)", or "Mestre (a town with about 200.000 people, and a quite important train station)". So, i think that the article is not complete. Pheraps should be sufficient a disambiguation page, before thinking about editing the page i thought it was better discuss this problem.

Venice metropolitan area description Serfalco 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

specially chosen wood

"made of a wood specially chosen because it strengthens with age" Does anyone know what this wood is? Hugo Hadlow 18:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Names of Venice

The article currently says "Venice (Italian Venezia, German Venedig)"... well, yes, and in French it's Venise, and in Polish it's Wenecja, and in Catalan it's Venecia. And so on. Any reason why German specifically was singled out? I would say keep the English name and the Italian name and that's it... Acheron 05:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(that is, the main Venice article says that.. apparently talk:Venice is redirecting to talk:Venice(disambiguation)...) Acheron 05:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Venice the band

Venice is not just the name of many beautiful cities all over the world, it is also the name of a band from Venice, CA. www.venicecentral.com

i agree completely

Population

Does Venice really have a population of 273,000? My understanding was that Venice itself was quite small, and that it was the city across the lagoon (Mestre?) that had most of the people. john k 01:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Venice, as far as i know, has a pop of about 270.000. You are right when you say that the most part of population doesn't live in the main island. There are some other island around venice and there is a small town located in the land, called Mestre. The point is that both Mestre and the other islands are Venice, not only the old town center in the main island is Venice; all those areas are in the same "Comune", called Venice. Serfalco 14:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my other photos as well.

I removed my other photos as well. Someone had removed some initially feeling they were of no value and I put them back on the page with captions, which I thought made them relevent, however, they were deleted again, with no comments on the talk/discussion page. I removed my other photos as well. Glenlarson 17:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pruning the external links

There's a lot of chaff in here; despite my pruning, there still is, but the benefit of doubt doesn't hurt.

The proof of the pudding, that people have only been adding random stuff or their own pages, without caring about the quality of the Wikipedia resource, is that the official site of the city of Venice was not among the lists; I've fixed that, of course. Also: the "Venice Directory" is not what it claims (try going there and clicking on a few of the categories). Tom Gore's site is 25 barely captioned pictures, and Arglist is not much better — thousands of sites like this. The "St. Mark's Clock Tower" item is kaput, now links to a junk page. Multimap doesn't belong here, rather under the link automatically generated by the geographical coördinates. Bill 8 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

For some purposes Arglist is better than most of the countless Venice photo galleries on the web: I've waived all copyright restrictions on the images, and the high-resolution (such as you can get with 6MP camera) are linked. Hence, they may be useful for Wikipedia. Ghouston 09:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very generous of you Gary, and may be very useful to someone. Specifically, for Wikipedia, you (or someone else) might upload one or two of them to Wiki Commons: illustrations of Venice, canals, boats, Italian houses, etc. You might consider doing one or two yourself, maybe from your other specialized stuff (Ostend, laurel plants, birds, bugs — elsewhere in your pages, under the same copyright waiver). I've reinstated the link because of that (also because of the sheer number of photos, over 100 — even if not as varied as they could be — is more than 25‑30 pix). It's still important to watch this Links section, though, or else we'll be flooded with very inferior sites trying to pump up their Google ratings.... Best, Bill 11:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bill. I've uploaded images to the commons when they seemed to be lacking in the English Wikipedia. The extra offsite backup is a bonus. Ghouston 12:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but keep that under your hat as much as you can; Wikipedia is not a storage device, either: people have got banned for that. (No, you are most unlikely to, since you are providing a useful service to the community: but a few days ago I ran across some schmuck who'd decided to store their whole hard-disk as a Wikipedia article!!! and I think who was permanently banned as a result.) B, Bill 19:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning, subsection: Tom Gore's site

On this one, I've just reverted my deletion again. 25 raw photos, just barely captioned, does not make a useful site on Venice worth including here. There is nothing wrong with Tom Gore's photos, but Wikipedia is not a link farm, and there are hundreds of similar small sites with a few photos of Venice. If someone wants to improve the Venice article (as opposed just to getting some particular site linked here), they could do Wikipedia a service by ferreting out the great sites on Venice, and adding them instead. There are several not listed here; I just added one; if someone wants to find it, there's also a very good site by a woman named Shannon who wrote a book called something like ChowBella, about eating in Venice; etc. Bill 19:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic influence on Venetian governmental structure?

Edit by Mksmith 15:17, 10 August 2004
"...The Venetian governmental structure was a mix of Byzantine and Islamic systems..."

Venice had remarkable political and economic relations to islamic countries, but I never heard of Islamic influence on its governmental structure; can anybody corroberate this? --Tickle_me 00:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can almost certainly rule that out. Like their Genoese rivals the Venetians were heavily inspired by their islamic trading partners with regard to commerce, industry, and, particularly, nautics. Although it's true that the economic and the political spheres were inseparable in this "Trading Republic" and the heads of the Arsenal (from Ar. dar as-sina'ah), of the Fondaco dei tedeschi, which was exactly modelled on the funduq for the Venetians in Alexandria, and the admirals (from Ar. amir-ar-rahl) played a crucial role in the Senat, the repulic was at least in the 14th century a classic aristocracy and a weak elective monarchy (like the HRE or Poland) with complex gouverning councils. The islamic trading partners of that time, like the Mamluks, the Mongolian Khanates, the Anatolian emirats or later the Ottoman Empire were autocracies within the limits of the shari'a with comparatively chaotic political successions and arbitrary decision making. The Islamic system has more in common with the Byzantine caesaropapism, not with the Republic of Venice. The republic more or less copied the political processions and the cult of state from Byzantium though, in which it replaced the cult of the emperor with the cult of the evangelist San Marco, as whose high priest the doge almost apeared.Teodorico 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So... how should we change the article? FireWorks 18:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Italian: Venetia"

That addition, as it reads, suggests that the Italian name for the Region is Venetia, but that's not right. The Italian name is Veneto, and "Venetia" is an old-fashioned or historical English (or Latin) term for the general area. The "Region" is the specific administrative division. Since Veneto is a link, it's good enough as is. Bill 09:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of global warming?

I read on a magasin which says that Venice is slowly submerged with water due to global warming and the rising of sea level. Is it true or is it just the effect of the sinking? --antilived ^{T | C} 08:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Venice is sinking due to effects of global warming, i.e. rising sea levels, but also due to subsidence as the water-baring stratum has been overused and there are less sediments deposited in the lagoon. --Ivana 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venezia.Net

The policy page on deletion that you cite, which I've been familiar with for a coupla years now — but went back and checked anyway to see if it might have changed (it hasn't) — never mentions the word "commercial", and does not address the question of links, nor of commercial sites. The closest it comes is to say that "advertising" is grounds for deletion of an article. This hardly applies here; and again, the site is not one of the (many!) junk "sites" out there that are mere camouflage for selling you Viagra or hotel rooms or whatever: it's a real site with excellent content. I've reverted the link. I'll also add that I have no personal connection with the site, in case anyone was wondering. Bill 23:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continued: despite being repeatedly asked to clarify their reasons, the anonymous (whose server dishes them up a new address each time) whose sole function in life seems to be to remove the links to these 2 useful sites in the article Venice — not even bothering to go to any of hundreds of Wikipedia pages with similar sites linked — has now taken to label reverts as "vandalism". Something is clearly going on that we are not being told: why does this one user so monomaniacally insist on deleting these websites? Very likely because they're some kind of competitor with an inferior site that is rightly being blocked here, as others have been. It is insufficient (and dishonest) to write "Deletion Policy", "Deletion Policy" (and even provide link to that page) when in fact that page says nothing — zero, zilch — about links to commercial sites. Nowhere has Wikipedia taken the policy of banning a good site merely because it has an ad or two: Wikipedia itself begs for money every few months, with banners on every page; and links to sites similar to Venezia.Net and VeniceGuide.Net are routinely provided, and not deleted by anyone, except this anonymous, on hundreds upon hundreds of pages. Nope, folks, we're dealing with a vandal, a coward, a fool, and someone with an ulterior motive, bent on making Wikipedia worse, less useful, in this one little article: so concerned about the purity of Wikipedia, whoever they are could do well to do some useful editing, adding articles, etc. (Note by the way that most of the trouble on Wikipedia — look at the vanity pages, the graffiti, the vandalism, the NewPages problems — comes from anonymous users; I hope others back my proposal to require registration to edit.) Bill 00:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"remarkable" portrait of Venetian politics

This use of "remarkable" is not commendatory: it's the primary meaning of the word, roughly synonymous with "noteworthy", something that'll make your ears prick up. Unflattering stuff may or may not be noteworthy, but this is, well, something to be remarked: so the word is not only apposite but conveys additional information. There must be plenty of unflattering depictions of Venice, but in the opinion of the original writer, those others are not worth noting: and indeed, no one has produced another here, so the original writer may well be right! (Also, in a wider sense, if there were an NPOV concern, NPOV shouldn't be pushed too far: certain things are good, attractive, important, and Wikipedia does not forbid mentioning it: in this article on Venice — read it carefully — several things have been qualified as "major", "enlightened", "good", etc., and no one's felt the need to NPOV them. Bill 21:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not remarkable then we wouldn't remark on it. Without some further explanation for its reason for remarkableness, it serves no purpose in this context. Why is it remarkable? How many people have found it remarkable? (Very few, it appears). -Willmcw 22:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a better point. . . . I myself, for example, haven't the faintest idea whether the book is really remarkable or not, because I haven't read it. On the other hand, I'm not big on medieval Venice, and maybe in the restricted world of them that are, it is. There are plenty of works that are incontestably remarkable although very few people have read them: what counts is what proportion of those who might read them find them such, no?

(You have two good points, actually: the first is that it's a sort of pleonasm — and you're right about that. And then, on the other hand, it's somewhat akin to the artist painting a cow: guy standing in a field, painting a canvas solid white, kibitzer comes up asks him whassat? "It's a cow eating grass". "Oh? Where's the grass?" "Well, the cow ate it." "So where's the cow?" "Oh, once there was no more grass, she left." If we start eliminating the undoubted pleonasm that the book which is being remarked upon is remarkable, then we might eliminate that it's a book, and .... Only half kidding!) Best, Bill 23:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(There's a wonderful Groucho Marx routine in which he helps a ship passenger edit his telegram down to nothing - I can't recall the movie.) We certainly want to state the obvious. But it isn't obvious that this book (yes, we should identify it as a book or novel) is "remarkable". A more remarkable, and possibly less fictitious, portrait of Venetian corruption is Casanova's Memoirs, written a few decades earlier but published just a few years before The Bravo.

Getting back to the 21st Century we might ask: Who cares? Well, it just so happens that somebody cares a great deal. The perennial presidential candidate, philosopher, and "greatest living economist" Lyndon LaRouche theorizes that the Venetian oligarchy is still alive and active, and is the center point of an Anglo-Dutch conspiracy headed by the Duke of Edinburgh, with help in America from Lynn Cheney (the brains of the Bush Administration), and with further assistance from George Soros, Peter Camejo, and miscellaneous stooges. Anyway, it's nice to see history kept alive. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems silly and unprofessional to me to call it "remarkable." john k 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many here have read The Bravo? Raise your hands. --HK 01:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[half raised] I read the detailed plot summary here and other info here: http://external.oneonta.edu/cooper/articles/titles.html#bravo -Willmcw 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Herschel's here. Wonderful. So it is a weird LaRouchite move of some sort...I don't think it matters whether or not I've read The Bravo. I think it should not be described as "remarkable" because this is an awkward and stilted way to describe any book, even if it is actually remarkable. john k 06:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly don't sound remarkable to me, at least from the stuff and link above.... Bill 18:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added external links

(a) The new subsection "Venice guides" is a useful idea.

(b) I don't see why remove the two excellent resources that were listed here before.

(c) All of the sites added by the anonymous editor are even more commercial than them, with money-earning subsections for renting apartments, selling hotel rooms, etc.

(d) Some of those added sites do have enough good info to make them valuable resources to be linked in a Wikipedia article.

(e) In my judgment, the following three don't contain much information about Venice; they're primarily vehicles for rentals and sales, and I've removed them:

Bill 20:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saga continued of the guy who hates VeniceGuide and Venezia.Net: I've dumped a list of all the anonymous dial-up connections (s)he uses at User_talk:Noluogo, since that user, other than being registered, fits the pattern. They should very likely be considered a multiple-IP vandal rather than a useful contributor to Wikipedia. Bill 00:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

I don't think the history is very clear. For example, it starts talking about one of the doges (not sure about the pluralisation) before it even introduces what a doge is. This should come first.

It also just seems very snippy and disjointed in general.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Bill 13:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venice Guide

If you ever go to Venice, avoid swimming in the canals. They are nastier than an ocean with oil. Ugh. There are some things needed for updating. Please enjoy your stay. Ugh...ugh...ugh...

The Blanking-Redirect

Whenever Turnstep gets back online, I'd like to apologize to him for making the blanking-redirect to New Orleans, LA for obvious reasons. After the end of August/beginning of September, New Orleans had more in common with Venice and you know why. I was giving myself a laugh but I guess that was in bad taste. --Shultz 05:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3d images

I removed 4 3d images from the page, because they cluttered the article and are ugly for a viewer without the appropriate glasses. They could be put in a specific page, linked from this article. GhePeU 11:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:tetrearch Ven.jpg|thumb|300px|centered|displays in Anachrome compatible 3D stereo.
Image:San Marco's.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Saint Mark's in compatible Anachrome 3D.
image:Venetian masks.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Displayed in Anachrome compatible 3D.
image:monument in Venice.jpg|thumb|300px|center|Displayed in compatible Anachrome 3D stereo.

That is a "book burning" act in a sense, as these "compatible" 3D images are not the regular "ugly" kind. The two best should be replaced, with very much small thumbnails. Media technology, once advanced from b&W to color. "Would you ban color?"3dnatureguy 19:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History, origins

line 6: Marcomanni "168-168" is surely wrong ---72.60.10.20 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suspect is wrong about it? The Marcomanni were very active in the late 2nd century. Antandrus (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 168 was repeated ... duh ... fixed it (166-168), using the dates from the Italian wiki. Antandrus (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links

I´ve read some discussions about removing external links, many of them marked to be comercial or spammy just because they have some banners or external links without taking in consideration the value of the information related to an specific topic (Venice in this case).

Having banners is something absolutely normal in any website, even the official Venice sites have some. Take a look at "Official Tourism and Events Site of the City of Venice" it is full of banners! In fact, almost all external links have some kind of add or income that could make them to be considered comercial, just take a look at them.

I'm adding again Venice Voyager Guide as a Tourism Resource, because according to Google Analytics stats people that come from Wikipedia's Venice article visit an average of almost 6 pages (the guide has just 9!) and medium stay is over 6 minutes. So it is clear that this link is valuable for Wikipedia's visitors. Also, the only income source is Adsense non-intrusive contextual ads (no banners, no affiliates, no bookings, no pop-ups, etc.).

The same could be said for many external links I've seen they've been deleted most of them related with tourism. I'm sure some are spam, but many others sould be left in Wikipedia as they are valuable.

The site in question is neither authoritative nor a significant source of additional information, it simply has a few snippets (indeed, only nine pages, as you point out). It is therefore clearly not suitable for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a collection of links.

Are you the owner of the site?

--Bcnviajero 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bcnviajero, you are removing it because you consider it a comercial link. Why? Due to some Adsense ads?

According to what you say, almost all external links in Venice should be deleted. Which of them are really an significant additional information source? I've taken a look at your history log and have seen you've deleted hundred of links of other touristic places. Some of them were really good, for example http://www.seemallorca.com/, it is a great source of information about people travelling to Mallorca. Please try to be more careful before doing a massive link removal.

Yes, I'm the proud owner. From Girona.

Well, firstly, bona tarda. Thanks for your quick reply.

Secondly, though, if you are the owner, it is against Wikipedia policy for you to put your own site as a link.

Thirdly, again considering the Wikipedia policy, yes, I agree that almost all the external links placed there should be removed. The sites should be authoritative, a "unique resource", and having some tourist information does not count as that. I have removed links that are commercial, broken, irrelevant, and those that may have a few bits of tourist information, but that clearly do not meet the criteria for inclusion. I accept that www.seemallorca.com is a borderline case. In my opinion it falls on the side of non-inclusion, but I am certainly open to opinions, as always. However, your site does not come close to this. I am not saying it is a bad site, simply that it is not the "must-have" resource that it would need to be for inclusion.

For your reference, the relevant policy is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:External_Links

In any case, I do appreciate the considered and collaborative tone of your points...not always the case in Wikipedia!

--Bcnviajero 12:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section in the article which displays all the pros and cons of Venice then gives it an overall mark and should this be done for other cities?

Yes?No?87.113.26.73 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]